I just read that Bert Sugar has Roy Jones 88th on his greatest fighters list

Still, titles from MW to HW, dominated 175 etc. Never lost during his prime.

 

and NEVER defeated a unified, undisputed, or linear champion in his whole career. It is also arguable that he was never THE champion of any division he fought in. He was a belt collector not a legacy collector. :deal

 

Same old story of present day fighters that will never be considered as great as old time fighters because there is some unexplainable reverence for the old school boxers. Probably some nostalgia involved on the part of Bert also the guy is probably old enough to remember Dempsey.

 

Then why the fcuk does he have Dempsey at 10??? RJJ achieved more than him.

 

I see you have the WBC supermiddleweight champ as your avatar,thats wassup :good

 

I think 'quality of opposition' ie beating other great fighters influenced him alot. JCC is at 17, B-Hop is at 91. What defining factor catapults Chavez 74 places ahead of Hopkins?

 

thing is these lists are always subjective



roy jones though was simply awesome in his prime. AWESOME. his wins and the manner and style of those wins such as over toney, hopkins, malinga, mcallum, griffin, Hill, kelly, woods and ruiz easily makes it into top 25 for me

 

My previous post is the reason:

"Same old story of present day fighters that will never be considered as great as old time fighters because there is some unexplainable reverence for the old school boxers. Probably some nostalgia involved on the part of Bert also the guy is probably old enough to remember Dempsey."

It is not fair but it always happens on ESB when we come up with these ATG lists and rank old school fighter with modern day ones.

 

List is an old fruitcake.
Roy beats nearly all of those people from middle to light heavy weight and even some guys at the higher weights.

 

Exactly, prime for prime, who on that list from MW to LHW do you favor over him?

Not a whole lot. I love Chavez, but it's an insult to have Chavez at 17, and Roy at 88.

Prime for Prime RJJ would make Rocky Marciano look stupid in the ring, he'd box circles around him.

 

I think you're playing Devils Advocate there, considering Jack Dempsey is top 10.

I love Dempsey but I don't see a case for him being top 100 ever, in a combined list of talent and achievements.

 

Who cares what Bert Sugar thinks?

 

Yeah, we seem to be on the same page on this one.

I give Jones a lot of points for ability. OK, he wasn't as well-rounded or versatile or complete as guys like Leonard or Whitaker, but he is not far behind at all in terms of overall effectiveness because his plan A was just so so damn good. Jones was not yet at his peak at 160, yet I'd still expect his speed to prove too much for many great middleweights. I'd back only the real cream of the crop (Monzon, Hagler, Robinson) to beat him h2h there. At 175 I'm inclined to think the same, the absolute proven elite lhw's would probably edge him as I'm not sure Roy was really at his best up there, I wouldn't back him to beat Michael Spinks or Foster, but again I do consider him to be one of the top few fighters ever there in h2h terms. To have one fighter so high in two of the deepest and strongest weight divisions is something special, I can only think of Ray Robinson (welter/middle) and Roberto Duran (light/welter) off the top of my head that I rate as highly h2h in two of the traditional weight classes - that's some company to keep (I'm sure there are others if we all had a think, Henry Armstrong, Barney Ross etc, but the point is they are few and far between, especially from the last 50 years IMO).

I give Jones extra points again for my perception of his abilities at supermiddle. For me, this was the optimum fighting weight for Jones, whose muscularity was a little too much for 160 but whose frame was a little small/short for a top class lightheavy. Unfortunately, there wasn't much serious competition around 168 by 1996 and RJJ muscled his way up to 175, but the fights he did have 94-96 at 168 suggest to me a very special fighter indeed. Again I would note I don't quite have him on the Whitaker, Leonard, Duran or Robinson level, but he was only a fraction behind. For all I know, the 168 Jones may have been as effective as those guys, but I can't justify placing him among them in my mind because of his comp at that weight. Toney was definitely weight-drained, but that is pretty much irrelevant in my book because the gap between Roy and James was so vast that a sharper Toney would not have made a great difference, he still would not have been able to deal with the Superman speed. In the rest of Roy's supermiddle fights he looked truly sensational, so I go with my gut and say he was a timelessly brilliant fighter there, even though the rest of his opposition was a little dubious. It's not as if he was merely beating them after all, it was thoroughly boom-bastic walkover demolition derbies in a Superman style!!!

So that's my take on Jones's ability.

On his pound-for-pound rating, I do drop him a bit lower than the top 15 berth his ability deserves, but to have him around my top 30 is still a very high rating IMO.

Roy achieved some really great things (4 weight world champ, a heavyweight belt, 49-1 with one DQ when he was close to victory in his first 50 fights, strong reign as p4p#1) and he beat some quality fighters (Toney when he was p4p#2, Hopkins, Montell Griffin, Virgil Hill), and I do think his resume is better than is often said, it's one of the best of the era, but is it the resume of a top 25 of all-time fighter? Despite my obvious affection for the man, I have to say no.

I suppose the issue that will divide many is the perception of the heavyweight belt. If you think of it like:

"Roy Jones was the first man in 100+ years to win belts at middle and heavy, he put on almost 20lbs, fought a proven world level heavyweight while giving away around 30lbs and dominated him for a UD."

Then you will give a TITANIC amount of credit to Jones for an incredible feat. And there certainly is some merit to that viewpoint.

However, a sceptic could easily view it as:

"John Ruiz was never a very good heavyweight fighter, and he sure as hell didn't fight like one on the night either. He was handpicked because he didn't have formidable speed and power, and Jones never fought at the weight again. An overweight James Toney replicated Jones's performance against Ruiz not long after, showing that it wasn't the stunning achievement it appeared to be."

If you think that, you will likely give Jones far less credit and have a different view of his career.

I think, and I have thought about it a lot, that my opinion is closer to the second viewpoint than the first. On paper, it's a fantastic achievement. In reality, I genuinely don't think Ruiz was a good enough opponent to herald Jones's win as an all-time milestone. It was a good win and a good achievement, but I don't rate it as highly as say, Toney's win over Jirov where the physically disadvantaged man was took into a real fight by the top man in the division and triumphed.

In conclusion, Jones is top 15 for me on ability, maybe higher, could easily be top 10 if I ever sat down and actually produced a list. P4P, I'd say around 30. He beat some quality fighters, but just not quite enough to be in contention for a top 20 or top 25 place.

Anyone care to retort? :good

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Marciano would brutally KO Roy in 2 or 3 rounds if that long. We need a Roy Jones fan quote of the week.