In a H2H against RJJ...

Michael Moorer at light heavy would have a very good shot. Very skilled and hit like a truck

 

at the same size, i think ezzard charles gives him the most trouble. not sure if i'd favor him. michael spinks would cause trouble too at 175 but he was naturally bigger than roy.

 

Bob Foster at 175 may just be the hardest assignment going for Roy based on styles, I think. Jones was almost untouchable when he kept a fight in the centre of the ring, but if he had a weakness it was being forced to the ropes where he never looked particularly impressive or comfortable (see the first Griffin, McCallum and first Tarver fights).

Foster cut the ring off deceptively well and went after guys on the ropes as if he'd caught them interfering with his old lady. No doubt that Jones' fleet-footedness and basic speed will give Foster a lot of problems, but just one single lapse in Roy's defence would be all Foster needed to near enough take his head off his shoulders, and it's asking a lot for any fighter to go the full distance without having to taste a flush shot from Foster at some stage - even one as hard to hit as a peak Roy was.

 

Even the bum Telesco had Jones panicked on the ropes. That's why I think Calzaghe and Tarver would have always beaten him. Get Jones on the ropes and he becomes very venerable.

 

I like a lot of fighters against Jones at light heavy. Hs best division was super middle. At light heavy, for starters I like Foster, Moorer, Spinks, Calzaghe and even a few old timers.

 

yeah, telesco was really putting it on him. maybe you're thinking of someone different.

you can't say tarver would always beat jones because jones has a win over him. calzaghe went down against a completely shot jones and imo would have had no chance vs jones at his best.

vulnerable is the word you're looking for. venerable means you give great respect to him.

 

at 168 jones could probably find a way to defeat anyone who ever fought at the weight. he was brillant. jones was small for light heavy so your bigger guys at 175 are going to be tough. foster could time jones but the problem is that he never defeated anyone the likes of jones. his best win was over 39 yr old dick tiger, a former middleweight. moorer and spinks would be tough outs and calzaghe doesn't even belong in the discussion.

 

Calzaghe did get caught early as he was prone to do, Hopkins also floored him but Calzaghe had the rare ability to adapt mid fight and also have the ability to go to another gear. After the knockdown he dominated Jones handily out boxing him. As Emmanuel steward said during the telecast Calzaghe is a great fighter in his own right and would always pose a problem for Jones.

 

I disagree on Calzaghe. As my previous post states. I don't find Jones' resume impressive at light heavy, in fact I think it's grossly overrated. Super middle and middle diffrent story. He is the best super middle in history of division. Of course this is under the assumption he was clean and did not perform with a ped advantage.

 

i followed joe's career since '97. i've never seen so much revisionist history with a fighter's career. joe was always a good fighter but in his supposed prime, he never stepped up. he finally has a couple decent wins at 168 and then beats bhop and jones who had a combined age of 83 and now he's in the hall of fame? wtf? i've posted this before to try to give people some sense of how joe was thought of during the mid part of his career. it's a british documentary on roy jones that was done in 2000, three years into joe's wbo title reign. joe's name isn't even mentioned once in the whole program as they talk about collins, eubank and benn. even his own people knew he wouldn't have stood a chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbqwGz7xkkU

 

Well I'll take Emmanuel Steward's opinion over most. Especially when he has no horse in the race, so to speak. I also followed Joe's career, and he did go under the radar far longer than his skills should have allowed. This could be in part to holding the then lightly regarded WBO title and of being of Welsh origin, rather than from a country with a rabid fan base. Joe's age was comparable to Roy's when they fought, and Hopkins has shown no matter what his age was he still had and has an awful lot left in the tank. Nothing revisionist about his career, both fights at the time were billed as big fights. It's not like they've grown in importance as years passed. Most acknowledged that Roy was faded, but the Hopkins fight was viewed as a true 50/50 match against elite fighters.

 

steward did say during the calzaghe-jones fight that joe "may have not beaten roy" but given him a lot of trouble in roy's prime. in this article near the end of it, steward says jones would have beaten marciano and dempsey. you agree with steward here?

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/jones-ruiz-and-the-roy-jones-legacy1

the welsh fan base is rabid. maybe joe didn't have the support hatton did but i wouldn't consider fan support one of his problems.

 

No I would not agree with Steward on those assements especially not Dempsey. But I do agree with him on believing Joe would of given roy problems.

Truth is we don't even know if Roy was clean, a lot of his accomplishments may be artificially inflated. Do you believe he used steroids? Many people believe he was a chemical creation. And when he stopped his ability grossly diminished.

I still stand by my statements, foster, Spinks, Moorer and even calzaghe defeat Jones. Calzaghe would be the one that may lose but Jones simply doesn't have a great light heavy resume