Jones was in his second fight after reducing from solid (ie, not fat, but muscles) 190 back to 175lbs, which had as bad effect on him as a two-year lay-off would do. And what I know is Robinson always had problems with the style Ralph Jones had, even back in 1940s when he was prime. He just didn't like opponents who were tough and who pressed him hard, trying to outwork and outslug him. Picking such opponent for 2nd bout after a lay-off was a bad idea. Just as picking Glen Johnson was for Jones.
The best of all time for me, largely on ability which is what it all boils down to. People knock his resume didn't even follow the MW/SMW/LHW divisions of the time. He easily beat the 2 ATGs in those divisions and dominated countless champions and top 10 rated opposition. No one in history has had the same level of domination that Jones had from 1989-2003 Jones has a case for having a better resume than Robinson or Whitaker for sure anyway. Robinson's resume is massively overrated while Jones is hugely underrated.
Not even close. You don’t hand somebody an all time pound for pound rating, unless they do something pretty darn compelling to justify it in the ring. Being very dominant against the second tier of fighters in your era, is simply not enough. Even if you were rating fighters solley on head to head ability, there is still some burden of real world proof attached to your ranking.
He beat one of the greatest fighters of his era in Toney. I am not sure that his win over green Hopkins, even cary more weight than Hopkins win over shot Jones. Yes his win over Toney is a marvelous result, but is it alone enough to make him a top 10 p4p all time great? I don't think it is.
But with all due respect....beating John Ruiz isnt exactly special. going up to beat Tyson, Holyfield or Lewis would have been
Best of his era, not of all time. The ultra elite always had a great rival or rivals to build a legacy on. Jones didn't have that. He is definitely among the most freakishly physically gifted boxers of all time though. No argument there.
Tyson in 2003? Ok... I reckon Roy could have beaten Holy, but not Lewis. Still, name at least Roy had the balls to go up to HW.
How did this come up again. Someone please lay out his accomplishments. No more of this scuffle to prove each other wrong. Let his accomplishments speak for themselves. Lay them out compared to Greb, Langford, Robinson, Charles, Armstrong, R. Leonard, Ali, B. Leonard, Pep...etc I dare you...Double dare you. I will start off This content is protected Wins over: Hopkins (HOF) Trinidad (HOF) McCallum (HOF) Toney (Probably will be a HOF) Ruiz Tarver Griffith Notable Losses: Hopkins Johnson Tarver X2 Calzaghe This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Tyson in 2003 Kod Etienne in one round, wasnt Jones Kod twice during that period, Johnson and Tarver? In fact there was a boxing magazine (cant remember which one) at the time, which had Tyson on the front cover with a caption reading 'If Tarver can do this to Jones, imagine what Tyson could do' Roy had balls obviously, but theres a reason why he chose the weakest beltholder (one of the worst of all time) If i was in RJJs position and i wanted to really make a name for myself, i would have targeted the Lewis', Tysons, Holyfields etc If i wanted an easy belt....i would have targeted John Ruiz