Is Roy Jones the best fighter ever?

Good points well made.

But the fact is Duran was only ever KTFO for minutes by a prime Tommy Hearns who even you must admit was a far harder puncher p4p than Jones. Tommy is up there with Jackson, and McClellan.

:good

 

I respect that, and it certainly doesn't bother me if Duran is ranked a lot higher than Roy.

But the point is, Duran's losses don't really affect his legacy at all, whereas Roy seems to be getting punished hard for his.

:good

 

Doesn't matter to me. Those devastating one punch KO losses happened to Lewis. McCall was a mental case and had a breakdown in the ring. There's an aesteric next to Lewis's "avenged' win there. And, Lewis was still in his prime, 29 yrs. od when McCall starched him. Jones, on the other hand was a pro 14 yrs before his first KO loss (And first real loss) and was never kod in his prime. In his prime, he lost one fight - on a technicality to Montell Griffin. He was Mayweather like, if not better, for most of his career.

That said, no, I would not rate him as the best fighter ever.

 

Probably the most physically gifted fighter that I`ve seen live or on film. Roy Jones was the quickest fighter I`ve seen 160lbs or above. Most fighters that are that fast don`t pack that kind of knockout power.

Roy Jones at 168 was pretty amazing to watch. I don`t rank him as the greatest fighter of alltime but he was certainly a great one.

 

:good

 

You can spin it all you like but it takes both courage and mental strength to get back in the ring with a guy who has KO'd you, and give it back with interest, as Lewis did. I don't care less about McCall or his junkie lifestyle. He got in the ring, saw the guy opposite was now 15lbs heavier ( and it wasn't fat ) took a few shots, then decided he didn't want any so started crying to Mills Lane.

I get it, you don't like Lewis. I can assure you he won't give a fuk, and neither do I.

 

Well that should be self explanatory. Losing to guys naturally bigger than you ( as was the case with Duran ) can never be classed as badly as losing to guys that are both the same size, and journeymen types, especially in the way Jones lost.

Plus you are wearing your heart on your sleeve way too much. Duran does indeed get judged on his whole career, yet you want Jones judged only up until he lost.

:good

 

But Roy also lost to guys who were naturally bigger than him. He also didn't really lose to journeyman.

Also, a knockout loss isn't really that bad. Because in boxing anyone can get caught. Again, a 42 year old version of Roy who'd been inactive, took Lebedev 10 rounds and gave him a good fight. So although it was sad to see, that wasn't really a bad defeat for Roy.

In my opinion, you're just focusing on the negative parts of Roy's career, without taking into account everything else he did. Nobody really cares about Duran's 16 defeats, and him losing in his late 40's.

I don't want Roy to be judged just up until 2004. Again, losses have to be taken into consideration. But they also have to be put into context. I want Roy to be judged objectively just like everyone else. But I honestly don't believe that you're doing that. Again, you have to look at the defeats. But you also have to look at the fact that he started out at JMW, and apart from losing his head against Griffin, he was undefeated in 50 fights, across 5 weight classes. He didn't really lose until he was 35. In his his prime, he dominated for the most part, while barely losing rounds. I think that If a guy like Floyd Mayweather fights into his 40's and gets beaten or knocked out, then I don't believe it will hurt his legacy that much.


:good

 

I sometimes wonder whether you even follow boxing, or just Jones Jr? Duran gets roundly criticised for his so called quitting against Leonard, and his back to back loses to Benitez, and Kirkland Laing in his 30's never mind his 40's. Especially seeing as at the time both guys had drug problems.

You really need to take those rose tinted specs off, and stop with this paranoid " everyone who doesn't think Jones is the best thing ever to enter a ring hates him " garbage.

Once AGAIN it is not defeats that matter so much. It is the manner of those defeats that are important. You can make excuses for age, and they can apply, in some circumstances. But a guy doesn't go from allegedly " invincible " to a punch bag solely down to age, or adding, then losing weight either.

Plenty of fighters gained, then dropped weight often in past era's, and both succeeded in fights, and also failed in others, but I don't think anyone claimed they were " invincible " the way you and all the other Jones fan boys do.

Moore, and Charles spring to mind.

:good

 

People have trouble separating best fighter from best career.

RJJ is without a doubt the best fighter on the last 25

 

Better than whitaker...? For me, no.

 

If you are judging career management, then feel free to count the post-prime... and very post-prime losses.

If you are judging greatness as a boxer, I would steer attention to the decade of dominance he practiced, voted by Ring as either #1 or #2 as the pound for pound best in each of those years.

I am far more interested in actual greatness in the sport than if the guy had the good sense or not to hang it up at the right time.

 

Yes Whitaker lost a bunch of rounds to B level fighters like Paez and Rivera and was beaten soundly by Oscar

 

So because he lost rounds he is somehow a lesser fighter? Jones lost rounds to griffin, and tarver (when he was on the slide and @ an advanced weight class, just like whitaker was against Rivera)

And most people would disagree with you when you say "soundly beat" by DLH. Imo whitaker won narrowly. Im ok with people thinking DLH won but it was close either way.

Keep in mind that whitaker was also old in this fight started getting involved with drugs. At the same age Jones was getting KO'd and losing SOUNDLY to lesser fighters such as tarver and johnson. I think whitaker has a case for being ranked higher.

 

So the guy was a Middleweight for 5 years with a couple of S / Middle fights thrown in. A legitimate S / Middle for less than 2 years, a L / Heavy for almost 13 years which is where he was awarded most of his mythical ring magazine p4p rankings, yet all of a sudden he was at some sort of disadvantage at 175??????