Roy Jones is underrated

1. Theres no basis to say he got better after Jones other than the fact he lost to Jones

2. Loughran/Rosenbloom/jeanette/Mcvey I take it you dont rate those wins as all were less experienced and younger than BHOPs.

3. Just because he hadnt yet achieved greatness from lack of opportunity doesnt mean he wasnt peak, do you also think Elmer Ray peaked at 36-37 when he got wins over Charles/Walcott?

Tunney hadnt beat anyone of note and hadnt acheived greatness when Greb beat him, is Tunney green too?

 

I dont agree entirely with that. I think he improved a bit after he won a world title, BUT I think your statement is closer to the truth than the orthodox opinion around here that it wasn't a "prime Hopkins". I think Hopkins was essentially the same, and as you say, it's the FACT that Jones beat him (and his lack of recognition at the time) that allows people to say he wasn't the real Hopkins yet.
With the Toney win I notice they cant do that - because Toney was the favourite and a BIG name already going in to that fight - but they do find other excuses.

 

McGrain, cant that be said for Jones as well? Are you really trying to say everything that made him a great fighter was born from experience after Jones Jr? Not the case my friend. Jones became better too. He had to adjust his game to deal with taller more dangerous fighters. The idea that Jones stayed exactly the same and Bernard became ten times the fighter is a ridiculous claim thats often used on this forum.

 

I think he did, but isn't the whole thing completely overstated ?
I used Larry Holmes as an example in another thread. Holmes was a man who relied on crafty experience-enhanced stuff too, and he may not have been 100% fully complete in the first Shavers fight, for example, but with hindsight and reasonable-mindedness we can still acknowledge that he was essentially the same fighter - and a great one too.

Hopkins had completed three 10-rounders and a 12-rounder going in against RJones, and Jones had just one 10-rounder under his belt. You can argue that Jones' style relied more on physical gifts than ring experience, and for Hopkins the other way around. But these aren't ABSOLUTE differences, it's just a difference in the way things are balanced. RJJ benefitted from experience later on too, and Hopkins' isn't so different that the speed and youthfulness he possessed in '93 weren't beneficial to him also.

 

1. So you cant pick it out on film, these are learnt in training more so than experience, Hokins had boxed for what 15years? I don't debate that Hopkins became somewhat smarter in the ring, but after 15years of boxing yo udont improve so much. He also became slower, less stamina without doubt. You seem happy to ignore these attributes fading

2. Which is why Hopkins avoided the rematch for 17years until Jones was well and truly shot. Hopkins even turned down 'winner takes 60%' in 2008

3. None of them matter as much as Hopkins as they were all less experienced and would all achieve less

4. Hopkins had more fights that Tunney if we include amateur fights. Levinski was pretty much a gatekeeper when Tunney got to him

BTW despite being far less experienced than James Toney, Hopkins performed better against Jones and pretty much better than anyone up until Tarver (unless you consider the Griffin fight, which Montell was going to get ko'd in)

 

After listening to many very good arguments on this thread, I am beginning to lean towards the notion that Jones is somewhat underrated. I know he doesn't exactly have stellar wins over greats like Spinks, Charles, Moore, Hearns, etc.., but he has loads of wins over men who well above average, held titles, were undefeated and were beaten by Jones fairly easily. For all practical purposes, James Toney was a great fighter and Jones was the first to dent his record. Virgil Hill, Mike McCallum and Bernard Hopkins were either past their primes or hadn't reached them yet, but still very competitve and Jones beat them convincingly. Roy has probably held as many alpha straps as any man ever has, and by my standards, was a true light heavyweight champion along with winning titles in some 4 different weight classes.

It's a valid criticism that there were some fighters that he probably could have faced, Dariuscz Michalczewski being among them, but if we scrounged hard enough, I'm sure we could find at least one fighter that every great man " could have " faced. I'm also not sure that the failure to materialize such fights was entirely Jone's doing. His first defeat to Montell Griffin was kind of a bogus loss, and he redeamed himself more than adequately in the rematch. His defeats to Tarver and everyone thereafter were when he was well past it, and frankly I can't believe some of the arguments that I've heard to try and prove otherwise.

I don't know where exactly I place Jones neither p4p, or even among the great light heavyweights, but I can't imagine why anyone would deny him status as an all time great. Too many accomplishments and impressive performances in his favor to say the contrary.

 

1. Hopkins probably wasnt completely peaked, but we dont know that for a fact, either way to discount the win and pretend its a different man is foolish. I dont think there are too many better wins in MW history

2. There still fights

3. Jones did have a damaged hand in this fight too but Hopkins performance shows he wasnt as pre-prime as some suggest