again, weak dude, very weak. so, quick recap, Jones is no legend because he didn't take risks? Okay. so if had beaten some 40 year old fighters who had recent losses then that would be okay for you? Can you please define what you would consider a risk? I'm using Calzaghe as an example here as even though I like him he's an easy target, but just to be straight... Calzaghe fighting Jones who's not had an impressive win since being the first man to move from middle to heavy in over 100 years and then moving back down 20lb's to defend his title is a risk?
I consider Roy Jones Junior a legend in the ring, and I dont use that word lightly In his prime he was a genius at boxing
Calzaghe was no spring chicken himself. He made the fights no matter how old the opposistion. Jones did not. End of story. The laughable thing is Calzaghe is essentially a British version of Jones yet people criticize him and not Jones. Jones HANDPICKED John Ruiz. Lennox Lewis was THE Heavyweight Champion not Ruiz. Oh, and James toney had no problem moving uop and beating Ruiz which made Roy's accomplishment look a lot less stellar. Matter of fact there are several Light Heavyweights/Cruiserweights that I would pick to beat ruiz the guy has no power and no skill. All you have to do is box him. The guy can't fight for ****.
Ye see, Ive never quite understood this way of thinking.... 1. You cant undo what a fighter did in his prime. 2. Nobody ever beat father-time, nobody. With those 2 FACTS above, a legacy should never be brought into question if the fighter is such a fighter at heart that he keeps going on when past his prime, if anything, it shows what they are really made of inside & how much they actually love the sport, their passion. Perhaps a part-time boxing fan might catch the last couple of fights of a legends career & glance at his record & see 8 losses or so & think `****, he doesnt look that good to me`.... not taking time to realise that 6 or so of those losses came at the end of his career & the guys that gave him them would be swept aside with ease if the man was in his prime. Duran-Joppy, Leonard-Camacho, Jones-Johnson, Ali-Berbick are just a few examples of many.... but real fans, full-time fans know the score & thats what matters. Botswana :smoke
One of the criteria for being considered a legend is fighting other great/P4Pers/HOFers in their peak, Jones faced Toney + Hopkins not only did he beat them he did it in very dominating fashion. Coupled with being a 4 weight champ winning A version of the heavy title against a top 5 heavy is an excellent accomplishment, to do that at 34 is an even more amazing accomplsihment. and then to become the 1st fighter in History to move back down to light Heavy and win the championship again at 35 is an exceptional feat. Jones was also P4P nr:1 four times by Ring magazine at different occasions thats unprecidented along with being regarded as the greatest of the 90's ...another thing to reconcile...Reberto Duran got schooled by Kirkland Lang .. pre 30 years of age. we are happy to forgive him and make excuses. Jones loses at 35 against a top guy Tarver...and his resume becomes tarnished.....go figure.
I'm just saying....Floyd like Roy have DOMINATED. Resumes are not STACKED like some expect given their abilities and talent. Even Roy doensn't have a resume like Leonard, Ali, Hearns or Duran. Not even close. Floyd has Castillo, Corales, DLH and JMM. It's not great but its a good resume. Again....Floyd and Roy are great based more on thier ability, talent and domiance....not what's on or NOT on their resume.
I agree with you.....What he did in his PRIME is just that....Accomplishments that can't be undone. But fighting past his best days without question resignates long after they are done fighting. ALI had he retired after the rematches with Frazier or after beating George would have been considered the greatest boxer all time....possibly out doing Ray Robinson, but it is what it is. People, boxing historians or experts take their entire career into consideration. Look at Evander....Had he retired after his fights with Bowe or Tyson his legacy would be a lot better in the eyes of many. And George did beat father time as did Nard!:good
Roy had legendary talents, and a all time great ego. But he never realized his full potential. When he handled Ruiz like a child, it looked as though we were going to see some amazing performances against some of the better Heavyweights of the day. But it was one and done. The guy was just too stingy with his incredible abilities. He didn't even really clear out the light heavyweight division. He was having fun toying with outclassed opponents, and calling himself "Superman", but even ordinary champions could beat Glen Kelly and Richard Frazier. Take a guy like Henry Armstrong. It was pretty obvious he was an incredible talent, and he used those talents to "wow" everyone. Winning world titles at 126, jumping to 147 and going back down to 135 , beating undisputed champions, all within a few months time. Even taking a shot at the middleweight champion! Now thats a legend. Possibly Roy could have accomplished even more, but now we'll never know. So can you really consider him a legend? Even saying he's a great champion is a streatch. He just didn't think he had that much to prove.
Roy was the best for about 13 years. To me he underachieved cz when i look at the matches he could have made and didnt I realise he actually didnt prove a lot by beating the Ruiz's. I would have like 2 c him re-match B-Hop when B-Hop was ruling the middleweight div. for example. If he'd stayed and ruled the mw's when the had we'd all be lookin at him as big a bigger legend than we do
you Sir are correct, Roy is all smoke and mirrors and not an ounce of SUBSTANCE TOP 30 MY ASS! a Flash in the Pan KTFO by Milk dud of all people.