How would you rate these ten fighters P4P

"Forget what Roy didn't do -that's common knowledge"? -Not on this this thread it ain't and very often I have to remind too many out here that there glorification of Roy at times defies reality. It is amusing how you want me to wave off "the common knowledge of what Roy didn't do" and then turn around and pretend that his defeats of Toney and Hopkins aren't common knowledge. These were mentioned 4 or 5 times on this thread alone. I did acknowledge these big wins in an earlier post, if you read it. After he beat Toney, Jones effectively skated for almost 9 years before facing Ruiz. Are you denying that?

I suspect that you did not know much of what I posted. The details are undeniably uncomfortable for any Jones fan. You sound like someone who would have given Jones a shot against Tyson or Klitschko. Are you?

 

I believe that Hopkins is the greater fighter. He dominated a division more than Jones ever did, he has far better longevity, and he holds his own well against larger men -including an unconverted conqueror of Jones. However, I do not believe that Hopkins could have or even should have beaten Roy. Roy's style, for what it was, was the foil for many technicians who could not match his intensity or were a bit to deliberate as Hopkins was and is.

The purest measure of a fighter in my estimation is not how he looks in the ring. It is not even his "dominance"... it is how he responds to adversity, the caliber of his competition, and how consistently he accepted real challenges. Jones fails on the first, is subpar on the second (compared not to other champions but to the greatest among them), and fails on the third.

 

Jones did face some serious duds when in or around his prime. The Toney win established him as a world class fighter of the highest order. He had just beaten a fighter who was arguably 'pound for pound' the best fighter in the world. You would have thought it would have been a superfight for him every 3 or 4 fights and keep on even ground. Yet he took on the likes of Pazienza, a former lightweight, Bryant Brannon a club fighter, 40 year old Mike McCallum who was well past his sell by date. Then the likes of Policeman, Ricky Frazier, who should never have been sparring with Jones, far less a title fight. After the millenium came garbage collector, Glen Kelley, which proved to be a farce.

I do give Jones credit for beating Hill, Del Valle, Sosa, Griffin, and Ruiz.

When Hopkins gained the same merit beating Trinidad as Jones did after shutting out Toney, he can't be accused of such poor opposition.

 

It's a good argument to rate Hopkins higher, and as a big fan of his I enjoyed it and now understand your reasoning for him being higher.

While these are big factors when determining greatness, I personally see the biggest criteria as who did they beat and how did they beat them. Jones must rank higher than Hopkins by that criteria, so I have him higher, but that is my way of rating fighters, and by the way you rate greatness Hopkins could certainly be higher. Even if I disagree, your reasoning is understandable (and I'm not going to argue much with a high ranking of Hopkins).

 

A loose hypothetical for you:

Fighter "A" fights 10 times. Five of these challengers are now counted among the great or near-great. He loses twice against great, with one draw, and is knocked down twice. He's a workman, and his skills are more subtle. He was an underdog for half of those fights and avenged one loss.

Fighter "B" fights 10 times. All ten are contenders but are ordinary at best. Fighter B dominates and destroys most of them. He's flashy and crowd-pleasing with vicious power. He's never an underdog.

Applying ceteris paribus, Who would you lean toward to be the greater of the two?

 

Jones' superiority was gained through fighting poor opponents. For the most part anyway. If he stepped up his opposition then then his 'so called' superiority would have been tested, more so. Perhaps people would not have seen him as a dominating force had he fought tougher opposition. Which comes to the conclusion why he wasn't the underdog.

 

SH, I see your point. But what if fighter "B" outpointed fighter"A" back in '93?

 

First, I would lean towards fighter A in this hypothetical, but I don't think this really fits the Jones-Hopkins comparison.

Hopkins has Trinidad, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, De La Hoya, Holmes, Johnson, Echols, Joppy, Eastman, David Jackson, Vanderpool, etc.

Jones has Toney, Hopkins, Tarver, Hill, Ruiz, Griffin, Gonzales, Del Valle, Reggie Johnson, Sosa, Malinga, etc.

Hopkins' resume isn't any better IMO. Both beat their share of ordinary contenders, both beet some excellent fighters, both beat two ATG fighters (with Jones' wins over Toney and Hopkins being more impressive than B-Hop's wins over Trinidad and DLH).

Jones was more dominant and flashy, but he was so against what is IMO a better list of victims.

 

To proclaim Jones' magnificent skill and superiority is not the whole story. He didn't submit to enough tests. He lived on the dusty victories over Hopkins and Toney and later Ruiz and that IS enough to call him a great fighter... it is NOT enough to launch him up where Robinson (the elite) is or where Leonard (top 15) is.

This is not directed at you necessarily Robbi, but Jones is being given a pass for 9 years -his prime years, between Toney and Ruiz. Nine years of not fighting the best. Nine years of avoidance.

Sam Langford and his children begged to fight the best out there. In my opinion, Jones has not lived up to that mentality, and he has not carried on that old legacy of the great African American fighter. If you're going to look at top 20 all time, no one with Jones record of avoidance should be there. He should have faced the best he could. He didn't.

 

That is a good question, but it is not a stumbling block. If Fighter B outpointed Fighter A (let's say B was an unavenged loss), and then rested on his laurels for a decade, while Fighter A claimed blood-soaked victories over live guys, then A should still better than B in terms of greatness, though not in H2H.

(This is not coded language for Jones and Hopkins necessarily...)

 

I Fully agree, he has no place inside the top 25 IMO. However, going back to your initial list, you had Hopkins over Jones, and just because he isn't of the Robinson, Langford, Leonard level (obviously), doesn't mean he is not greater than Hopkins. He beat better fighters than Hopkins, is that not the key criteria for determining greatness?

 

I'm not convinced that Hopkins' conquests are less than Jones, and if so that they are less enough to overcome the other deficits of Jones (avoidance, 2 devestating stoppages -unavenged) and the continuing saga of Hopkins (who has serious victories after 40).

(For what it's worth, I'm impressed with your argumentation. Good stuff. We haven't went any rounds yet but I always appreciate intelligence in the opposite corner.)

 

It's been an interesting debate, I'm arguing against a high ranking of one of my absolute favorite fighters ever, which is strange.

I think they're close in terms of conquests, but Toney is better than anything on Hopkins' resume IMO. As in the previous post I find that win plus wins over Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Ruiz, Gonzales, etc better than what Hopkins has.

Also, Hopkins could have fought the same men that Jones is accused of avoiding, and if the argument is that he was a middleweight his entire career until recently and beat everyone there in that 10 year span of champion, then I think Jones should be given considerable credit for moving through divisions, beating Hopkins at 160, becoming the best at 168, and while not linear champion becoming in all likelyhood the best at 175. I also don't believe Jones outright ducked DM, as it probably went both ways, but in terms of greatness you are correct that he should have made the fight happen. Also, I think Ruiz gets underrated now. It is not his best win, and yes he was the easiest of the top heavyweights for Jones to beat, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavyweight at the time and Jones, 30lbs above his previously higher weight, outclassed him. It's not some massive achievement like some of his fans try to argue given the level of the opponent, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavy and he wasn't even competitive against a natural 168lbs man.

Jones has never overcome adversity, a serious mark on his legacy, but in reverse of your view, Hopkins has only challenged himself against one physically larger man (whom despite the losses in the 2nd and 3rd fight, Jones did beat in their first meeting), where as Roy was arguably the smaller man in all of his lightheavyweight fights as well as against Ruiz and for a lengthy time dominated these physically bigger men.

Your arguments have puersuaded me to having it closer than I did previously (which makes me happy), but I still rate Roy higher. I don't think Hopkins' remarkable success past his prime in contrast to Jones poor showings past his own is enough to overlook the fact that prime for prime Jones was for the most part more dominant against a slightly higher level of competition, several of these men being bigger than him as compared to the one naturally bigger man Hopkins beat.

To each his own though, If you think Hopkins is greater you have made an excellent argument as to why, and it's downright shocking to me that I'm on the Jones side of this.

 

Lewis faced everyone that's true, but I don't think the fighters on his resume are more impressive than the fighters on Jones' resume.

Furthermore, whilst Lewis did avenge his losses, Jones' losses came at a later stage in his career when avenging them was not the task it was for Lewis.

Quite frankly, that Lewis got sparked twice by journeymen in or near his prime is a lot more damaging for his legacy than what Jones' losses at the tail end of his career are.

Lewis' struggles with Mercer and an old Evander Holyfield in their rematch also have to be taken into account. Jones struggled all of once in his prime, against Montell Griffin, and was on the verge of knocking him out in any case when he got DQ'ed.

 

The Hill fight was already addressed -he avoided Dariusz and Nunn. Outrightly. Tarver easily took the series against Jones -and no one confuses him with great. Ruiz was impressive, but he was not only made to order, he fought precisely the fight he should have had he wanted to lose. I don't want to nitpick. Jones has some solid wins... but we agree it's not enough to put him in the top 20.

I strongly, strongly suspect that Jones was on steroids. And I have since the Pazienza fight. BOTH of them were in that bout. If you have a clear tape, watch it. I believe that Jones was roided more so than I believe that Holyfield was!

Dariusz wanted nothing more than to fight Roy Jones. Jones called the shots and left him alone. "It's my great aim to face Roy Jones jr," said he. I believed him.

Hopkins is 43 and still fighting elite guys. Jones fought Trinidad for crying out loud. A worn-out WELTERWEIGHT. I'll tell you this much, if Jones beats Calzaghe, I will be impressed. (Roid) Jones fought big -and vulnerable- guys. Many will tell you that they were easier than the smaller guys he avoided.

Before Pavlik, I wouldn't have argued it. After Calzaghe-Jones, my thinking may be pre-Pavlik!

PS/I'll encourage to reflect further on his placement at #3. Consider your own arguments and take a good hard look at Hearns -to begin with. Without getting to literal, think about the Fighter "A" vs. Fighter "B" in terms of greatness.