Where Do You Rate Roy Jones Jr In The All Time Rankings At Light-Heavyweight

1. Yes and Jones beat Hill more emphatically just like he did to all common opponents the 2 shared

2. It was as controversal as Lewis-Klitschko as Hall was seeming to win and needed a rematch. Not as bad as play acting against Rochiaganni but still seemed some home cooking was in order

3. Jones wanted Eubank before he was a champ and offered the fight to Eubank numerous times after. Darius was offered the fight in the US and didnt take it from what I remember. Hopkins was offered 40% for the rematch and didnt take it. None would have stood a chance in hell in my view

 

Does this look like a guy landing at will with not full power? Does to me. How about the embrace at the end. I think if Jones wanted to, he could have stopped him. He said at one point he had too much respect for Mike to knock him out. Mcallum after the fight called Jones the best fighter ever.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp55z0kzRNE[/ame]

 

Mike clearly took to many shots to the head if he really meant it. I'll be honest, all of this Jones loving doesn't sit to well with the big dog. He had an asethically pleasing style, but often failed to knockout much much lesser opponents, and cannot brag about having all that special of a resume either. Jones was not the best fighter ever, not in terms of accomplishments or ability.

 

Jones physically is not a big man. To see this little guy with chicken legs in person I think would put things more into perspective, especially when you see a guy like Antonio Tarver in person, who is friggen giant. What Jones did with speed of hand and foot certainly puts him up there in terms of ability and I think many pro fighters and well respected boxing people would agree with me. You can probably google it and see a whole laundry list of comments by "boxing people"

 

For the record Calzaghe said in his prime Jones was on another level and was the 1 man he couldnt beat, and Calzaghe has an ego the size of Everest.

 

...Won't change my perception on the guy. He's an all-time great, no question, but the Hopkins win is barely even worth talking about. His finest hour came against James Toney, and be beat nobody special at 175lbs. Don't respond with a list of decent contenders....they don't qualify.

 

Why is it barely worth talking about, Hopkins wouldnt lose again for 12years and arguably hasnt lost again since, Jones won it with a damaged hand fighting 1 handed and still won 9 rounds.

I'm sure you'll come back with 'well Hopkins drew with Mercado' despite the fact you havent watched the fight and Hopkins won at least 9rounds, dominating practically all but 3 miniutes of the contest even coming off better in the rounds that he was dropped

 

The fact both Jones and Hopkins were inexperienced doesn't mean that much when you consider each mans styles. Jones come out of the Olympics, and had the physical gifts...always...to compete at professional level. He was, like Ray Leonard, a world class fighter from the get-go. Hopkins did a long stint in prison, and although he was still fighting, he didn't have the speed and reflexes of Jones. He had to gain the experience to hone his skills, his defensive cunning, his countering ability...all of this had to be developed during the professional ranks. Overriding point being, Jones didn't beat the Hopkins that established him as a great fighter, he beat a really inexperienced version, who hadn't fought anybody.

Not a great victory.

 

I agree Hopkins is not a "great" victory but it is definitely good. Jones was approaching his prime but wasn't quite there. Hopkins came into his prime about 3 years later.

 

Hopkins was no less inexperienced than Jones, but you've already countered that.

If you watch Hopkins of the period he was still a smart fighter with allot of the same defensive ability but he worked at a much faster pace, working 3miniutes per round breaking his man down. Hopkins was the executionor in that period who really broke down and beat up opponents, anyone who calls Hopkins boring hasnt seen the early/mid-90s Hopkins.

So bare in mind Hopkins was faster, had a higher workrate, was a sharper puncher in the 90s, was he quite as cunning? Perhaps not quite but he still employed much of the techniques he uses today, you don't just develop a defense over night.

Hopkins was past his prime in the 00s imo but was smart enough to get away with it

IMO if Monzon was in the ring with the same Hopkins Jones faced he would have lost a decision, just watch them on film Hopkins is the more skilled operator even then.

 

Well, your certainly entitled to your opinion. How many fighters throughout history have had two or three fighters that are considered great to stamp out their legacy with? Most fighters have one or none, and have to be evalulated based on how well they dominated their respective field. All the crap about comparing and contrasting different contenders becomes very subjective. Any fighter that starts at middleweight and wins titles all the way up to heavyweight in dominating fashion for the most part, cant be all that bad, and certainly has a clear case fo being considered great.
Where you choose to rank him is your choice and opinion.

 

It speaks for quite a lot that Hopkins was rated next to Vinny Pazienza at the time Jones faced him. He hadn't really fought anybody. But I do agree that Hopkins was a pretty good technical pressure fighter, far from the fighter he was in his prime though.

That's your opinion but Hopkins himself thinks he couldn't have beaten Monzon even at his very best.

This is after the Roy Jones fight:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BxDNgP4qZQ[/ame]

 

This is a valid arguement but one can also say he never got the skills to beat Jones. When they fought neither of them fought anyone, and both were inexperienced pros (different), Jones having the lesser amount of fights. I cant say that Hopkins improved and Jones didnt, nor can I say Hopkins improved enough to ever beat Jones, thats where opinions come in. Hopkins also had some fairly tough scrapes at middleweight when he was an established great fighter, and against opposition, if you consider Jones to be weak, you'd consider Hopkins even weaker.

 

1. All it says is Hopkins hadn't had chance to prove himself against the other top dogs. At the time I'd see him beating everyone except Jones, 168 and down.

2. And Ali said he'd lose to Jack Johnson, fighters say all kinds of things, on film Hopkins has a far superior skill set than Monzon