Was Roy Jones a paper champion??

Very good question. Allow me to work in reverse.

Had he retired after beating tarver I think he is a clear top ten atg.

His career is as it was, instead of fighting tarver he fights lewis. He gets brutally knocked out. Even if he loses and retires at this point it doesn't really affect his legacy.

Ok at 175 he, at any point, takes on dariusz. I think He wins, solidifies his claim at 175 and goes on to either of the two scenarios above(or the embarrassing reality where he lost every other fight).

At smw I believe he beats eubank over twelve. And his career goes pretty much unaltered, assuming it replaces the malinga fight.

Now had he fought benn it would have given his career a great boost in my eyes and set him up for some big fights at 168. Definitely alters his career win or lose. Personally I have it 50/50.

Stylistically I think he beats mccallum any time they fight.

Now had he fought jackson considering his age, it is unproven boy vs big punching man and he is a clear underdog here. Potentially stalls his career.

Very good thread. Once you get past those seeing this debate as blasphemous there have been some very good points raised.

I disagree with your terminology of paper champ, but I agree with the principle he was never the lineal true champ.

 

No

 

imo there is more than paper and linear. timothy bradley is not the linear champ, but he is unified. i would not call him a "paper champ" and I would call him the man at the weight

 

Good post.

 

at bailey's request i'll reply to this since we don't see eye to eye (and probably never will), but at least keep it civil for the most part :good

whether he admits it or not too, his attempted assassinations of jones and hopkins are directly related to calzaghe and his legacy and always will be, because of deep-seeded affilations for JC probably brought on while you were watching him develop.

fair enough, but my take is you have to grow beyond allegiances brought on by nationalism.

it's an affront to someone's beliefs when someone you grew up watching isn't entirely what he seems - even though he is a terrific fighter - largely due to his promoter but it's also his own fault. that's a hard pill to swallow.

bailey, you're using the same formula as before, and at every turn you're trying to wave the flag for the fighters you're affiliated with and you have to stop doing that..."benn and eubank were more accomplished champions (than jones)"....

belts are an illusion in this sport, so is ANY fighter's record - it's who he fought and when that counts. like i've said all along...

 

the only fighters that are considered the best in the world in any era or beyond (universally) are the ones who take the steps to ensure their career choices are not in question.

sure, it's not fair that the US is the hotbed and that's where fighters have to go to build their careers beyond their continent and protective promoters - but fighters who are determined to find out how good they are don't have these question marks over them...and don't get bad rep after going 46-0 under frank warren

 

Exactly - Calzaghe is the paper champ. Always fighting at home, except vs. Hopkins and Jones.....................

 

Paper champion or not I dont think Jones needed the belts as much as they needed him.

 

(irony...:bbb)

 

don't be petty and put words in my mouth.
i don't care who the thread is about, when you're posting jones and hopkins posts are fuelled by your defence for calzaghe.

you told me tonight in PM you don't have allegiances, so don't get defensive and try to twist my words when it suits you.

you already know i'm too smart for a play on words so don't do it

 

:good well done