Is Roy underrated, due to his quite sudden drop off ? He didn’t stay long at 160 for example but showed his quality there, is he even odds against the very best middles ? Who would you favour over him at 168? People forget what a good puncher he was, and overstate his ‘weak chin’ imo. He was 49-1, essentially 50-0 barring a disqualification, at 34 and a 4 weight world champion having beaten Toney, McCallum, Castro, Hopkins, Johnson, Tarver. If we consider his career only up to age 34 is that not a top 10 or 15 resume ?
You can ride a surf board on the amount of glaze RJJ gets around here. It's not unwarranted, he was a very special fighter. But some dudes think he'd walk on water if only he didn't turn it to wine first.
Ha ha, not heard that one before. I think he’s done a bit dirty for his past prime fights though, when you think that most fighters are shot at 34,35. For a fighter who supposedly relied on reflexes rather than fundamentals, Jones did pretty well in terms of longevity
People who weren't around don't remember but until he was 34 years old, past the age when guys like Marciano and Dempsey and Tunney and Armstrong had retired, at an age where Robinson started going life and death against guys like Basilio, Ralph Jones and Fullmer, he was in the argument as the GOAT, people were comparing him to Robinson with a straight face and reasonable arguments. He had barely lost a round his whole career, clowning other elite fighters, barely breaking a sweat against future HOF'ers, going from middle to heavy in an era riddled with 220+ lb hulks. His fatal flaw, legacy wise, was betting too long on his otherworldly reflexes and speed, because when those started to erode the advantage he held over everyone did as well. A+ for everything boxing related. D for career management.
Great fighter but we will never know how much PEDs helped his career. Must have been significant or he wouldn't have been using them. Same with Holyfield and Floyd.
It goes back and forth. I really wish Jones had retired after the first Tarver fight. His record would have been incredible
I got into boxing as a teenager in the 90s and he was unlike any other figher. It's kind of hard to describe, but p4p there was Roy, a gap and then ... everyone else. I do think he gets a bit of a hard time. He was 49-1 before he started losing. Had barely lost a round. One flash knockdown. Never any concerns in the chin department. His style was built on insane speed and reflexes and once they faded, the whole system collapsed. People often forget that he was pushing 35 when he lost to Tarver, which is pretty old for a reflexes based fighter. And the fact that he carried on for SO long after made the impression worse - Roy effectively had two careers, one good, one very bad. So I do think he gets underrated in some quarters. Peak Jones IMO is right up there with the best of them. And would fairly comfortably handle the guys he lost to when he was past his best, some of whom came to feast on his carcass once the threat was gone.
I agree, all fighters are different and I don’t think it’s fair to judge a fighter like Jones on his twilight years, he basically boxed ‘too long’ in terms of legacy but what he did in his prime was enough to put him right up there with the best imo. Hopkins for instance although he beat Roy and had great longevity, any version wouldn’t have a chance of beating a prime Roy.
