Have Roy Jones' Losses Tarnished his ATG Rating?

It's hard for a fighter to decide what to do. Stop on top, ala Calzaghe or Lewis, and you get loads of people saying you should have fought fighter a or b and "ran away". FIght on too long and you get this stuff. In Jones' defence, fans and pundits are usually better able to put careers into perspective years after they have ended. It's hard to judge it so soon.

 

I'm a big Roy fan, and I don't see how you can vote No to this question.

One of the marks of a great fighter is the ability to win meaningful fights past your best years. All of Roy's contemporary rivals managed to do this, Hopkins, Toney, and Calzaghe, and do it multiple times. The only meaningful past prime win Roy has had was the first Tarver fight, and from there, he essentially fell off of a cliff. He did fool me by looking as good as he did against another shot fighter in Lacy, but I should have known better.

The thing you can't take away from Roy is that prime for prime, he would have been a tough fight for the best in history between 160 and 175 pounds. But his "greatness" and his legacy have been damaged severely by these embarrassing losses.

 

Are you serious? Ruiz has ONE legit KO this entire ****ing Decade. One. What 'big right hands'?

:roflatsch

 

I might be wrong, but I think that's more to do with his unorthodox style that relied on freakish athletic ability. Calzaghe modified his style later in his career by focusing more on overwhelming activity than on power punching, to protect his weak hands. Hopkins had/has a great economy of movement and effort, and doesn't waste very much at all. Jones' style was such that once his speed slipped, he wasn't left with as much to work with. In effect, what made him so great in his prime made him so weak after that.

 

Obviously from the stand point of a guy with RJ in his avatar this may seem like an attack on your hero but if you take those Jones tinted glasses off for just one moment and look at the question objectivly you'll see it's no more than what it is, just a question.

I for example have always marked down fighters for defeats. So many people judge purely on the best years but I judge on entire career.

Defeats are a mark down for any fighter IMO. But guys like SRR for example have Resumes packed with so much substance and even with the loses remains on top, unlike RJJ who's resume lacks by comparison.

 

Lots of people have said this, and I think they basically are right.

But I'm not quite sure I buy the idea that there was "nothing" he could do about it. This guy was the best pure athlete boxing had seen in probably half a century, you can't tell me he couldn't have learned how to fight with a safer style. He still has tremendous handspeed, if he'd admitted that he didn't have the reflexes any more to slip shots with his hands down, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

It was a mental block and more importantly, it was pride that kept him from making the necessary changes. If Barrera could transform himself, Roy could have. He just didn't want to.

 

You have a point, but It would have been hard to him that, at the time. The pride, ego and confidence that stopped him adapting where no doubt part of the mentality that made him so good.

If I can change, and Barrera can change, everybody can change!! (sorry)

 

One thing that you fail to mention when talking about fighters like SRR and Jones is :1 totally diffrent eras 2.Much deeper talent pools in the 80's .

Outside of the european fighters that could have came over here and vice versa Jones dominated any american worth mentioning from 160 and up during the 90's .

I don't see how comparisons could be made between fighters like leonard and jones when their primes were decades apart .

 

I think there was a thread a few weeks back asking where Roy would be ranked all time after the first Tarver fight. 49-1, world champion in four weight classes, only former super welterweight to win a belt at heavyweight, only fighter in history to come back after moving up to heavyweight win a title at 175. Clear wins over a prime Toney, and a near prime Hopkins.

Yeah, his legacy has taken a hit alright.

 

So by you guys standards Jones legacy is the exact same right now than if he'd retired after the first Tarver fight?

No mark down at all, am I reading you right?

 

Yes, but it shouldn't have. Before his losses he was ranked too high, after he's being ranked too low. Definitely an ATG who more than anything suffered from crap competition and lossing his reflexes now that the divisions he's fighting in are starting to heat up. I'd blame his first few losses more on the weight loss and gun shy attitude after getting knocked out, then I would blame it on broke chin and lost reflexes for his style.

In my opinion what a fighter in their prime is more important than their twilight years of their career. A fighter he is good for longer is just adding to their legacy, but prime is still more important. So NO his losses shouldn't have affected his legacy if people can look at his career without bias.

 

Nope. Not if you saw him fight in his prime. Triple left hook Jones will always be one of greatest talents the sport ever saw. The last 5 years hasnt changed anything for me.