Is Roy Jones the best fighter ever?

To me, yes in his prime he was the bester fighter ever in the sport. Because of his speed and timing.

 

I know that Duran has suffered criticism for certain parts of his career. But I'm focusing on his late losses. Nobody seems to care about them, because people see them for what they are. Again, you can't simply discount them, but you have to put them into context.

It's not about wearing rose tinted glasses. Roy's career should be objectively an*alysed in the same manner as everyone else's, using the same criteria. I'm a huge fan, but it doesn't bother me if somebody else doesn't rate him as high as what I do. Not as long as they're objective and their opinions are logical. But again, you seem to focus solely on the negative aspects of his career.

Why are the manner of defeats so important, if they happened when he was way past his best? Also, like I've mentioned previously, a knockout isn't as bad as getting beaten up etc. If Lebedev had beaten Roy up until the ref stepped in, that would have been a worse defeat than Lebedev knocking him out in the final round of a competitive fight. But the point is, when someone discusses Roy's greatness, instead of you debating his skills and his accomplishments etc, you jump straight in and mention his losses to Lebedev and Green etc.

With regards to Roy's downfall, I think it was a due to a culmination of things.


:good

 

Well its not that he was at a disadvantage at 175, he racked up a lot of impressive wins at that weight. But it definitely wasnt his best weight class. He was more of a killer at 160/168.

When he fought tarver, obviously the inital weight drain from HW to LHW affected him. However you still have to hold those two losses to tarver and johnson against him even if he was "past prime"

 

:good

Every fighter should be an*lysed in the same manner, using the same criteria.

 

Number 3 for me

 

Nice post. Foxy has a problem with objectivity when Calzaghe and Lewis are involved. It seems to extend to fighters they beat who many think rival or surpass them in accomplishments i.e. Jones vis a vis Calzaghe.

 

The larger fight is irrelevant Roy was shot at that point. As for Griffin Roy lost a few rounds when Roy was clowning and then KO'd him. Not the same as the very competitive 12 round fights Pernell had with Rivera and Paez. You can make the argument for Pernell being top 5 but not equal or above Roy

The judges had it right Oscar beat Pernell soundly

 

You totally miss the point again, so I'll try top make it easy for you.

This thread is discussing whether or not Jones might be the best ever. So now name me another fighter who might be in the top 5 of the draw in the last 40 years who was comatosed in the way Jones was , and again it wasn't just the once.

It really isn't that difficult. Instead of crying to me about not being objective about your beloved Jones, name a fighter who might be considered the G.O.A.T that was fuked like that in their career. Not lost, or stopped. I mean totally fuked like he was twice, not to mention being one shot KO'd by Tarver.

TBH your assertion that it is worse to be thoroughly outclassed than put to sleep, is frankly no more than a desperate attempt to justify a fighter losing that way in whom you have a unhealthy interest. Or are you saying it was far worse for Jones to be completely humiliated by Calzaghe, than it was to be KTFO by Johnson, Lebedev, and Tarver?


:good

 

Does it still hurt you that badly that Calzaghe, totally clowned a " good ole Murican boy " ? :rofl

I have neither the time nor the inclination to check but I'd bet it would either be you or Loudon that first mentioned Joe in this thread.

Strange that when you think about it.

 

It ridiculous to rate a fighter based on him not retiring

 

Rating Calzahges win over Jones is like rating Lewis win over Tyson, but thats kind of common place in this forum where it doesnt matter if it was an upright corpse fighting their hero. Calzahge was very good fighter and had a great run but his resume is full of Basura if you know what I mean. He was no Roy Jones in his prime not even close.

 

No it's worse than that really, Lewis was past prime and older than Tyson who was past it granted.

Jones was comparatively a corpse

 

Foxy 01,

I'm not missing the point.

IMHO, Roy hasn't got the resume to be declared the GOAT. But everyone's criteria is different, and despite him being knocked out when he was older, there's some people who think he was the GOAT when he was in his prime. And I get that.

Let us assume for a minute, that Roy had a better resume than he has, but his career still ended in the same manner. What if Roy had beaten all the great MW's of the early 90's, plus DM, Liles, Benn, Hopkins II, and Calzaghe etc, but then he still lost to the likes of Lebedev at 42? Then what? Would you still point to those defeats and use them to block his gateway to be named alongside the greatest fighters of all time? It's as though you simply don't care what he achieved, and are just fixated on his defeats.

I agree with you that even fighters who were past their best, didn't repeatedly get knocked out. But they were sensible and called it a day, while Roy just carries on. But you can't undo what's already been done. But again, the issue I have with you, is that you jump straight on his defeats. You don't debate his wins and his accomplishments, you just jump in head first with 'You can't rate him that high, because he lost to...'

I know that you're not objective. What difference does it make if he was knocked out or not? Marciano who you've labelled a crude slugger, knocked Joe Louis out of the ring. Ali lost to Berbick and Spinks. Tyson quit against McBride. The Tarver loss hurts his career, but he has a win over him, and anyone can get caught. Roy has only been down and out twice. Once to Johnson, from a temple shot, and once to a big punching CW, when he was in his 40's. No, I can't give you a list of who else got knocked out like Roy did. Which means what exactly? That Roy can't be discussed with other ATG's?

How is it desperate?

It all depends on the circumstances.

The Tarver loss hurt him bad, because he was still regarded as the pound for pound best at that point.

The Johnson loss also hurt him, but he was clearly losing the fight even before the stoppage, and it was clearly apparent that Roy was completely finished at the top level.

The Calzaghe loss wasn't relevant, because it was a cash out fight for Joe against a guy who was almost 40, who'd suffered back to back defeats four years earlier, and who Joe had claimed was shot. The defeat looked worse for Joe, when he could have pursued Pavlik or Dawson instead. Just check out the comments on this forum, or any other when the subject is being discussed. Joe gets heavily criticised from the majority of fight fans. Even some of his own fans don't give him credit for it.

The Levedev fight was also irrelevant, for the reasons discussed earlier.


:good

 

:good

 

:good