Jones Jr, Hopkins, Toney. Rate these 3 as H2H fighters.

It wouldn’t really have mattered what Roy would have weighed in at.

It wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

Roy was much taller, with huge advantages in reach and speed.

Roy’s incredible athleticism and unorthodox style made him very hard to hit clean, whereas Jake was always easy to hit, with lots of scar tissue after many wars.

Roy would have made a mess of him like Robbo did.

 

Who , Carson Jones? lol

 

That he did

 

I’ve got Fitz’s biography.

From what I’ve read, I’d have given him a chance.

I’d also have given Marvin and Greb a good chance.

Gerald was a huge MW, one of the biggest we’ve seen in terms of height, reach, weight, strength and power. I’d have given him a chance had he have stuck to a disciplined game plan.

Monzon was great, but I don’t think he’d have coped with Roy’s speed.

Robinson was greater than Roy, but was at his peak at WW.

I can’t even envisage GG beating him.

 

This is one of the most counter-intuitive threads I've seen. So Jones absolutely dominates two guys he's being compared with, but he's not as good as them h2h against other peers? What? Well, we know two styles Jones is superior to, the ones implemented by Toney and Hopkins, yet those styles are better against most fighters. What kind of mental gymnastics is this. Even if we discount the basic logic above for any group of fighters, we're still left with Jones being a once in a generation fighter, with off the charts athletic ability. Forgetting that it makes no sense for John to beat Tim and Steve, but Tim and Steve are better styles, the John we're talking about is Roy Jones Jr., his style vulnerability is inherently less that most, and nothing is different here. Jones does better against the field than Toney or B Hop

 

‘If’ is the biggest word in the dictionary.

 

It doesn't even stop there. In the case of Toney, Jones also did better against common opponents like Sosa, Johnson and Griffin while Toney didn't do better against any common opponent.

So he outclassed Toney and beat three common opponents with significantly more ease. I can't come to think of a single discussion like this where we have so blatantly clear indications as to what the answer is, but still it isn't enough for everyone...

 

I'd take Sumbu Kalambay and Joey Archer over James "Stuck in the Mud" Toney at Middleweight. I think he's the weakest head to head because he had such a clear stylistic foil. Even Mike McCallum was waltzing him on the inside early on in their first fight. McCallum wasn't exactly known for his quick feet, either. Just the opposite, in fact. When a slow footed 35 year old like McCallum can repeatedly waltz you like he's Pep or Lomachenko, you've got problems.

Obviously the higher he moved up in weight the less of an issue it became, so he was able to keep a pretty similar level of effectiveness no matter how much Burger King he ate.