He matches well h2h against anyone from 160-168... There are some LHW's that would beat him in my opinion.
Without going into too much detail or a rant, Jones simply didn't do enough and didn't beat enough great fighters in his prime to be considered the greatest ever
He was a fabulous fighter with otherwordly skills. But I think you know fine well people will shoot the claim down with cold hard facts. Perfectly reasonable to say he's your alltime #1 though.Barrera is my#2,but I know people will always pick holes.
He wasnt unbeatable, but he was damn good. Aside from his talent, he was smart and always stayed a step ahead and fought his fight. His confidence allowed him to do that.
Thats nopt really the question though. Was he at his prime the best fighter ever. He could theoretically have fought pretty much no one and still be the best fighter. The fact that he didnt have any Leonards,Haglers, etc to fight shouldnt be held against him. The few HOF'ers he did fight in his prime, he handled with absolute ease.
sure pal, ben johnson is the greatest sprinter ever and lance armstrong is the greatest cyclist ever as well :good
It's still a no, to compare him to a more recent fighter, Floyd Mayweather is a greater fighter than Roy Jones hands down. Floyd beats guys on the inside, outside and at mid-range. He beats guys when fighting their fight (Miguel Cotto more recently). Floyd is 35 and dominating even though his legs are gone, due to his great fundamental skillset and ring IQ. He's like a combination of the best qualities of Jones and Hopkins. You state it's not about the competition faced, but how can you know how good a fighter is if they don't face the top competition regularly? Hopkins was a very good win, but Bernard was no great fighter at that stage, he was just a top ranked contender. James Toney was a very good win, James Toney is probably a future HOF'er but he's no ATG. Roy had opportunities to make bigger and better fights against better opposition. So my point stands, you cannot call a fighter the greatest of all time, unless he faces truly great opposition. Jones didn't, someone like Ray Robinson or Muhammad Ali did, that's why they can be regarded as the greatest of all time. To give you a recent example, Lucian Bute looked great dominating the opposition he faced, Carl Froch looked good and not so good against the likes of Kessler, Ward and Dirrell. Yet when Froch and Bute fought, even though Bute had looked the better fighter in their match-ups, the outcome was different. Before you jump to any conclusions, just think about that analogy.
This. It is not hard to look Dominant when beating up cabbies and police officers and when Glass Jaw Roy did fight the best opposition he didn't look anything like the destroyer of, say, the Vinnie Paz fight. His resume eliminates the chance for true greatness and watching him clown bums and put on stinkers against the two best fighters he faced doesn't lead me to believe he's some head-to-head animal that cannot be beat, either. There are many fighters from 160-175 that I would pick to Shatter his Glass Jaw violently. This accusation again. Damn, you're clever. If I start nuthugging Glass Jaw Roy will that make me an alt of you? Newsflash, dummy, I don't need more than one account to post my opinion. I will continue to give my opinion on Glass Jaw Roy and his Chin all I want to. End of story, joke.
Both have relatively strong resumes, and the quality between them isn't that much, certainly not as much as people make out. Joe retired undefeated, whilst Roy has fought on way too long. But in being fair, you can't hold losses against a fighter when they're considerably past their best. Of course, Roy Jones ranks higher due to his win over James Toney, and that he won titles in so many weight classes.