That's because both are true in boxing fans minds. Many fighters only gain recognition for being good fighters in this day and age when they win a major title. The WBO on the other hand was a nothing belt until good fighters began to hold it. It should be that fighters make the belt, but it is not always viewed that way.
There is no dark cloud hanging over his head. To a select few such as yourself, sure. But it's not a majority view point. In any case, I don't really care. I give him credit for winning his belts in the ring. If they had been stripped from DM and Jones won them vacant, then that's another issue.
Roy Jones was perfect. At 168, I think he was the closest thing to an unbeatable boxer than anyone else in history. It's sad how many casual fans think he "never fought anyone" and was a hype job. How one can have great one-punch-power with insane speed, perfect timing/accuracy/sense of distance/overall reflexes, ring smarts, and everything else he had together is unbelievable.
I think Roy's legacy will only improve over time, much to the chagrin of the haters. I mean, all the evidence is right there on youtube for anyone who wants to look. Sure he had two rough losses (third bout with tarver was far from "devastating") well past his prime,but what great fighter hasn't had at least a few (marciano excluded)?
No he was stripped for displaying one belt next to the other and the other belt he won they wanted him to defend just 1 month after he had won it. They ****ed him.