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

I don't see much mystery or peculiarity in it.

Jones looked terrific in September 2002 beating Clinton Woods, then six months later (March 2003) he went up 20 pounds and beat Ruiz. It's hard to tell from a heavyweight fight whether he was slowed down or less sharp, but it was a good performance. Then in November 2011 he came back down to 175 and looked drained and diminished scraping past Tarver with a disputed decision. Six months later (May 2004) Tarver knocks him out, and Johnson beats him up and knocks him out four months after that (September 2004). RJJ is 35 years old at this time, and had been a professional 15 years.

That's what happened. He didn't necessarily 'become mediocre overnight'. He declined quite quickly, and was facing world class opponents, and messing around with his fighting weight.

Antonio Tarver didn't even turn pro until 1997. His career, rise, decline and fall, is a different story to RJJ's.

Glen Johnson turned pro as a middleweight in 1993, fighting 4-rounders, when RJJ was already established as a top contender in that division.


We know for a fact that RJJ outboxed Hopkins clearly in 1993, and schooled Toney in 1994, and looked untouchable against a mixture of mediocre to decent and good opposition for years.
It seems obvious that he declined quickly in 2003 - 2004 and afterwards as he was in his mid-30s, rather than the opposing view that his whole career prior to that was some sort of fluke or illusion and that it took the world 15 years to 'find out'.

 

absolutely agree :thumbsup roy ALWAYS relied more on physical talents than technical skill

floyd mayweather has the technical skills to compensate when his speed and reflexes leave him, same for hopkins

but what about terry norris or meldrick taylor? they didn't and they suffered for it

it's clear that roy was not the same fighter post ruiz. as you noted, the weight loss had a major effect on him. he struggled hard with tarver and needed a TON of heart to win (albeit clearly). in the end, it's clear that that was the worst performance in roy jones career. if he dominated tarver in the first and then lost to tarver and johnson, sure. but he didn't and it was clear to all he lost a lot of what he was

we need to judge roy the same way we do every other fighter: jack johnson lost 7 of his last 9, 7 of amstrong's loses came post zivic, tyson was not the same post prison. why do these fighters get judged on their primes but not jones?

what if barney ross, 28 i belive when armstrong trounced him, continued fighting and was the poorer for it? would we re-evaluate his entire career? of course not

we should do the same for jones

 

On a related note John, from a few years back.


http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129530

 

He's #1 clearly

 

What "technical skills" does Mayweather and Hopkins have that Roy doesn't?

 

Perfectly put.

How many fighters can you really name who's prime spans 4-5 weightclasses and into their mid-30s.Not many.

As for the Ruiz fight, it was a great win and showed how crap Ruiz was in the face of real talent.But roughly light-heavy\cruiser sized fighters have beaten just as good and better heavies plenty of times.It's the kind of win that further confirms what kind of talent Jones had, not the kind that suddenly propels a fighter into "da top ten of all-time!", but definitely strengthens his arguement for a high rating when all is said and done.

Then that fat ******* Toney further showed how mediocre and vulnerable the 00's crop of heavies really were to a genuine talent.Even one far out of his element.

 

I think this was an interesting point:

Many people were in awe of Roy's win over Ruiz in the immediate aftermath, but would they have held it in the same regard after Toney moved up and did roughly the same thing?

 

Lets have it right, anything after the tarver ko shouldn't be held against him (even that I wouldn't because he had notably slipped by then).

This isn't just an rjj thing, any fighter that slips shouldn't have those losses held against them, not by me anyways.

I look at a fighters losses only during what I perceive to be their prime. Anything else can only add to a legacy for me.

 

he had and still has the defense that relies almost solely on his own reflexes. now that he has slipped and those reflexes are not what they used to be he's getting tagged. I watched him get hit with shots from calzaghe that he never would have gotten touched with in his prime

 

in the end if you look at Roy for his first 50 or so fights youd be really really hard pressed to find 10 fighters better than him. if you are going to rank Mickey Walker ahead of him I don't blame you but it's likely based on resume and not footage or pure skill level

 

Even if this were true, this would still raise questions about his durability and resilience, given that he could be ruined so quickly by a single KO punch.

However, Roy still showed much of his old speed and flair in the 3rd Tarver fight - see here:

[yt]GPP9ffqGYHk[/yt]

...yet he basically just "quit" after Tarver threatened his chin a few times. To me, that's a big stain on his legacy, perhaps even more than any of his KO losses.

Johnson has given almost everyone he ever fought trouble, even well after his prime. Why would you be so certain that he couldn't give any to Roy if they fought only a year or so earlier?

 

Nothing in particular, John. Just the same topic from before some of Roy's recent losses.

 

is that Joe Frazier checking tysons hands in your avatar?

 

You didn't answer the question. I don't think you understand how reflex based Mayweather's defense is based on. Lead hand is at his waist with his weight anchored down.