'I've seen Ray Leonard, and Roy Jones is no Ray Leonard.'

I disagree that fighting the likes of Benn and Eubank improves his legacy because neither men are on the level of a Hearns,Hagler etc all the guys that Leonard had ..Plus no one would be usuing them as gatekeepers of Jones legacy especially over the likes of Toney and Hopkins ..

And Hopkins was the one who always wanted 50 -50 but he was in no position to call the shots if he was, he would of capitalized on that success but for yrs Hopkins struggled to make that marquee fight after Tito,luck for him it all changed with Oscar ..And I feel all close fights should have been rematched but thanks to politcis thats another rant

 

As others have mentioned, Tarver I was Jones winning a grueling fight. He was finished as a PfP No. 1, but no one knew it prior to that bout.

Not only that, the corollary to your argument is that Jones never *had* to dig deep (until Tarver), a testament to his greatness, not a detraction from it. Hopkins and Toney and Ruiz at HW would have tested nearly anyone, but Jones was in no trouble of losing those three fights at any time.

He was severely faded or outright shot in Tarver II and definitely shot against Johnson. Leonard didn't escape late-career embarrassments, either.

Now, the rundown of possible opponents:

1) Hopkins II -- Bernard wasn't any sort of draw until after Trinidad -- whom Jones was expected to fight -- and the two never could agree on terms. If Jones really wanted the fight, he could have offered parity, but if Hopkins really wanted the fight, he could have accepted 40%.

2) Toney II -- Toney had a very bad stretch post-Jones and didn't fully reestablish himself until the early part of this decade at Cruiser, then went up to heavy. There was never a major push for a rematch here.

3) Eubank -- The story goes that Jones wanted Eubank in the early 1990s, and that Eubank wouldn't give him a shot. Then, post-Toney, Eubank called out Jones looking for a payday as his career was winding down. Roy told him to **** off. Do you think that version of Eubank would have tested Jones?

4) Benn -- You can argue this one. Benn was too far ahead of Jones early in terms of weight, but reemerged as a major player after the victory over G-Man. He called out Jones, too, but I think you can still find links with Jones saying he didn't want the appearance of a revenge match (as he and McClellan were very close) immediately thereafter. The fight was considered a possibility for later, but Benn lost and was never the same. He'd have been destroyed by Jones at that point.

5) DM -- This fight had no push, as DM never established himself as a marketable fighter in the United States. If you want to blame Jones, you can say he should have tested himself abroad. If you want to defend him, you say he was subject to one of the worst robberies ever in the Olympics.

6) McClellan -- Ah, here is the one that's missing. Remember, Benn/McClellan was made in the aftermath of Toney/Jones. It was considered to be a world showcase for McClellan, who was coming up to 168 and expected to knock out a name, diminishing fighter. Had he won as expected, there probably would have been a two-fight buildup and the two would have clashed in late 1996 or early 1997. Alas.

7) Lewis/Tyson/Holyfield -- Jones may or may not have been able to handle smaller and declined heavies like Holy or Tyson, but he certainly would have gotten pounded by Lewis. A possible career-ender for Jones, had he fought Lennox.

Having written all that, there's no question that Leonard should rank more highly based on resume. It's only on totally subjective, H2H stuff, that you can compare the two in arguable terms.

 

Jones/Benn could have happened in late 1995 or early 1996, but after Malinga, there was no point. I don't think that Benn was capable of reaching the McClellan level again, and even then I think he'd have been stopped convincincly by G-Man had the blood clot he carried into the ring not been present.

Arguable, though.

I don't ever recall any excitement over Jones/Toney II, not until much later, at least. James became an eating machine and lost to Griffin X2, after all.

Another arguable point, but I don't think so. Jones was PfP No. 1 and already held a victory over Hopkins. OTOH, Hopkins was coming off a dazzling victory over a huge name, so maybe so.

Shame they didn't fight in 2002. Think Hopkins might have beaten the slightly declined Jones then.

 

when so called boxing experts compare certain fighters of today to sugar ray leonard, they will always say he could never be ray leonard because leonard beat 4 hall of famers in their prime in benitez,duran,hagler,hearns. but always pointing to that is unfair because there's just not that type of competion around in most weight classes.

 

Larry Merchant made successful observation of Roy Jones, and how his career would turn out. On the grand scale of things, Roy Jones has had a spectacular career, one full of elite performances and occasions. Still, when compared to Sugar Ray Leonard's Cv, it pails in comparison.

Leonard is a class above both Roy Jones Jr and Bernard Hopkins in terms of All-time great status.

 

I had Jones nicking it, but fair enough. It was his most stern test, however you score it. Oh, and Jones was considered PfP No. 1, but he was no longer able to perform at that level. That's all I meant. True on Tarver/Hearns, although Jones relatively was much worse off at that point in his career.

Fair enough on Toney. His body looked **** that night from the very beginning.

In my eyes, Michael Jordan was a greater, better basketball player in 1992 than he was in 1998, but certainly he struggled harder and overcame longer odds in 1998. By your logic, the later version of Jordan would be "greater" than the earlier one, if not quite as excellent, right? Basketball probably means nothing to you, but it's the best I can do.

I guess I'm defining greatness here as maximum performance in a chosen endeavor. The person who passes through the subway machine without breaking stride is greater for me at navigating the subway system than the person who passes through after a life and death struggle with the ticket intake. I'm reaching. ...

Jones, a reflex fighter who depended largely on his legs, no longer had his legs. And his workrate fell off precipitously as well. To me, that is a shot fighter. He has even conceded that now, going peekaboo and simply standing upright. He's finished at the top level and has been for several years.

Agreed that Tyson was more shot than Jones. Tyson ventured into decrepit territory, the ultimate bottom point in my imagined career hierarchy.

I think it depends. If Amir Khan/Frank Warren ask for 50% to fight Pacquaio, I'd say it's their fault for that fight not happening. An extreme example, but hopefully you see the reason for my insistence that these situations are best judged comparitively.

Very interesting. I'll stand down on this point from the Toney perspective. My view remains that the fans wouldn't shell out another $50 to watch another fight that was largely considered very boring at the time.

Not only that, Toney never again fought at 168, while Jones spent another couple years there. James also lost three months later to Griffin, so he can't have been pushing for a rematch for too long after Jones with any credibility. He simply didn't fight well enough the first time -- whatever his excuses -- to demand a rematch.

Without question, the early 1990s version would have pushed him. Not sure about the mid-90s Eubank, but even then he'd have been better than everyone Jones fought in 1995 or 1996. If Roy's version is true, I don't blame him for telling Eubank to shoo, though. Eubank of 1995-96 would have strengthed his resume, but only to a point.

This one probably should have happened, I agree. Having said that, I think it's likely that Jones would have dominated the failing Benn and the victory would have been discredited somewhat accordingly. The post-McClellan Benn didn't bring much to the table except name recognition.

I've just given Roy the benefit based on what genuinely was a close relationship with McClellan. Opinions may vary, however.

 

Everybody has their own criteria.

Personally, I feel the only way to truely measure a fighter is to analyse how they compete with other truely great fighters. With that in consideration, I could make a case for Sugar Ray Leonard being a lock for top 10 of all time.

I have no arguements that Roy Jones is comparable skillwise, but Leonard has the far superior resume. That is all that truely matters for me.