Roy Jones' Legacy...

Jones's 5 best wins (Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, McCallum and Hill) aren't as good as the best 5 of for example Leonard, Robinson, Charles, Duran or Ali, but they are good. And he has no glaring omission from his resume of the magnitude of Wills, Greb or Burley. Possibly not even of the magnitude of McCallum or Curry.

But how high can you reasonably put a guy that never prevailed in a war, or even put forth a really good losing effort?

 

To be fair, I don't think its appropriate to ONLY look at the BEST wins of two fighter's careers in an effort to rate one above the other. By this logic, Iran Barkley would be considered an all time great soley on the basis of his two wins over Hearns. Hasim Rahman would have to make the top 50 all time great heavy's based on his wins over Lewis and Sanders, etc.

While Jones may not have a SINGLE win over someone like a Ray Leonard to speak of, he definately has MANY wins over fighters who were well above average, and even a select few who venture into the realm of great. Bernard Hopkins pretty much cemented his greatness with a win over Pavlik this past fall. Jones beat him in his prime. Toney needs to be considered a great fighter and multiple titlist. Jones again beat him in his prime. Hill and McCallum were well past their best admitadley but were still better than a lot of what was out there, and Jones beat them both in more than convincing fashion. Montell Griffin was a former olympian, now unbeaten in 27 pro fights and in the peak of his prime. Jones iced him in a single round - something that no one would ever do to Griffin again. Clinton Woods was a solid lightheavweight contender and future world champ. Jones handed him the only stoppage loss of his career.

I hate to say it, but Jones went from being grossly overrated to being tragically underrated. I hope that time along with the analysis of reasonable people will help to bring his career into balanced perspective.

 

I agree that the top wins aren't everything. If they were I would have Leonard in the top 3 p4p, but I don't.

It was just one aspect I brought up. I agree that Jones has many very impressive wins over good opposition, and I also agree that people seem to have hard time to rate him in a balanced way. He seems to be either overrated or (a bit more often on the Classic section) underrated.

 

Quality of opposition is a critical measure in determining greatness.

 

The fact remains that you cannot compare the reasons why Hagler didn't fight McCallum with the reasons why Jones didn't fight DM. Context matters. Just because someone didn't fight someone does not automatically mean that he "ducked" the fighter. You have to consider other variables and make an informed judgmen. Jones was shameless in ducking Darius. Hagler was preoccupied with threats that were at least equal.

That's not unfair.

 

But even though I don't like "ducking", the main thing for me is whether a fighter have beaten the very best possible opposition or not, not the reason as to why he haven't.

Hagler didn't beat McCallum or Curry, therefore we can't say with certainity how he would have done against them. The same thing is true for the best opponents Jones didn't face. That's really the bottom line for me.

 

What points? I don't avoid points, intentionally at least.

Why should anyone criticize Louis length of reign? He had 25 title defenses!

You had your fans cheering you and Roy out here but it's time for your views to be challenged. It seems to me that you threw up Roy Jones' glory stats and got a bit resentful because someone (finally) put a spotlight on them. The "rest of the story" is important. Context is important. I rank Leonard and Lewis quite high but when their fans overstate the conquests on their record they need to be reminded of circumstances -like Leonard's admitted delay in facing Hagler, like Holyfield and Tyson being past their best when Lewis got them. Jones is no exception.

It is a poor argument to accuse someone of being "one-sided" because they remind readers that some of that luster on those wins is dimmer than it seems.

Those points in the previous thread stand. Context again. Duran didn't just "make an impression in higher divisions"! He truly challenged himself like no LW ever had since at least 1906. The man stepped up to 147 and fought Leonard, an elite ATG WW in Leonard's prime. Duran fought Hearns at 154 when he was past it, 20 lbs out of his division, and when Hearns was more dangerous than he ever was against Leonard. Hearns was in his prime, in fact. Duran fought the near-prime undisputed MW king 25 lbs and past prime. The Barkley fight is incredible as well. And he did it without steroids.

Jones CANNOT compare to that. His two greatest wins were at 160 and 168. After that, he hand-picked a stylistic wet-dream in Ruiz. Sorry, I can't compare that to, for example, Arguello's stepping up to a stlystic nightmare like Pryor.

I am not sure that you read that part of my post, and if you did, you didn't follow the logic. Let me put in summary form. Duran, Hearns, Leonard, and Hagler regularly accepted real challenges. They were known for it. Jones wasn't and didn't. He accepted 2 serious challenges, perhaps 3. He fought Toney in 1994 and then Ruiz 9 years later.

Do you know what the odds were when Jones so incredibly, so amazingly, challenged John Ruiz? 7-5. JONES.

I am convinced that he avoided real challengers because he said so not long after the Benn-McClellan fight.

The part where he is blameless is the relative dearth of serious guys during his time. But that's not our problem... we can't give him "Probably Points", otherwise you better start ranking Wesley Mouzon really high.

A note on your accusation about "bias". I was never so adamant about questioning Jones greatness until I came out here on ESB. I feel a compelling need to get a bit extreme out here to offset the blind brigade of fans he has out here. When I see him in the top 10, all-time, it makes me think that ESB is overrated. So I jump all over it. Anyone who knows boxing knows that he is sure as hell not in the top 20 -unless your measures are very different than the norm. So, for me, it's my way of achieving balance. Do I think Roy Jones sucks? Hell no. In fact, I rank him high H2H and believe that his style was extremely formidable by any measure.

....How about one chasm apart?

 

:blood

 

That is not to say that I don't ignore posters who offer arguments that are either flimsy or designed to provoke. (See Powerpuncher's non-response for an example.)

 

Nice one, Stonehands. Nice to know I'm not one of them as you have previously said in the past I'm a "solid poster" and a "fair man" :good

 

Exactly my point. No one does, regardless of the fact that men like Muhammad Ali have arguably faced a better grouping of all time greats, but that doesn't stop some people from rating Louis higher.

I must respectfully point out that you are being a tad unfair on this issue. There is no cheerleading on my end whatsover. First of all, I never said that Jones was BETTER than the fabulous four. I never even said that he was EQUAL to the fab four. I simply said that he was ON PAR or at least NOT FAR BEHIND the fab four. If it is your opinion that a man who won world titles in four divisions, tied an all time record set 100 years earlier, defeated prime versions of Toney and Hopkins, and was never truly beaten outside of a DQ that he was otherwise winning until well his prime is a whole universe behind the four, then that is your perogative to think so.

I full heartedly agree, and have made the same or similar observations of the men you mentioned. I also happen to agree that there are some who overrate Jones, but I do not consider myself among them.

The "onesided" part comes from the fact that you are placing great weight on only certain criteria when comparing these fighters and disregarding all else when it doesn't best suit your argument. You are doing things like pointing fingers at fighters for ducking, while not acknowledging that the same thing has been done by the fighters whom you are making a case for.

Now this is exactly what I mean by "one sided." You are giving Duran points for moving up and challenging great fighters. This is okay, and I agree that his wins over Leonard and Barkley were tremendous. But, he did not win all of those fights, and in fact got his ass handed to him in very bad fashion by Hearns. Now, Jones moves up and ACTUALLY WINS, all of his big fights when ascending to higher classes yet its not a worthy enough feat for comparison? I will also divulge that while Duran was past his prime upon making these jumps, so was Jones for some of them.

You really can't hold it against a fighter for facing someone who just so happens to have a style that plays into his hands. I admit that I don't blame Jones for not wanting to fight Lennox Lewis or Vitali Klitschko, but even so, for a fighter of Jones' size to move up when past his prime and attempt to do something that hadn't been done since Fitz did it 100 years earlier is not without risk. I will also ad for trivia purposes that Jones was working on getting a unification fight with Corrie Sanders immediately following his win over Wlad Klitschko. The fight never came off due to the WBO threatening to strip Sanders had he taken the fight. Now, do you really want to talk to me about the willingness to take a risk? I mean common man...... Jones was a 5'11" 190 Lb fighter out of his natural element and past his prime, but was willing to take on a 6'4", 230 lb fast handed south paw who had just handed Wladimir "freakin" Klitschko his lunch!!!! Sorry but I'm not buying the " cherry picking " argument.

You're going to have to explain to me what " Serious challenges " are then, because I'm not following you here. Jones for the most part, held on to most of his titles for most of his career without being stripped. Therefore, he was obviously meeting his mandatories, as were the fab four. Granted, he past on Darius Michaelczewski and a few others, but again this was no different than Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Leonard never fighting McCallum, Curry, and depending on who was still around in the late 80's, Nunn. Hell, Roy Jones started his career as a Jr. Middlewieght and went as high as heavyweight. Hagler never ventured beyond 157 lbs!!!! As long as we're throwing **** all over the place here, why didn't he ever develope the audacity to move up and challenge Spinks? Would have been something new for a change outside of his usual routine of accepting challenges from guys moving up in weight. See how selection bias works?

So because he was favored diminished the value of the accomplishment?

Frankly, I think he should be commended for this. At least he admitted that he did some tip toein' where the four hoarseman didn't. Of course, Hearns admitted around 1989 after seeing Michael Nunn cream the **** out of Sumbu Kalambay that he " WANTED NO PART OF HIM", but why let fact get in the way of a good contradicting retort, eh stonehands?

No, we can't give him " probably points ", but what we CAN do is credit him for beating the best of his era. To simply berate a fighters' legacy because YOU FEEL that he fought during a time that was void of competition is an opionated argument and one that I don't give much credit to. Incidently, Jones is commonly credited by most as being the best fighter of the 1990's. Have you ever stopped to think about what that means? Look at some of the men who were around:

Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whitaker
Oscar Delahoya
Michael Carbajal
Felix Trinidad
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Riddick Bowe
Hector Camacho
Humberto Gonzalez
Meldrick Taylor
James Toney

Fair enough

No.

 

That wasn't exactly your point, or your point changed when I wasn't looking. You stated that Jones reign was longer than Hagler, Spinks, and Duran's as if that in and of itself is something that vaults him. It doesn't. I asked you to look closer. Spinks' 2 best challengers were better than Jones' at LHW. Duran and Hagler had comparable reigns with better challenger as well, even it is arguable. You then brought up Louis and complained about how no one complains about his length of reign. The retort reminded you that Louis' length was the longest ever and he had 25 defenses -far more than any of the guys you mentioned.

Louis is rated higher than Ali for a few reasons, one among them is length of reign.

I appreciate your politeness, but you are not being disrespectful when you disagree with me. I appreciate good arguments -and yours are good, though I "strenuously disagree" at times!

Okay.... and now here's another way to look at it that is also valid:

If it is your opinion that a man who never came into the ring an underdog, who spaced his real challenges out up to 9 years and avoided several fighters in his prime, who never showed the ability to adapt in the ring, and who was a quintessential front-runner -flunking nearly every test where he was getting dominated or beaten (by good but not great fighters who were his age), then that is your perogative to think so.

...nor do I consider myself someone guilty of underrating Jones. I believe that your posts here have not criticized Jones in any meaningful way and that you overstate his greatness... which invited my retort to begin with.

You got in in-depth comparison of, if you will, "understandable ducking" and "pure avoidance of threats". You do not address the merits of the argument and instead assert that it is a double standard. It isn't. To state that Jones is equally as guilty of "ducking" as the Fab Four is kooky talk. It dismisses the obvious in the name of myth-making and is not a recipe for accurate consideration of Jones.

Don't tell me that he was ready and willing to accept any and all challengers... because he wasn't.

Come on. Jones fought nothing even close to the caliber of Hearns. If he did and got KOd once in 100 fights then he'd still earn respect. Jones steps up and faces..... 40 year old McCallum for an interim LHW belt, wins and you toast him? "Hey," you say, "he ACTUALLY WINS"? Come on.

And Jones' title challenges of McCallum, Griffin, Ruiz, and Johnson are nowhere near Duran's challenges of Leonard, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler.

Was he willing or did he claim to be willing? You are not naive. To assume that Jones would have actually signed to fight Sanders or Buster Douglas (who he changed his mind about) or any full-blown HW champion is a pretty big assumption. Jones liked to make grandiose statements... it should take more than that to convince you that he had cannonballs for testicles. Especially when you consider that he didn't fight several worthy smaller men.

 

Let's take a trip to fantasy land. Had Jones campaigned in the 70s, he would have been like Hagler and went right on down into Philly to fight the roughest and the toughest like Bad, Bad, Bennie Briscoe and Cyclone Hart... Right?

The hell he would.

Jones is on record as saying that he did not want to fight anyone dangerous unless he was paid millions and millions -and he made good on that threat by pricing himself out of fighting DM several times.

You and most out here give heavy credit to guys who fight larger opponents out of their natural division. I consider it well too, though it is often in direct conflict with another important measure in "domination of a division". I don't fault Hagler for staying put at his natural division anymore than I fault Pep or Monzon for staying put at theirs.

It means he was never truly challenged. This is 2 parts skill and talent and 2 parts avoidance in his case. I do incidentally credit him for dismantling Reggie Johnson and Clinton Woods... but who will remember them in 20 years?

You are going into painful contortions to shrivel up lionhearts in order to pump up Jones. Hearns was a proven commodity by the time he made that comment -fighting Hagler the way he did removes all doubt. By the way, Hearns was also in negotiations to fight Nunn after Nunn's next fight -read: after he made that comment. There goes that.

You are misrepresenting my argument. Worse yet, you are compounding your error of levelling heart-sizes by levelling title challengers themselves. Shall we have affirmative action for boxers' legacies? Some challengers are good -like Kid Gavilan, some are weak, like Jack Roper.

You also ignore that plain fact that I cannot assert enough, that Jones while he was in his best division, did not fight

Frankie Liles
Steve Collins
Chris Eubank
Nigel Benn
--all of whom were active in 95-96. Ring Magazine rated these guys and Jones in the top 4 from 94 through 96. But Jones didn't fight them. Perhaps he felt like his work was done after he gave Toney a well-deserved whooping. Jones fought lesser known and lesser regarded nondescripts like Antoine Byrd, Vinnie Paz, Tony Thornton, Eric Lucas, and Bryant Brannon. That is decidely unimpressive considering who he could have fought -and you have not satisfactorily addressed this critique.

Does this mean that Roy Jones was a coward and a cheese champion? Absolutely not. Shall it be ignored when we begin to talk about him being among the all-time elites? Absolutely not.

This illustrates a serious problem I have with casual boxing fans. Their ADD disallows them from appreciating Pernell --who deserves that honor. Either way, Roy's being considered the top fighter of the 90s does not launch him into the top 20 all-time. I'd have him near the top irregardless.

 

Thank Pontius.