How Good Was Roy Jones Exactly?

At his best, he was basically unfightable. You couldn't do anything against him.

People say Hopkins was green, well, so was Roy. Both were having their first title fight. You can't be THAT green if you're stepping up to fight for a title.
Hopkins had many years after that to get revenge. Never wanted it. There were rumours but it was clear and obvious at the time Hopkins didn't want it. I remember.
What happened when they were both relics doesn't have anything to do with their prime situation. Roy in their prime was just better.

Toney's weight issues or whatever excuse they use these days didn't matter. Roy outclassed and outsped him, simple as that. Toney at his best at 168 would have made no difference. Roy was just different class.
As for McCallum... come on. As JT said, Mike didn't win a single round and it looked as if Roy was coasting. Roy was very respectful of Mike that night. How anyone can consider this close or in any way think that Mike was competitive is bizarre.

Roy made a lot of world championship ranked fighters -a lot of GOOD fighters, look like palookas from down the pub when he fought them. Different class at his best.

 

He's levels above Toney and Hopkins, who were good or great in their own right.
But it's fair to say some of his opponents in the second half of the 90s and early 00s were not much good.
He made them look worse than they were, of course, but they were not much good.

It would have been interesting if he'd come along about 15 years earlier, and up against maybe a young/prime Hagler or the likes of Spinks and Qawi.

 

I think it's laughable when people say James Toney was more skilled or even more talented.

I'm not saying Roy Jones was a level above anyone. I think there are some fighters in history who were on his level, and perhaps some who were even too good for him. But in his own era, there was no one at his weight classes who can compare, not even close.

 

There's every chance Jones is indeed too good for anyone, certainly at 160 and 168. I'd have zero problems backing him against anyone at 160 and probably anyone excepting Charles at 168.

 

I am not sure about that but I certainly wouldn't make him a very clear underdog in any of those fights.

 

At his peak for 5-10 years you could count on one --stretching to two, how many rounds he lost. Not a fan----but he seemed unbeatable for a long time.

 

We never really found out.

Regrettably, he did not take the key fights, that would have answered that question.