I don't get the Roy Jones Jr. Adoration

A guy like Hagler fought for 14 years, was a dominant champ, lost a close decision, and quit.

A guy like Jones fought for 14 years, was a dominant champ, got wasted in two rounds, and then fought another 14 years as basically a mediocre fighter.

I'm sorry, but THAT impacts how you are remembered. If you are mediocre for as long or longer than you were great, that changes things in peoples' minds.

I watched Jones coming up as an amateur. I saw the robbery in Seoul LIVE. I watched his whole ride. I remember when he was considered possibly the best ever in 2003 after winning a portion of the heavyweight title. And people like me tend to want to FORGET the rest. But others who came to the sport 15 years ago, have watched Jones fight the entire time they've followed the sport and he hasn't been very good at all during that time.

And 15 years is a long time to be pretty mediocre to bad, and still be praised as some untouchable great.

For basically half his career, Roy Jones was pretty average to bad.

That's nobody's fault but Roy Jones'.

If he'd retired after Ruiz or even the first Tarver fight, he'd probably be sitting at the #P4P all time spot.

Now, he's not even in the picture. Because you can't pretend the last 15 years didn't happen. It's not like he retired and came back. He's never retired. He's fought the whole time. And he's been pretty bad now for the "majority" of his career. That sucks, but it's true. And it's his own fault.

 

He was the real deal for 10 plus years.

If anything, the guy he easily conquered, James Toney, is the one who is overrated.

To compare him to Hameed is laughable.

Jones had much better defense than him.

Toney was an all around skilled guy with great fundamentals and he could barely touch prime Jones.

 

I look at Roy Jr. taking out Virgil Hill with a single right hand to the body (breaking ribs) ... and Hill is only stopped twice in like 60-something fights (the other being way past it 6 years later when he quit on his stool) ... or blasting out Sugar Boy Malinga with a quick combo right after Malinga had given fits to Nigel Benn (who he would then beat after losing to Roy) and Chris Eubank ... and making these look so easy that he’s almost bored.

And on and on.

His speed? There’s video of him landing three left hooks on a double-end bag in 1 second.

If Roy wasn’t overworldly, I don’t know who was.

 

From the Sugar Boy Malinga fight through Mike McCallum, he was simply unstoppable. After the small DQ hiccup against an obviously faking Montell Griffin, he absolutely decimates Griffin in the rematch. Best rematch turnaround since Schmelling-Louis. And, the way he destroys the normally durable and much bigger Virgil Hill was shockingly impressive. It wasn't until HBO allowed him the easier Light Heavy defenses that he showed even the slightest signs of weakness.

 

He was never protected after he'd split from his father.

 

It's a myth that he avoided tough fights.

 

True enough.

There were also people saying that he had an all time chin.

Things got a bit silly around then!

 

It was very frustrating that those fights didn't materialise, but half of them simply weren't viable.

Roy still had some great wins.

The Griffin win was outstanding. He knocked out a very good fighter with a lead uppercut in under a round.

Hill was past his best, but nobody else knocked Hill out in 60 fights.

He toyed with a good fighter in Reggie Johnson.

He beat Toney with absolute ease.

In my honest opinion, due to the circumstances, his greatest win was against Tarver.

 

Only by the ignorant or the uninformed.

 

Did that change people's view of Willie Pep's greatness?

 

I understand what you're saying. But who's going to value a persons opinion on Roy, if:

1. They don't possess any in depth knowledge of his career?

2. They're not intelligent enough to put his last 15 years into context?


You cannot undo what's already been done.

At the end of the day, he's not going to tarnish his legacy with any knowledgeable person who's affiliated with the sport.

 

What this tells me is that you are judging career management not greatness. Marciano, for one, had a clever short career. He saw his window, grabbed it for 6 or 7 years, and got out. Does he look so great if he sticks around for another 7 years?

And again, do we judge Langford on his defeats to guys like Bill Tate, Lee Anderson and Flynn or does he remain one of the very few greatest fighters ever?

BTW, I'm the same age as Roy and followed him from '88, too, so remember well his career.

 

"Of course General leans toward the opposite."

Frankly I don't think they're even close to commensurate.

Here in the classics section, the attention to logical implications of an argument, the care to separate propositional content from emotive content while maintaining that both have value, the careful insistence on empirical evidence where available and responsible speculation where it's not, and genuine caution and curiosity regarding possible alternate hypotheses are honestly all as good or better than in a lot of the academic forums I frequent.

Not so in the general section. Not even close. Not even close to close.
There, they almost seem to go out of their way to confirm every stereotype an ivory tower egghead might have about lowbrow boxing fans.

 

Yeah general is a cesspool of racial bias, ignorance and hype.

How great Roy was can be questioned. How good he was from 94-99 can't. Not really. Alot of people say he was the best they've ever seen live

 

In the mid 90s, Roy was the best on the planet. For his size, his hand speed was incredible. The fact you compare him in that department to Meldrick Taylor, on of the fastest ever, and Ali, the fastest HW, show just how elite Roy was in that department.

Did he get away with unorthodox, often lackluster, defense due to his athleticism? Yes. Did he suffer for that deficiency once the reflexes faded? Certainly.