If RJ hung'em up after breezing past Ruiz...

Well then he'd be enveloped in something similar to what Mike Tyson would have been had the 'baddest man on the planet' retired after turning Michael Spinks into a hazardous rug.

You would hear some lofty praise, most of which would stem from the overexcited legions. Every now and then a respectable opinion would get light-headed and sandwich him in between the all-time elite.

The fact he didn't fight Bernard Hopkins when the latter was at his geriatric best would continue to singe his ledger.

However, as has already been mentioned, his worth in mythical head-to-head bouts would be near impenetrable with that decision to retire safeguarding his mandible like a Spartan shield.

 

So, are some of you actually knocking RJJ down your rankings for what he did in his career after the age of 34 and after years as a top-level (and almost untouchable) fighter ?

 

You found stuff out about the old, shot 35yo + Jones' chin. The prime Jones chin, if we don't know enough about it, is because he rarely got hit.

RJJ had ample longevity as a primed fighter (the Hopkins win was in 1993, the Ruiz win a whole ten years later), so I don't know what sort of standards would penalize him for eventually slipping off. I can't think of many great fighters who maintained a prime longer, starting from a similar age.
All fighters decline. It's not as if he'd just come on the scene a couple of years earlier.

I think his resume is a bit lacking to put him in the very top echelon. But losses that happened to him when he was old and shot should be disregarded. Same as with any fighter.

 

Sort of.

I remember that a lot of people assumed that Jones had a solid chin before the Tarver fight.

 

He's already ranked well past superstars such as Ali, Joe Louis, SRL, and even Dempsey.

Altho he doesnt have the wins of a Greb or Monzon, he gets a free pass based on what he's demonstrated in the ring (most debilitating body puncher ever, fastest hands, best footwork, etc)

dominating 3 weight classes also makes a strong case for him.

 

this is a fair assessment. ive never thought of it that way myself but the first tarver loss SHOULD count againt him. past that though, for me, his wins and losses havr a basically negligible impact on his standing

 

IMO, the OP's question is inherently flawed. If a fighter is reliant upon retiring at a particular time in order to gain or preserve a certain legacy, his claim to that legacy must surely be shaky to begin with. It would suggest that his rating is based as much on image or perception as actual achievements.

Fighters like Robinson, Greb, and Langford are widely considered to be certified top 5 material regardless of one or two extra wins or a few less losses. They continually reinforced their legacies all through their careers. In fact, in many cases an ATG has actually enhanced his legacy by fighting past his prime. For example, Robinson's post-prime wins over Fullmer and Basilio enabled him to win the MW title a record 5th and 6th time, and Ali's win over Spinks made history by winning the HW title a 3rd time.

Even if Roy had retired immediately after the Ruiz fight, it still wouldn't have resolved a number of the questions dogging his legacy, and may even have raised some new ones. For starters, it means he would've never fought Tarver, which means he would've retired without having fought either of his two most standout rivals at that weight (the other being Dariusz). On top of that, his level of competition during the nearly ten years in between the Toney and Ruiz fights left a lot to be desired IMO. Even the two best names he fought during that stretch (McCallum and Hill) were both past their primes and recovering from punishing losses (though to be fair, Hill was apparently still good enough to score a few good wins afterward). By contrast, look at the wins that Robinson, Greb, or Langford compiled during similar stretches in their careers.

There are a host of other things Roy did (and didn't do) that left a bad taste in my mouth - the positive steroid test, balking at the prospect of fighting Dariusz even though he was his most standout rival until Tarver, agreeing to fight Jirov and then backing out once Jirov agreed, and simply "asking" for a title to be stripped from Rocchigiani and handed to him. Ironically, Roy also had a chance to prove he could decisively beat Tarver back when he was still at his peak, but instead he asked the IBF to arrange a "final eliminator" for Tarver. Now, the best Roy ever proved he could do against Tarver was one razor-thin win in three fights.

 

I agree.

I also think it's notable that the vast majority of Roy's losses were to similarly aged fighters at advanced stages of their careers. He wasn't getting outhustled and outstamina'd by young and vibrant fighters, he was getting KO'd and/or technically outclassed by old and tired fighters.

Frankly, I think failing to last more than a single round against a 36-year old Danny Green is embarrassing no matter what the circumstances - especially since a similarly aged Tarver was able to withstand his best punches and trounce him.

 

Well those ko losses were against contemporaries. It wasn't as if Jones was facing juggernauts who were 23 year old can't miss prospects.

Getting ko'd by guys in their mid 30's and never known for their power sure doesn't provide a go directly to go and collect $200 card. Suffering ko defeats to the up and comers gives a guy more of a free pass, but anyway you want to slice it, it is still bad losses we are talking about.

And personally, I think asking a guy to come out of a Tarver bout and then a Glen Johnson bout is not really asking all that much. Especially if you are claiming it was an alltime great fighter being asked to not get stopped by those 35 year olds. I don't see that as any sort of mountain to climb, even with diminished skills.

 

in jones' defense, some fighters diminish at different speeds.

when duran was "shot", he was still a tremendous fighter who could put it together on the right night

when benitez was shot, he was a walking corpse who could barely make it to the ring.

mugabi was the same, ezzard charles could go toe to toe with one of the best of all time in marciano then lost more fights then he won for the rest of his career, julian jackson post mcclellan, etc.

jones' speed and chin, when they were gone they were GONE. i don't think his post tarver chin or ability is very reflective of what he was/would have been in his prime. if it were, he would have been knocked down more (ala gamboa/tito) or knocked out by the decent punchers he faced

i'm personally inclined to believe that after tarver 2, he was shot quick...very very quick. his speed, reflexes, chin, power all seemed to abandon him at once. unless someone actually believes, for one second, that johnson would have given him any real trouble in his prime

 

I understand the contrary view, but I'd personally disregarded what happened in 2004 and since.
I do believe RJJ declined very quickly, and that was probably accelerated by his moving up and back down in weight at age 34/35.
His ten straight years as a primed title-holder (most of which he would have been regarded as #1 pound-for-pound) is enough to judge him on.
It's actually remarkable that a fighter who relies so much on speed and reflexes would maintain that until he was 33 or 34 anyway.

 

But where was the wear and tear to cause the massive plummeting of skills? And if his reflexes aren't the same, isn't he capable of compensating? Great drops down to very good, then good. I don't buy into great fighters to mediocre overnight. That's reserved for good fighters to mediocre. We're talking a quantum leap in abilities here. And lets not forget guys like Johnson and Tarver were no spring chickens themselves. Since neither were great, why wasn't it a case of their chins showing the deterioration? why wasn't it a case of their poor reflexes being exposed?

And I happen to think Glen Johnson goes the distance with Roy at any point in time. His style does not cooperate with what Jones likes his opponents to do. And just who held Tarver at all that high of esteem when they fought? And just who thought of him as a hitter?