Roy Jones' Legacy...

...You remain a poor poster who relies on provocation more than facts. And those few facts you do offer have holes in them. Your reasoning powers, while sometimes pretty decent, are more often deficient. You're more "PowderPuff" than "PowerPuncher" in terms of reasoning and reasonableness. In fact, you present as an American stereotype -you have a diploma or a GED but remain ignorant, you are probably aggressive though not very tough, and I'm positive that you are loud and obnoxious.

In addition, you can't spell, you have only a rudimentary understanding of grammer, and your avatar is painful to look at.

Where do I live? I hope not far from you. Because I'm no "internet tough guy". Promise.

 

I do think there's a double standard here.

Jones' reign at LHW was long and littered with one-sided wins against top ranked guys, yet some think he is not worthy of a top10 spot there.


Tell me, how many great wins does Bob Foster, whom everyone ranks in the top10, most in the top5, have at LHW? How many does Tunney have at 175? How many does Hagler have at MW? Duran was a natural lightweight, yet still gave him a tough bout, Hearns was tailor made for him and another smaller man, Leonard was a natural welterweight who hadn't fought 3 years and was old, still he beat the bald man in close fashion. Scypion, Mugabi, Lee, Antufermo, Hamsho and Minter were good, but so were Tarver, Hill, Griffin, Woods, Kelly, Hall and Johnson.

And notice that Jones was already fighting in a higher weight class, whereas Marvin, Spinks and Foster were still safe in his own weightclass. Foster failed miserably at heavyweight when he did try. Spinks had mixed success. Tunney had success, but only fought there a few times and heavyweights his time were only 190lbs, which brings me to another point.

In Jones' time, lightheavyweights usually weighed around 185-190lbs come fight time. Basically, he was fighting classic heavyweights, who still have a significant higher upset chance by landing a lucky punch.



It's been said before but i'll say it again: i think a lot of people punish Jones for what not accomplishing what he could've, but what he actually did is a LOT already. Comfortable wins over Toney, Hopkins and Ruiz are better quality wins than anything Hagler/Duran/Leonard/Hearns ever did, and his longitivity is equal to or better than theirs, as well as his stepping up in weight.


Stonehands, it's becoming time that you worship this man...... Ya'll must have forgot !!!

This content is protected

 

Yeah, after easily winning 12 out of 12 rounds the first time and spending 80% of his career in different weight classes, people were really demanding a rematch to this classic, close war.

 

Chris. I do agree that Jones gets a hard time. I have been critical of him in some instances, but not over-the-top criticism IMO. I have actually disagreed with some of Stonehands' points. I don't think Jones never fought Collins, Benn, and Dariuz M simply because he feared defeat. I think boxing politics was the problem and Jones' business minded head.

As you pointed out, he was some very solid wins. I don't know what he was thinking when fighting Frazier and Kelley, etc, right enough. He shouldn't have entertained those type of fights.

Some people talk about his physical disadvantages against Ruiz. Try getting a glimpse of his fight with Telesco and you'll see what he looked like up against a fully blown light-heavyweight. He looked very small. And this was after 4 years of being at the weight.

 

I really do consider Jones not rematching Toney a minor, minor point. But at least we wouldn't have to listen to how weight drained Toney was.

 

This was a lot, so I'll keep myself short.

Of course, Jones could have done better after the Ruiz fight, and if he'd done he would rank higher. I just don't see his losses at 35 after first gaining then losing lots of weight that bad, especially since he went on to have some credible (but not great) wins. There are several fighters I rank higher who didn't have better, or actully worse, records from a similar age.

That's all.

 

I agree, there are always those annoying people who bring a trainload of excuses to fights that were as lopsided as Ali/Holmes.

 

But we all know that Ali would have KO'd Holmes if he wasn't weight drained with Benzendrine. :yep

 

He is worthy of a top 10 spot among LHWs. That wasn't argued by me at least.

Moot. No one in their right mind argues that Foster, Tunney, or Hagler belong at or near the top 10 greatest fighters who ever lived. Anyone who argues that any of them does -including Jones- has an unmeetable burden to satisfy. And you need better brains than PowderPuff to even try.

Foster fought Frazier and Ali. Tunney beat Dempsey. Spinks beat Holmes and Cooney. Jones-Ruiz? Come on.

I can accept that.

You vehicle just veered off the road and crashed headlong into a tree. The three impressive Jones wins combined are not as good as Duran's win over Leonard alone. And Leonard has more than a few better wins -Duran, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler among them.

Why is that Jones' ESB apologists accuse his critics of "punishing" poor Roy Jones when they question his career? Listen, Jones is arguably the greatest SMW ever, is a top 10 LHW and deserves honorable mention as a MW... that is not something that I fight about. He is NOT near the top 10 p4p all time and anyone who believes that he is -is a neophyte.

Don't make me post that video again!

 

I guess De La Hoya wasn't weight drained against Pacquaio?. If you can't see Toney being weight drained against Jones, you'll never see it during any fight. And to say that because Toney was inconsistent in his performances, before and after the Jones fight, doesn't support your previous claims he wasn't weight drained. A great way to at least try.

I tend to give Jones credit for fighting Toney and beating him easily. He was the underdog and was up against the "pound for pound" best fighter in the world. Because I happen to highlight that Toney was weight drained doesn't mean I'm taking credit away from Jones' win. It comes hand-in-hand I'm afriad. It can't be ignored.

 

When Toney was making his walk to the ring for the Jones fight, HBO's Gil Clancy dedicated the entire length of it to commenting on his alarming concerns for Toney's weight. "He's going to be fighting as if he's wearing concrete boots". Gil was right, but Toney also showed he had concrete arms as well. These comments by Clancy were done before the first bell rang. No benefit of hindsight.

Toney's reflexes, timing, low punch volume, and blowing out of his mouthpiece after 2-3 three rounds clearly echoed Clancy's initial thoughts.

 

No. It's YOU who are "devaluating" or at the very least questioning the status of a man who by all standards is a true all time great. If you don't think that he is a top 10 all time great lightheavyweight, then you should consider the following:

1. He had the longest lightheavyweight reign in history topped only by Archie Moore who many rate as number one.

2. He won world titles at middleweight, supermiddleweight, lightheavyweight and heavyweight - something that nobody has done since Bob Fitzsimmons did it over 100 years earlier.

3. He fought during an era where lightheavyweights were generally closer to the size of what heavyweights from previous eras were.

4. He comfortably defeated at least two all time greats that I can think of plus a shitload of men who were undefeated, holding titles, or had never been knocked out.

5. While he has a DQ loss early in his career, what many considered to be his first GENUINE defeat did not come until he was 35 years of age and after throwing around a lot of weight within a very short period of time.

If you seriously think that he has no place in a lightheavyweight top 10 just because he never signed to fight Darius Whatthe****'shisname, then I am very interested in hearing the names of no less than TEN FIGHTERS, and the EXPLANATION behind rating ALL of them above Jones.

You've managed to stall long enough to give yourself ample time to compile such a list.

Such a comment without substance to back it is meaningless. I have been providing facts, stats, and analysis left and right here for days in defense of Jones, and most of it seems to be going in one ear and out the other with certain people. Yet, for some reason you think that I'm just going to bow down and blow you just because you you come up with the ingenius phrase of " because I said so. "

And what would your description of them be, ordinary? Mediocre? I threw a lot more names in there than just Glen Kelly, and incidently destroying a guy who's unbeaten in some 30 fights as easily as Jones did, is not the worst thing that I've ever seen an all time great do.

LOL This is truly laughable. So you're not going to make any concessions for a great fighter being past his prime. Furthermore, you're going to question the durability of a guy who had never previously been KO'd in 50 pro bouts despite being crowned in four different weight classes?!?!?!?!?

I think it says something more about the guy who hit him than it does Hill..

I'll be perfectly honest, and I'll start by saying that your question while intended to be witty is rather daft to say the least. I picked Jones to win the fight, but its an entirely different prespective when looking at things in hindsite. Did you pick Spinks to beat Holmes? No? Well it doesn't change the fact that Holmes was past it.

Jones was a fighter who was well up there in years along with being far past the weight that he had started his career at before suffering a real loss. Almost everyone he had fought prior to that, he had dominated. Therefore, I don't necessarily consider the whole "comeback kid" thing as the be all end all.

A better question is, how many people do you seriously think viewed Jones as being in his prime, and why the **** does a couple of losses at the end of such an incredible career inhibit someone from being considered great?

How many of them defeated as many rated opponents in only 50 pro fights? How many won titles in that many weight classes? How many toyed with world titlists, top contenders, or all time greats as easily as he did? It works both ways.

 

Yes, and as I pointed out, he's tied for that spot with someone who isn't in anyone's top ten that I know of.

What does whatever he's done at 160-168 have to do with his ranking at LHW?

And likewise, Roy himself has been able to come in "bigger" than what light-heavy champs in previous eras used to.

It's the same for every fighter who's been fighting in that division (and every other division in boxing) for the last two decades. It's not an issue for all the other ex-middleweights rising up - why is it now an issue for Roy?

At light-heavy?

True, but how many of them were ever great, or even all that good?

I don't.

It's one of a number of reasons he's not in the top 10.

I've compiled that list ages ago and posted it numerous times on this forum.

However, I first asked that you answer my questions about Dariusz and Hill, who appear to fit the qualifications you listed as making a fighter a definite top tenner (certainly Dariusz at least). I didn't get that answer.

Some of them, yes.

Not if the "concessions" you speak of are ridiculously overboard.

The one you're asking me to make is.

Should I not question the durability of a guy who was one-punch KTFO in back-to-back fights vs. huge underdogs - and then threw away every chance he had to redeem himself on top of that??

You're probably right - But the same standard doesn't apply when it's Roy who is the one who gets KO'd??

You can come up with a different perspective on anything you want, but that doesn't make it a correct perspective.

A situation is what it is at the time and the facts are what they are at the time, and whatever happens is what happens. Things don't just "change" from what they were just because you want them to or because it's more convenient in your own mind. You're free to rewrite history if you want, but that's exactly what it is - rewriting history, and a conscious effort on your part to do so. And you're wrong if you just expect other people to "go along" with your new and contrary views as if they're the facts.

Holmes was roundly criticized (and rightfully so) for losing to Spinks - and that was for losing a close-ish fight, not a brutal one-punch KO.

On top of that, Holmes at least gained partial redemption (in some people's eyes anyway) by arguably winning in an immediate rematch, then made an even grander effort to redeem himself by coming back to upset Mercer at the age of 40-whatever.

I don't see how these facts are supposed to "defend" Roy's case in any way. If anything they just seem to undermine everything you've been saying.

Maybe not, but it's still a helluva mark against him, to go along with a few other marks.

Are you talking about his whole career, or just his career at LHW?

But a lot of the ATGs actually did do some of those things, or other things on par with them. Conversely, I can't think of any fighter (great or otherwise) who was continually embarrassed the way Roy was and didn't have it held against him.

 

'you present as an American stereotype' - that makes no gramatic sense, but interesting because I'm British you tosser

You brought the conversation down to petty insults in the first place, while I was merely debating, so don't cry like a big girl when you get it back in kind

And acting the 'internet tough guy' is just what you've been playing, you don't know who I am and I don't know who you are, as far as either of us know we could be debating with Mike Tyson, but then again your ignorance of the boxing game indicates you never boxed, nothing wrong with that if you didn't pretend to have knowledge and cry like a big girl when your called on your BS and Bias

 

DM was not the MAN. Jones was. Being the WBO champ for ages doesnt' mean that he was THE MAN. DM also has no where near the accomplishments that Jones does. The comparison is moot.

I would say that it ads to his overall list of accomplishments. To ignore it would be an injustice.

Was this where he started though?

He defeated two all time great fighters in Toney and Hopkins, but neither were lightheavyweigts. The men he did fight at LH were not all time greats but I have already stated that they weren't bums either and gave many reasons that as far as I'm concerned remain unrefuted.

So not fighting one man over a near 7 year reign, automatically excludes someone from the status of great:huh

All I see right now is a bunch of empty, unsupported rhetoric and criticisms about past prime losses, weak comp, and dodging fighters that aren't really being backed up here.

Did these guys unify the crown? NO, they were both fragment holders. Did either of them win all of there fights in their primes? Only one of them did. The other lost at his peak to an aging Hearns coming up from a lower division. Did either of them clean out the entire division or at least near the way that Jones did? No. Did either of them domonate the better fighters of the division the way that Jones did? No. Incidently, I do have Virgil Hill as an all time great, just not top 10.

Like who? When this was brought up before, the only man you mentioned in 14 title defenses was Glen Kelly - a 28-0 fighter who Jones fought near the end of his reign and utterly annialated him. If this is the best you can do, then I'd say you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for amunition here.

Being past one's prime is a perfectly valid reason to make some allowence for a loss. No, it does not guarentee that one man would beat the other if circumstances were different, but it does place limitations on how much a critic can depreciate the value of a particular fighter's legacy.

How is being knocked out for the first time in 50 fights, at the age of 35 and after having championed through 4 weight classes ( including heavywieght ), an indication of a weak chin? Frankly, I think that's pretty good if you ask me.

Hill was well past his prime, but getting your ribs cracked with a body shot, is an entirely different story no matter what age you are. Did Hill have degenerative osteoperosis?

Jones had gotten the nod in the first fight but looked like **** in doing it. He was still the more prestigious of the two and was rightfully picked to win. It doesn't mean that he wasn't past it though. Jesus, I can't beleive I'm wasting time on a Sunday debating about weather or not Roy Jones was past his prime against Antonio Tarver..

A situation is what it is at the time and the facts are what they are at the time, and whatever happens is what happens. Things don't just "change" from what they were just because you want them to or because it's more convenient in your own mind. You're free to rewrite history if you want, but that's exactly what it is - rewriting history, and a conscious effort on your part to do so. And you're wrong if you just expect other people to "go along" with your new and contrary views as if they're the facts.

LOL, you of all people are accusing someone else of historical revisionism???

Let's take a look at the nuggets of wisdom that you have brought to the table:

1. Jones had a weak chin

2. Jones wasn't past it against Tarver

3. Jones is not a top 10 lightheavyweight

4. Jones opponents were mediocre.

If anyone's biased for or against someone, it sure as hell isn't me.

You're missing the point. Did it keep him out of the top 10, and if it didn't then what do you suppose historians took into cinsideration?

It's because you're not analizing them correctly.