Roy Jones' Legacy...

Sure, but one shouldn't get too hung up on wins over ATGs, 'cause not that many have them. Jones's wins over Hopkins and Toney are arguably better than any of Robinson's wins except those over Gavilan, and many have Robinson at nr. 1, with good reason.

Langford, Greb, Charles, Ali and Leonard have some solid wins over ATGs, but they're pretty alone in this group.

I think that Jones gets a bit too much flak, but that will probably change somewhat. Something that does count against him is that he never proved himself in a war. But that is largely down to him being so dominant in his prime.

 

All good points.

 

ratings he was equal, but not in historical significance. They will always be mentioned .When he is out of the game I doubt he will be mentioned much. Chavez and Taylor will always be mentioned because of thier fight. The huge fights give them the edge in the long run and Jones does not have many. His career was very similar to Virgil Hills. only more knockouts and a win over Ruiz.

 

There is never any way of telling for sure how a fighter will be remembered. Mike McCallum was ignored during his day, but seems to receive more recognition a decade after his career has ended. On the flipside, Alexis Arguello was a fantastic fighter in his day who almost never gets mentioned anymore. Jones career hasn't even officially ended and there are many who are already calling him an all time great, and its usually not until years after a man has left the game that he gets such recognition. I also disagree with the claim that Jones's career was anything like Virgil Hills.

 

Mike gets recognition but what fights are recalled except the Curry fight. I admit Mike was a HOF fighter, but he whines too much about the fab four not fighting him. If he thinks his career was so great he would let that rest. He never made himself marketable enough for them to fight. Also the opportunity to fight him was not as available as he makes it sound. I think Jones had a similar career to Hill in opponents. They fought the same level at light heavyweight and Hill moved up and fought very good champs at cruiserweight. Guys are remembered, but down the road only the really top guys stand out. Jones legacy will last, but he has no great fights to recall.

 

Thanks Mike South. I look at RJJ's career in a whole new light now.

 

I'm not saying RJJ fought ATG's but I've always had the theory that when someone is SO good they can make those around them look plain ordinary. Jones was so much better than his competition in his prime and even into his 30's that he made it look like he was fighting nobody's. I have friends who lay the claim that Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships b/c the NBA was way down from the 80's, but Jordan was so good he made the rest of the league look weaker. The same can be said for Jones. Of course he didn't win the Lineal championship at heavyweight, but he won A championship, that is amazing for someone who won championships starting at 160lbs. And (this is a no brainer b/c this is what p4p rankings are for) the only reason RJJ couldn't beat Lennox Lewis is because of the size difference, size/reach being equal, prime 4 prime, Jones schools Lennox 9 times out of 10.

 

Jones' resume is not within driving distance of Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Duran. Your statement sounds hauntingly like a statement made in the mid-1990s about Jones being greater than the Fab Four. I think it was Seth Abraham who said it. It's an overstatement to say the least commonly made by fans lost in their zeal and short-sightedness.

I would agree with you about Roy Jones being potentially hellish on a H2H basis in 3 divisions. He beats most contenders and champions. He does not beat all of them. He does not beat the adaptable ATGs with chins, power, and technique. Roy Jones was among the greatest 'athletes' in the ring, but he had real holes in two critical places -his technique and his character. Sure, he dazzled guys like Bryant Brannon, Paz

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

 

We're not going to agree here, but these are the facts regarding Roy Jones. He won titles at middleweight, Supermiddleweight, lightheavyweight, and heavyweight - something that hasn't been done since Bob Fitzsimmons did it over a century earlier. He reigned the lightheavyweight division longer than Spinks reigned at Lightheavy, Hagler at middleweight or Duran at lightweight. He beat men who I think are genuine all time greats in James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Virgil Hill and Mike McCallum ( the last two being a bit up there in years. ) He is generally considered by most as being p4p the best fighter of his decade, the 1990's. He racked up more titles than a junk man does scrap metal. He took more "0's" away from undefeated men than most greats that I can think of. You have to literally go back to his first few bouts as a very green prospect to find virtually any padding at all on his record.I don't think passing up Frankie Liles or Steve Collins does much to hurt him. I DO however feel that he could have fought Darius Michaelwhatshisface, but then the fab four wasn't too keen on fighting Mike McCallum or Donald Curry when they were hot either.

Do I think Roy Jones' legacy is "better" than that of Hagler, Hearns, Leonard or Duran? My answer is no. But to say that the quality of his career accomplishments weren't at least "on par" soley on the basis of a few obscure matches that went unfought is not a reasonable claim. I think the main reason why those other guys are often shown in a brighter light, is because they had more charisma, something that tends to inflate a man's acheivments.

 

"Facts" taken out of context are not instructive.

Spinks fought Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Dwight Qawi... Jones fought Virgil Hill -who was both aging and not great, and McCallum who was pushing 40 and very much slowed down. Jones "longer" reign doesn't mean as much. And Hagler, Duran, and Jones' "reigns" are comparable in terms of number of defenses and years at the top.

Jones' defeat of Toney and Hopkins are the only reasons I'm discussing him...! Two wins over great fighters is nothing jaw-dropping, compared to damn near everyone else in the top 75 fighters of all time. The fact that he avoided real challenges during his prime and admitted it is jaw-dropping ...particularly considering the powers he brought to the ring.

Jones' avoidance of threats is nothing akin to the Fab Four's. Nothing! The Fab Four were fighting each other; none of them had any kind of reputation for avoiding anyone. Hagler didn't fight McCallum because he was fighting Hearns and Leonard. Give him a break. Who the hell did Duran ever avoid...? Why fight McCallum for chump change when you can fight the just-as-dangerous Hearns for millions? Jones' fought guys like Paz (who was no threat and everyone knew it) instead of Liles. It's not the same, Magoo.

You make far too much of "taking 0s away" to rescue Jones from his own admissions. Bryant Brennan was undefeated. Whoop-de-doo. Take a look at the world-beaters that Glenn Thomas defeated when he brought his "0" into the ring against Jones.

... I stenuously disagree.

 

I think the fact that there are even threads comparing him to Hagler, Hearns, Robinson etc. shows how great he was. The argument on Jones is never talent, speed, or power (though obviously he didnt have the power at 175 that he did at 160 and 168), its arguments over who he fought. Jones is the most physically gifted boxer I've ever seen and he must be ONE OF the most gifted most people have seen or the argument against him wouldnt be who he did or didnt fight.

 

I think people get too hung up on why soemone didn't fight this or that fighter. That's not as interesting when considering a fighter's legacy as the simple fact if the fights took place or not.

And whether they were ducked or not, McCallum and Curry must be seen as good as anyone Jones didn't fight (whether he ducked them or not).

As I see it, the main thing against Jones isn't that he didn't beat good opponents, but that he never came out on top in a war. Or even had a really impressive losing effort.

 

With all due respect, I think you ignored some of the points that I made. In addition, your opinions about his comp when compared to others does not change the fact that he had a longer reign, but rather comes off as an attempt to veil it. No one uses this argument when crediting Joe Louis for his substantial reign, even though cases have been made for some champions facing better comp.

When you and I debated a few months ago over the quality of Roberto Duran's career when compared to Muhammad Ali's, one of the main points that you stressed was Duran's moving up and making an impression through multiple divisions. Jones does this to an even greater degree than Duran did, but now all of a sudden the value of the feat seems to have diminished. You briefly mentioned his wins over Toney and Hopkins, but then seemed to write them off as nothing special. You also continue to pick on the fact that Jones openly ducked competitors but refuse to acknowedge that Leonard, Duran nor Hearns never seemed to want anything to do with McCallum, Curry or Nunn. Hearns blatantly said he wanted no part of Nunn. Sure the fab four fought each other, but only because the dollar signs were there. When it came to high risk low reward type opposition, we saw the contrary. Hagler's biggest names were men rising in weight, one of whom hadn't fought in three years and beat him! I am not accusing any of those men of exclusively avoiding good fighters, but only counteracting your criticisms which are extremely one-sided.

As I said before, we are not going to agree on this issue, and you have confirmed it by saying " I strenuously disagree. " I will reiterate once more that while I do not feel that Jones' contribution to boxing was as significant as say Ray Leonard's, the margin is not canyons apart.

 

Ok Mr Rose Tinted Specs, lets see shall we:

Buchanon rematch - after fouling his way to victory a natural rematch, Duran didnt grant 1. If you want to complain about RJJ not rematching BHOPs/Toney, this is far worse

Cervantes - both beat Dejesus, a natural fight

Arguello - natural fight with the top P4P ATG the weight below

Pryor - ATG very close in weight, natural fight

McCallum - top man at 154 around the period

The best at 160 - if you want to talk him up as a 160lb champ - Graham/McCallum/Kalambay - all the fab 4 avoided these challenges

The fact you ask why McCallum didn't face Hearns for millions is laughable, Hearns ducked McCallum, as did all the fab 4.

Bottom line is all of the fab 4 had fights they avoided and just like Jones Jr they went after the big money, which is what it all boils down to, this is a business