You haven't really considered probability though, you've just stated that your chances of beating Roy Jones are not nil, which is about as helpful as saying the chances of your molecules reorganising themselves so you become James Last are not nil.
A terrific fighter. a nightmare for anyone. A fast handed volume puncher, who could adapter with great stamina and an excellent chin. Fought for a long time and despite some fodder on his record he beat plenty of excellent fighters and one ATG.
One of the best 168 lb men ever but not THE best. That accolade goes to Roy Jones. Even Joe would admit that Roy was way over the hill when they fought. But - as they say - you can only fight the best available to you at the time and Joe did that. His best win - Jeff Lacy.
personally, I think Roy would have dealt with Joe in utterly one sided fashion Joe is like they say a volume puncher, not a big puncher He's fast but nowhere near as fast as Roy What's he going to do, outbox Roy?
You cannot beat Roy in the middle of the ring. The key would be to take away room, push him to the ropes. Griffin had a lot of success while pushing Roy to the ropes. A smart spoiler who can maul would be your best bet to beat Roy.
On accomplishment I don't see how you can avoid putting him at lowest second or third greatest ever in his division, regardless of your view of the h2h. ...and on the latter criterion, overcoming a gut check versus prime Viking Warrior speaks volumes.
People are oddballs pal. I've had a lot of conversations with casual fans over the years who rate him as the best Brit ever, having to patiently explain why they were wrong or just backing out of dumb arse conversations . Then you've got the wackadoodlery on here at the other end of the spectrum where people try to justify irrational dislike with weird mental gymnastics,, or just troll and state ill-conceived opinions like they're facts and the rest of the forum is beneath them. It's sort of tragic-comical watching grown arse people behave like it and drag out conversations for pages rather than just shut the **** up and give their heads a bit of a wobble. The internet, man.....
So, I try to have a real conversation with you and just focus on one thing first, and you immediately show me that you are not adult enough to have that conversation. So, now, anything I say beyond just my initial point is going to be dismissed by the idea that you can do that to anyone's resume. Well, you can, but I'm not doing that to anyone's. I'm doing that to Jones'. And unlike someone like Mayweather who spent most of his career as a lineal champion, Jones didn't even once. That is a great way to judge whether you are fighting the best. He wasn't. Plain and simple. It's demonstrable, objective fact. He never bothered to topple the top man in any division. His career was a damn lie and you know it. If you want to go over my actual point and then continue to other ones, that is great, but let's not dismiss everything glibly by saying you can criticize anyone. Let's look at the individual instead and by intellectually and academically honest. Criticizing Roy does not mean that I am bigging up Calslappy either. That guy didn't want any part of Ottke. He's another one with his nonsense too frankly. Frankly, in fairness to those people, they probably saw him on film. So, that accounts for a lot of that sentiment.
His level of opposition post after he beat Tarver in the first fight is not better than his level of opinion after loosing to Tarver, so he didn't fight better opponents. That's the whole point
While I have some sympathy for the criticism of his resume, I always expected him to win. It was obvious to anybody who understood him as a boxer, that he was a very difficult man to beat.