Did Roy Jones Jr. Ruin His Legacy By Not Retiring Before Tarver Rematch?

I hate the notion that retiring at the right time enhances one's legacy.

 

I rate him on his prime ability and body of work during that time. Ultimately it's a career and you need to make sure you're in a secure financial position to retire

 

Maybe.

Had he retired after the Ruiz win, we'd possibly be talking about the best to ever do it.

 

Yes is the short answer.

Before he lost to Tarver, he was in the argument for the p4p goat.

 

If Jones had achieved enough before the Tarver rematch to be the goat, his retirement wouldn't make a difference.

Look at Armstrong, Fitzsimmons, Robinson, Duran, Leonard, Ali, Charles, Langford and God knows how many greats that have existed who didn't hang them up at an aesthetically pleasing time.

The only reason people ever say this is because had Jones hung them up, no one would question his chin.

They would say "Griffin, Tarver and Sosa all backed him up and he found a way to counter and hurt them them all"

But that's a H2H argument and no great legacy is based on mythical prowess.

What Jones achieved was great, there's no question. But a much bigger issue than him retiring at the right time is a the fights that weren't made.

McClellan, Nunn, Benn, Michalczewski.

Imagine that, he's a 3 weight unified legitimate champion. Cleared out two divisions and beat a top ATG in the third.

It isn't him refusing to retire that's the problem, he has a right to make as much money as he wants.

It's the fact that there are stylistic gaps in his resume and as his reflexes slowed his chin was more exposed and people can draw a conclusion based on those two facets.

But even then, its become almost ludicrous to use the Tarver or Johnson losses against him, I don't think anyone is taken seriously any more when they do that.

As I said at the start, had he achieved enough before the Tarver rematch, there would be no need for this thread.

 

Yes but it would.

There was a whole castle of illusions built up around him, and the Tarver rematch brought it crashing down, leaving him buried in the rubble!

 

It does though.

 

Had he done enough to achieve the status before he retired?

 

Not for me personally. In fact many enhance their legacy with past prime wins.

Duran against Barkley, Langford against Flowers, Hopkins against Tarver, Foreman against Moorer etc

 

But for everyone who enhances their legacy with a past-prime win, many more blot theirs with losses. Even if you take into account they were past prime, it still affects how they are perceived.

I can't believe Jones' legacy wouldn't be higher today if he'd retired after Tarver I and not spent the next decade barely winning half his fights, and getting KO'd by a lot of second raters.

Consider what Marciano's rep might be today if he stayed on and lost to Patterson and Liston, or Frazier's if he'd retired after the FOTC.

 

I agree their legacies are hurt by them never fighting RJJ.

 

Exactly, when big fights don't come off its us as fans who suffer. They still get paid regardless.

 

How many of Langfords past prime losses do you hold against him?

Or Robinsons?

Or Charles?

Or Durans?

Or Alis?

Those guys frequent many top ten ATG lists.

 

Many people thought so, and then changed their minds very quickly, after Tarver beat him.

You are right in the sense that the two positions were logically inconsistent.

They either rated him far too highly before Tarver beat him, or revised their position far too much after Tarver beat him!