BoxRec

Nigel Benn
Michael Watson
Gerald McCellan
Steve Collins
Julian Jackson
Mike McCallum (prime)
Chris Eubank
Michael Nunn

in a sport of so many imponderables it is impossible to give a definite answer.... you cant say that if they fought 100 times there would be an identical outcome every time.... but i can see Roy winning against every one of them, same as I can see every one of them beating Roy... those names are some of the best fighters of that era, and while I think Roy would win the clear majority of say a ten fight series with all of them, a one off fight is sometimes a hard thing to predict

I'd favour Jones in those fights expect maybe Nunn. Jones was better than Nunn but Nunn had the speed and the straight punching to have beaten Jones IMO.

McClellan, Benn and Jackson all had the punch to starch anyone at any moment and in 10 fights with Roy they'd win some but Roy would win the clear majority.

Watson and McCallum were great technicians IMO. I can see them gradually improving in their performances over 10 fights with Roy as this was the way they fought but even so...

Eubank, from things said since retirement, seemed generally initimidated by Jones. I can't see him winning for that reason.

an old McCallum won a lot of rounds from Jones and I'd pick a younger version to win. I'd favour McClellan too but none of the others.

This are all especulations. One shot at Jones chin and zzzzzzzzzzz

elmersalsa wrote:This are all especulations. One shot at Jones chin and zzzzzzzzzzz

at 168, he was hard to find to hit.... was he ever in REAL trouble at 160 or 168? honest question

The peak McCallum may have run Jones close. Nunn would have given Jones a good run for his money. Benn, Jackson and McClellan would be in with a punchers chance

MatthewS wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:This are all especulations. One shot at Jones chin and zzzzzzzzzzz

at 168, he was hard to find to hit.... was he ever in REAL trouble at 160 or 168? honest question

Fighting overblown fighters like Vinny Pazienzia past his prime attest to that. These guys could beat Jones at 160 or 168 pounds. He was not all that like people make him out to be. One punch to the chin, and is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Could he manage to beat them all? Who knows. Risky bet. But, yes, I would favor Jones over all of them individually, though he could easily lose to some of them on a given night. Too bad he never managed to step into the ring with them. If he had he might have gotten a ranking that matched his abilities, instead he's probably not top 50 P4P all time, even though he might have beaten a lot of guys in there.

I Feel Fine wrote:Could he manage to beat them all? Who knows. Risky bet. But, yes, I would favor Jones over all of them individually, though he could easily lose to some of them on a given night. Too bad he never managed to step into the ring with them. If he had he might have gotten a ranking that matched his abilities, instead he's probably not top 50 P4P all time, even though he might have beaten a lot of guys in there.

I agree with you that he is not a top 50 all time pound per pound. Fighting tomato cans like Vinny Pazienzia and Rick Frazier won't get you there.

Ask yourself this: Would James Toney have beaten all those on the list?

Yes, OK, he sparked out Nunn, who was still in his pomp & squeaked past once, then drew with, then beat a 500 year old McCallum later on.

You would expect that Toney was a certainty to beat all the others in a hypothetical sense.

You don't need me tell you that Roy Jones Jr made a prime Toney look like the bloke that empties his spit bucket.

RJJ was almost supernatural & I believe that only the very best that boxing had to offer would have beaten him.

The guys on that last are all top drawer fighters (McCallum borders on ATG), but none of them had that X-Factor that would have been required to beat RJJ at MW/SMW in the 1990's.

I certainly don't think Toney would have gone 8-0 against these guys. They all had their limitations, but so did Toney. He would have lost a couple somewhere along the line. In fact, he probably would have lost to Nunn in a rematch.

Agree that Jones was better than Toney, and he would have a better chance of running the table. However, he too may have lost somewhere along the line.

Jones is hard to rate; He had a ton of talent but rarely fought top competition. Toney was really his only big showdown win in his whole career. There is probably a reason for this.

I don't believe in Jones as supernatural and I don't believe anyone has ever been as good as Jones fans like to claim. He had loads of talent but more than Robinson? Leonard? Charles? Pep? Griffith?

Maybe you think he's up there with them, maybe you don't, but everyone is beatable.

masterorder19 wrote:Nigel Benn
Michael Watson
Gerald McCellan
Steve Collins
Julian Jackson
Mike McCallum (prime)
Chris Eubank
Michael Nunn

Jackson and McCallum were in their prime at 154, so it's not really a fair fight.

I think Jones beats Nunn fairly easily but then again I was never as impressed with Nunn as others were.

I think McCellan is the most dangerous. Not the most technical but tall and long; one fair shot to Roy's chin and Roy is going to sleep. Much more dangerous style-wise for Jones than a counter-puncher like Toney.

Eubank-Jones to me is a fascinating fight. It would not be action packed, but from a technical standpoint extremely interesting. I'd have to edge Jones but I don't count a prime Eubank out.

Ambling Alp wrote:I certainly don't think Toney would have gone 8-0 against these guys. They all had their limitations, but so did Toney. He would have lost a couple somewhere along the line. In fact, he probably would have lost to Nunn in a rematch.

Agree that Jones was better than Toney, and he would have a better chance of running the table. However, he too may have lost somewhere along the line.

Jones is hard to rate; He had a ton of talent but rarely fought top competition. Toney was really his only big showdown win in his whole career. There is probably a reason for this.

You make a great point; Jones is hard to rate on the basis that he never met the best fighters of his era.

I think he is the most naturally gifted fighter that ever lived & as such, it was nigh on impossible to prepare for someone like him & it is my opinion that it would have been highly unlikely that any of those guys would have beaten him on points.

It would then be up to the likes of Jackson, Benn & McClellan to try & KO him; again, it would have been extremely hard to do this, due to Roy's awkard nature & the fact that he was so hard to hit.

I don't rate him with the great MW's of the past, but I certainly believe that it would have taken one of those great MW's to have beaten Jones.

The guys on that last are all top drawer fighters (McCallum borders on ATG), but none of them had that X-Factor that would have been required to beat RJJ at MW/SMW in the 1990's.

Get off the nuts and out of the the pants......

ringsider wrote:

The guys on that last are all top drawer fighters (McCallum borders on ATG), but none of them had that X-Factor that would have been required to beat RJJ at MW/SMW in the 1990's.

Get off the nuts and out of the the pants......

Eh?

If you feel the need to insult someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with, at least come up with one that one can understand!

Syntax Error wrote:

ringsider wrote:

The guys on that last are all top drawer fighters (McCallum borders on ATG), but none of them had that X-Factor that would have been required to beat RJJ at MW/SMW in the 1990's.

Get off the nuts and out of the the pants......

Eh?

If you feel the need to insult someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with, at least come up with one that one can understand!

He is saying you are hanging on Roy's testicles.

JAHamilton77 wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

ringsider wrote: Get off the nuts and out of the the pants......

Eh?

If you feel the need to insult someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with, at least come up with one that one can understand!

He is saying you are hanging on Roy's testicles.

Thanks for translating for him. But that quote he used about the X-factor was just too much!

ringsider wrote:

JAHamilton77 wrote:

Syntax Error wrote: Eh?

If you feel the need to insult someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with, at least come up with one that one can understand!

He is saying you are hanging on Roy's testicles.

Thanks for translating for him. But that quote he used about the X-factor was just too much!

Too be honest I had to read what you typed a few times before I got it myself.

JAHamilton77 wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

ringsider wrote: Get off the nuts and out of the the pants......

Eh?

If you feel the need to insult someone for having an opinion that you don't agree with, at least come up with one that one can understand!

He is saying you are hanging on Roy's testicles.

LOL!!

Thankyou for that, but it isn't true.

I just think that RJJ beats all those guys; it's nothing to do with his nuts etc!!! :P

Sure its not true. But I'll try to let it slide this time, but lets try not to go overboard with the RJJ love, eh? That X-factor stuff is nauseating.

I am not biased in favor of Roy Jones, Jr.

However, I think anyone who bases Roy on his fights after Ruiz is simply silly. Those who like to over emphasize the fact that he was KO'd and imply he could never take a punch are making a determination that is impossible to make. Could the pre-Ruiz Jones take a punch?

No one will ever know.

I think it is obvious that Roy was physically depleted after losing the weight he gained to fight Ruiz. And, Roy was no longer a young man.

Certainly, Roy's legacy was most greatly impacted by Roy. Had Roy fought with less caution, against better opposition, we would know.

All we really do know is that (I don't think anyone will disagree with this) Roy had the greatest physical abilities (speed, reflexes, fitness, movement) of any other fighter - past or present.

How good was Roy? How good was his chin?

Roy's cautious style and being unwilling to take on tough opposition prevent an answer to these questions.

Roy is now old and not the fighter he once was.

He could have been the greatest - but, we will never know.

Nigel Benn
Michael Watson
Gerald McCellan
Steve Collins
Julian Jackson
Mike McCallum (prime)
Chris Eubank
Michael Nunn

Of the entire list McCallum and Nunn are the two I'd say who would have had a great chance at beating Jones in fights. Nunn for his speed and skill, McCaullum, well because he was just that damn mean and viscous, by the time he fought Toney he wasn't shot but he was on the downside.

I think a Jones-McCellan fight would have been very interesting as well, maybe a Eubank's fight...

As far as Jones being one of the greatest fighters ever...maybe I am biased but he didn't fight anybody with any real credibility in my mind at middleweight, super middleweight or even at Light Heavyweight, with the exception of Bernard Hopkins and most recently Felix Trinidad, though Trinidad is not quite shot, but should have stayed retired. He took all his risks a little too late when before it would have really mattered. With the exception of John Ruiz, I cant think of a single solitary moment in his career where he took a genuine risk.

I like how one reporter summed him up as being, that even if Conn, Moore, Foster and Charles all existed in his era, Jones wouldn't have ever fought them.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Nigel Benn
Michael Watson
Gerald McCellan
Steve Collins
Julian Jackson
Mike McCallum (prime)
Chris Eubank
Michael Nunn

Of the entire list McCallum and Nunn are the two I'd say who would have had a great chance at beating Jones in fights. Nunn for his speed and skill, McCaullum, well because he was just that damn mean and viscous, by the time he fought Toney he wasn't shot but he was on the downside.

I think a Jones-McCellan fight would have been very interesting as well, maybe a Eubank's fight...

As far as Jones being one of the greatest fighters ever...maybe I am biased but he didn't fight anybody with any real credibility in my mind at middleweight, super middleweight or even at Light Heavyweight, with the exception of Bernard Hopkins and most recently Felix Trinidad, though Trinidad is not quite shot, but should have stayed retired. He took all his risks a little too late when before it would have really mattered. With the exception of John Ruiz, I cant think of a single solitary moment in his career where he took a genuine risk.

I like how one reporter summed him up as being, that even if Conn, Moore, Foster and Charles all existed in his era, Jones wouldn't have ever fought them.

jones would be the favorite against all the fighters listed above, even the old-timers. foster and charles could have given him trouble but jones would have been too fast imo.