Roy Jones is underrated

Perhaps at 160, yes. I agree that he spent too little time in that division to be given any real sort of rating. No argument here.

 

Some people would say his career best performance came only 6months after leaving 160, which would make him close to his best at the weight

 

Again 19 beltholders. Hopkins was not prime. Toney, well, he was in his prime but we all know his eating habbits right?
And yeah bring up one excuse after another for Jones' ducking the champ while eh was number one contender. Doesn't make it any better.

Hopkisn was good back then but his prime was at least 5 years away.

Yeah, right because you know me .... :-(

Ali wasn't a great before the Liston fight. He wasn't even a grea after he Liston fight. Without his second career I wouldn't consider Ali an atg. Same for Hopkins. Jones wasn't an atg either back then. Merely a good conender fighting for a vacant title.

 

Reading comprehension ftw. :-(

 

Thanks.

 

No. Struggling wih very good to great opposition is better than beeing dominant with bums.

 

The difference is Charles beat all the best of his time (and some of all time) but the champ who avoided him. Jones beat mediocre opposition and avoided the champ himself. Huge difference.

 

Outside of the fact that I don't consider Jones underated but overated by guys like Jersey Joe, PowerPuncher, lefthook31, I completly agree with this.

I just want to add that no other atg avoided the champ in the division he fought. Only Jones did. Outside of that you are right.

I didn't ready any post in this thread where anyone denied Jones the status as an atg. I certainly don't.

 

Thanks.

 

That's a little harsh.

Calzaghe faced a better Hopkins at 43 than Bernard did at 28, however, i think you overmake your point here.

Hyperbole ?

Nonsense.

If ye think that, the grass in Scotland must be ****in' dreadful.[/QUOTE]

Very definitely.

More specifically with experience (and hence with age).

His physical prime was right around the Jones fight, but he was still learnin'

That scarcely detracts from the win. That's part of WHY he won.

 

Very definitely.

More specifically with experience (and hence with age).

His physical prime was right around the Jones fight, but he was still learnin'



That scarcely detracts from the win. That's part of WHY he won.[/quote]
With all due respect,C,how was it that Hopkins was better at 43 than at 28 while he lost to Jermaine Taylor when he was,what,40 or 41?I know he learned his craft better with age,but I am certain that the 28 year old Hopkins would have beaten Taylor.When they fought each other,Hopkins and Jones were the highest ranked middles out there.

 

i'm proud of you mcgrain:good

 

i think as a middle he is overrated slightly (as magoo pointed out), he is thought of rightly as the best 168 fighter ever on talent, thought of by many as a top 10 LHW and a decent heavyweight H2H. his resume is overrated by a few, underrated by a VERY vocal group and not thought of at all by the rest. jones seems to now be getting his deserved recognition. i have him as a top 20 atg though top 30 is very fair and an argument could be made to have him only as a top 50

 

See, I'm not far away from you. I don't rate him at all at 160. I don't rate him at 168 but only because I never did a ranking there at all. I have him Top15 a lhw. I don't think he would do well against the atg hws because I think a win over Ruiz is enough to do so. And I guess I have him around 40 p4p.
I just don' like when people rate a fighter but totally ignore the negatives of the fighters career. Look a the opening post or the posts of people like PowerPuncher. When you rate a fighter you have also to look at the downsides of the fighter's career.