BoxRec

barry wrote:I don't see anyone dominating Jones at middleweight...he was just too talented, too fast, too strong, hit too damn hard and could take a good shot at that weight...out of ten I would only give Hagler maybe two of ten. It would be difficult for anyone to ever stop Hagler, but if there ever was a fighter that could it was Roy Jones! Out of ten I would say that Jones scores two stoppage wins out of eight wins.

serious wrote:Love both these boxers,but i'd have to go for Jones,clear points winner. Though Hagler was supreme at middle,i dont think there has ever been anyone as talented as Roy.EVER! he had all the tools at middle;speed, power, defence, stmina, footwork, chin, reflexes, and contrary to popular belief,he had and has guts.
GENIUS!

barry wrote:Going on how easily that Jones handled the likes of Toney and Hopkins I would guess that it would be pretty much the same with Hagler...though Hagler was always more active than Toney, or Hopkins have ever been.

It probably would not be a white-wash domination, but I don't think that it would be a close fight either. Another positive for Jones is how good he did against southpaws, except Tarver, but in his prime Jones was a killer of southpaws!

I have never compiled a top ten, or top twenty middleweight list, but if I did I would probably have Hagler in the top three along with Monzon and of course Greb at 1, but I just do not see him beating Jones!

The Great John L wrote:

barry wrote:Going on how easily that Jones handled the likes of Toney and Hopkins I would guess that it would be pretty much the same with Hagler...though Hagler was always more active than Toney, or Hopkins have ever been.

It probably would not be a white-wash domination, but I don't think that it would be a close fight either. Another positive for Jones is how good he did against southpaws, except Tarver, but in his prime Jones was a killer of southpaws!

I have never compiled a top ten, or top twenty middleweight list, but if I did I would probably have Hagler in the top three along with Monzon and of course Greb at 1, but I just do not see him beating Jones!

On the surface, saying Jones would beat Hagler easily seems questionable, but I actually see it almost the same way as you do barry. I rate Hagler as the better ATG MW, but Jones’ style would have been VERY difficult for Hagler, and most other MWs’, except for those that were either very aggressive, or very fast.

sockdollanger wrote:How would you two rate Jones on a head to head list?

The Great John L wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:How would you two rate Jones on a head to head list?

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50364

sockdollanger wrote:
1. Greb
2. Robinson
3. Monzon
4. Hagler
5. Ketchel
6. Fitz
7. Walker
8. Flowers
9. Burley
10. Tiger
11. LaMotta
12. Hopkins
13. R Jones
14. T. Ryan
15. Zale

Is this head to head John L?

The Great John L wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:
1. Greb
2. Robinson
3. Monzon
4. Hagler
5. Ketchel
6. Fitz
7. Walker
8. Flowers
9. Burley
10. Tiger
11. LaMotta
12. Hopkins
13. R Jones
14. T. Ryan
15. Zale

Is this head to head John L?

Yes. I list the fighters in an xls and then assign a number (1-5) to each potential matchup, where 1 means they would seldom win in a pro-longed series, and 5 means that they would essentially win every matchup. In this way I can account for the fact that no matchup is a simple fighter A would beat fighter B, and that when fighters fight a series of fights against another opponent there can be a variety of results. I then total the numbers and sort the results.

I’ve posted a few times on this method of ranking in the past. It takes some time, but at least makes you think about each matchup.

sockdollanger wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:
1. Greb
2. Robinson
3. Monzon
4. Hagler
5. Ketchel
6. Fitz
7. Walker
8. Flowers
9. Burley
10. Tiger
11. LaMotta
12. Hopkins
13. R Jones
14. T. Ryan
15. Zale

Is this head to head John L?

Yes. I list the fighters in an xls and then assign a number (1-5) to each potential matchup, where 1 means they would seldom win in a pro-longed series, and 5 means that they would essentially win every matchup. In this way I can account for the fact that no matchup is a simple fighter A would beat fighter B, and that when fighters fight a series of fights against another opponent there can be a variety of results. I then total the numbers and sort the results.

I’ve posted a few times on this method of ranking in the past. It takes some time, but at least makes you think about each matchup.

Interesting strategy, puts my "puzzled look on face while scratching head" technique!

Terence wrote:I think people are making the mistake of thinking that a weight drained Toney and a green Hopkins are somehow indicative of how Roy would fare against Hagler. Another possibility is the fact Hagler found it difficult versus Ray Leonard yet the truth is Hagler handled Ray fairly well when the fight got truly underway.

Jones is a very skilled fighter but like it or not against Hagler his chin would be tested and exposed. He did beat some fine southpaws but none as good as Hagler and certainly none as versatile as Hagler was. Prior to his title reign Hagler was very good on his feet and fast with his hands, he is also a smarter fighter than Jones was proven to be. It could be a boring fight with Jones dancing away and Hagler deciding to take a step backwards and staying calm in the face of Jones' flurries. Early on Hagler may get hit more yet Jones would ship the telling shots and be broken down then stopped late-on.

I like Jones, I liked his fights yet I do feel that in a competitive fight, which this would be if we say a peak Hagler with a good mix of his movement and fire, Jones will be exposed and KO'd. His skills stopped many of his fights being competitive only to hide the fact he is a quintessential front-runner. This is a man who complained about being hit from Vinny Paz, look back, when Jones got hit in his prime he looked very uncomfortable and Hagler would put fire on him.

Hagler KO's Roy time and again. Jones was a good on-top fighter, he was not great fighter (all stats aside, he cherry-picked a lot of fights and in the ring there was a lot left to be desired beyond his speed and reflexes) in my opinion, he was a great athlete.

serious wrote:Love both these boxers,but i'd have to go for Jones,clear points winner. Though Hagler was supreme at middle,i dont think there has ever been anyone as talented as Roy.EVER! he had all the tools at middle;speed, power, defence, stmina, footwork, chin, reflexes, and contrary to popular belief,he had and has guts.
GENIUS!

The Great John L wrote:

barry wrote:Going on how easily that Jones handled the likes of Toney and Hopkins I would guess that it would be pretty much the same with Hagler...though Hagler was always more active than Toney, or Hopkins have ever been.

It probably would not be a white-wash domination, but I don't think that it would be a close fight either. Another positive for Jones is how good he did against southpaws, except Tarver, but in his prime Jones was a killer of southpaws!

I have never compiled a top ten, or top twenty middleweight list, but if I did I would probably have Hagler in the top three along with Monzon and of course Greb at 1, but I just do not see him beating Jones!

On the surface, saying Jones would beat Hagler easily seems questionable, but I actually see it almost the same way as you do barry. I rate Hagler as the better ATG MW, but Jones’ style would have been VERY difficult for Hagler, and most other MWs’, except for those that were either very aggressive, or very fast.

Terence wrote:I think people are making the mistake of thinking that a weight drained Toney and a green Hopkins are somehow indicative of how Roy would fare against Hagler. Another possibility is the fact Hagler found it difficult versus Ray Leonard yet the truth is Hagler handled Ray fairly well when the fight got truly underway.

Jones is a very skilled fighter but like it or not against Hagler his chin would be tested and exposed. He did beat some fine southpaws but none as good as Hagler and certainly none as versatile as Hagler was. Prior to his title reign Hagler was very good on his feet and fast with his hands, he is also a smarter fighter than Jones was proven to be. It could be a boring fight with Jones dancing away and Hagler deciding to take a step backwards and staying calm in the face of Jones' flurries. Early on Hagler may get hit more yet Jones would ship the telling shots and be broken down then stopped late-on.

I like Jones, I liked his fights yet I do feel that in a competitive fight, which this would be if we say a peak Hagler with a good mix of his movement and fire, Jones will be exposed and KO'd. His skills stopped many of his fights being competitive only to hide the fact he is a quintessential front-runner. This is a man who complained about being hit from Vinny Paz, look back, when Jones got hit in his prime he looked very uncomfortable and Hagler would put fire on him.

Hagler KO's Roy time and again. Jones was a good on-top fighter, he was not great fighter (all stats aside, he cherry-picked a lot of fights and in the ring there was a lot left to be desired beyond his speed and reflexes) in my opinion, he was a great athlete.

Terence wrote:I am not saying Hagler will engage him, Hagler would counter him, Hagler is a proper counter puncher when he wants to be, Jones is not. Jones can dance at distance but he hits mostly with hooks and uppercuts and Hagler will be able to throw shots straight through at Jones due to Hagler's long arms. Jones always jabbed lazily a lot of the time, the left hook of Hagler would be the key shot, delivered from a SP stance.

Jones was talented yet this mythical ability we bestow on him to hit whilst moving is pure nonsense. When he settled for his shots he would be countered by Marvin. Hagler beats him all ends up everyday of the week and twice on a Sunday, it is not even close in the ring or in terms of a settled legacy, Jones won some paper titles and one lineal title that he barely defended.

As for Jones having guts. I disagree. In his last fight he again looked flustered until it became absolutely clear that his guy could not hurt him. Then he brought out all the tricks and had people purring. Against Tarver in fight III he had a few good rounds then got a shot in return and coasted. Blaming the loss on his father was nonsense.

Conversely I know Jones moves in a style not suited to southpaws yet he does also leave himself open for lead rear hands from a southpaw style. Tarver caught him a number of times in fight I with hooked shots of this type, finished him in fight II with one and then rocked him in fight III. That hardly constitutes a hex sign over southpaws. Jones was a differing version of Mike Tyson, a great on top fighter that I would never pick if it became clear he was going to be hit and made to fight.

When Jones hangs up his gloves there will be superlatives yet we must also ask a) what was his achievement at MW b) undoubtably he was the best SM of his time but why only the one truly stern test at that weight (he would have beaten the Brits yet he could have removed an 'if' or two c) he won a stack of belts at LH but was he ever lineal Champ? No. The D-Man was and Jones refused to fight him, convention says D-Man should have come to the USA, why? He was the man in possession as we say over here.

When given a sole chance to really redeem his reputation, Tarver III, Jones was content to play the fool and blame his father when he in fact took on a very mediocre fighter in Tarver and lost to him.

I enjoy watching Jones' exhibitions, if he ever had a fight on his hands, as he did with Tarver and Johnson, I'd make sure the ring doctor had some smelling salts as I think his chin was always a problem and he knew it.