You mean he lost to world class guys when he was in his mid 30s and 50 fights? You don't consider prime James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Virgil Hill "obstacles"?
Bit strange this because we already talk about him as an ATG so don’t really get your point. What happened later in his career when he went back down does not diminish his greatness. During his peak years he was unbeatable.
He would of had 6 less losses and no one would of seen him lose. I also threw in the Holyfield and Bryd. Even if it's just Tyson, that would of greatly increase his standing. Tyson was shot but he is about the same age. A victory of a legend even shot would look great on paper.
Yes obviously, no matter the attempts by any at discrediting his achievements, he'd have gone down as an undisputed ATG if he had done that.
He wasn't undisputed thanks to Dariusz Michaelzewski holding the WBO and lineal titles to himself for ages.
His resumé is actually quite insane but not much credit given to it. A prime James Toney, BHop and Virgill Hill like you mention. Then there's Jorge Castro, Thulani Malinga, Vinny Paz, Mike McCallum, Montell Griffin, Lou Del Valle, Reggie Johnson, Eric Harding, Antonio Tarver, Clinton Woods, John Ruiz, Felix Trinidad and Jeff Lacy. Not all in their prime but most of them were and Roy wrecked em.
What I mean is, when he went down, he went down forever. Many fighters that are no longer in their prime can hang around, put on some decent performances, even some good ones, maybe even great ones, even in losing. Jones went out against Tarver, and was bad from then on. His confidence was shattered and his style was such that a bit of hesitation could be disastrous, which is why he got KO'd so much. I don't believe he was shot instantly after Ruiz. I hate it when people just want so say someone became shot overnight.
After an 11 year run of dominance? Going from light middle to winning a belt at hw? That's hardly "as soon as meeting an obstacle"
I wouldn't say overnight. He had a sold decade of prime, from which you can judge him on, which is more than most. From Hopkins to Ruiz is a full 10 years and almost 30 fights, mostly against world class opposition. He was 35. No one is "prime" at 35, and you don't get better afterwards.
Plus Reggie, Mike, Bernard, Virgil and obviously James (other reasons) were nowhere near their best. We're talking about a decade off their bests!
Roy Jones vs Tyson in 2003 would have been a very weird fight as neither were at their best with Tyson being significantly past prime.. I think Jones performance would be closer to his Ruiz fight than the Tarver 1 fight because I personally think dropping back down so quick did a lot of damage to him. At that same stage, Tyson had lost considerable speed and his power seemed to have waned as well. I don't know who would win. I kind of think Tyson would have had to stop Jones within 4 rounds or the fight would be won by Jones. Tyson's endurance was gone by that point too, but in the first 4 or 5 rounds if Jones tried to fight off the ropes he could easily get in trouble and take a brutal shot.
WBO wasn't recognized as a world champion title by all 3 until early-mid 2000's (i think) so he's actually counted as Undisputed
