Roy Jones Jr. Vs The Black Uhlan of The Rhine

Jones fought a great fight against Ruiz who was not a bad fighter but Schmeling a different type of fighter, smart, and powerful right hand that would touch Roy at some point

 

There is a chance that Roy Jones Jr. could have beaten Max Schmeling in a given bout. But I also believe that Schmeling had more than enough power in his right hand to knock out Jones.

- Chuck Johnston

 

What a fun forum this is... where Cooney loses to Braddock, Stiverne cant go a single round with Joe Louis... and where Roy Jones is a cheating piece of ****, who is LITERALLY being killed by Louis, as well as getting his cowardly ass kicked in just about every dream match you can think off!

I will be looking forward to many more good laughs here!

 

So much forum myth that's been perpetuated people begin to accept it rather than searching for the truth of the situation

'Roy fouled out against Griffin', really, nothing to do with him turning up about to KO his opponent and accidently hitting him fairly lightly when he was going down?

Saying his LHW wins were dubious shows ignorance as he was fighting the highest ranked LHWs of the time bar 1 or 2 who were with other promoters and hard to make fights with. Schmelling isn't more skilled than some of the LHWs Jones was beating.

The only criticism Jones detractors can make of his performances is of when he was shot after the age of 35, it's intellectual dishonesty.

'Timing can offset speed' - yes but Jones has better timing than Schmelling though

'Styles make fights' yes and as a counterpuncher with a great right hand Toney is the most similar opponent to Schmelling, so not a great styles match up at all.

Another myth ' he missed a ton of top level guys WHO WANTED to fight him in other divisions' - really who wanted to fight him who didn't want a king's ransom to make the fight? Jones tried to fight King's fighters like Benn but King demanded Jones sign his soul away to make it happen and he offered Dariusz a fight on US soil. He offered Rochiagani a fight but Rochiagani was busy suing the WBC and fighting Jones would have reduced any settlement.

 

Would you agree with the assessment that his career was one of unfulfilled potential, due to his failure to make certain key fights?

 

No because he still beat the best 2 fighters of his era and more champions and contenders than anyone else. While he achieved so much yet it gets ignored down to how easy it looked. If his defence wasn't so good and he went life and death with certain opponents the wins would be remembered as greater but because it seemed so easy they are negated.

Having said that it could have been better. Roy wouldn't sell himself down the river by signing with King and Arum. If he had he'd have got other big fights that he missed.

Let me turn it around and ask who he was supposed to fight and when?

Benn? - Jones was happy to face Benn on a 1 fight basis, King demanded a long term option on Jones fights. Benn in turn lost to Malinga and got a gift against Malinga who Jones treated a child. Benn was talking about expecting 25m for the fight.

Collins - wanted 6m for the fight. He lost to Reggie Johnson and McCallum who Jones fought instead. HBO were pushing for the latter 2 fights instead of Collins too and when Jones invited Collins to be ringside HBO ignored Collins.

Eubank? - rejected Jones before Jones was champion and as a unification. Eubank only wanted to fight Jones after he lost and was supposed to turn the fight down in '98. Eubank said Thompson was an easier option than Darius or Jones.

Darius - should have happened but neither wanted to travel the Atlantic to make it happen. He wasn't really that good either, Gonzalez who Jones beat easily dethroned Dariusz and he went life and death against Hall.

McClellan/Nunn/Jackson/Liles - All Don King fighters and Don wanted Roy to sign away a percentage of his future purses to sign with him.

Hopkins was with Don King too when Roy offered him 40 percent of the purse too. Hopkins would have had to split a large part of that purse with King because of his contract, which is part of the reason he turned down both Jones and Calzaghe.

The problem with all these fights is they either wanted a career high payday many times more than they'd ever owned and/or King demanded Roy sign a contract that would take much of his future earnings. He was happy to rematch Hopkins or fight Benn on his own terms but the other camp walked away.

 

Wait, so who were the two best fighters of his era that he beat? I always struggle with this horse****. Do you want us to believe that when Jones fought Hopkins in Hopkins first major fight that Hopkins was the best fighter of his era? No. Im sorry that ridiculous. You get credit for beating a fighter based on what he accomplished BEFORE you beat him, not after. Let me give you an analogy: In 1935 in his first ten round Fred Apostoli lost to Freddie Steele. Steele was a more experienced, very hard punching supremely talented boxer. Steele knocked out the less talented and less experienced Apostoli in 10 rounds. In the years following that loss Apostoli acquired a lot more experience and something like 100 fights. Should Steele have been credited with beating THAT version of Apostoli? Because when they met 3 years later and Steele was a favorite going in Apostoli gave Steele a beating and stopped him. Thats why fights are fought in the ring not in the minds of deluded fanboys. Im assuming that you think Toney was the other best fighter of Jones' generation. If Jones' boring win over Toney was such a monumental feat what does that say about what McCallum, Johnson, and Tiberi were able to do with Toney before Jones ever got near him. Or Montell Griffin just three months later for that matter. When Toney was good he could be very good, not unbeatable but very good, when he was having one of his numerous inconsistent evenings he was mediocre at best to the point that a limited journeyman with little experience like Dave Tiberi could clearly beat him. And isnt it funny how after those two names the Jones' resume drops dramatically. "Two best fighters of his era" my ass...

 

I know this was put to PP, but if I may lay my egg...

The Jones-Hopkins fight was a battle between two young, talented fighters. Keep in mind that it was Roy's first title fight too. He was not a seasoned vet by any means.
I agree that we can only judge the win on that version of Hopkins who would become a better fighter later on, but it still does add some gloss to Jones' win that Hop was able to have the career he did.

Toney was regarded as the #1 fighter in the sport when Jones beat him by a landslide. Yes, he had severe weight problems going into the fight, but he was not competitive for more than maybe a minute for the entire duration.

Did neither of these wins impress you at all?

 

Harry Greb's newspaper decision win over Tiger Flowers and his fights with Tommy Loughran were pretty meaningless by that logic?

 

I was going to offer my 2 cents on this but there's really no need to after reading Klompton's posts. He's 110% correct and knows what he"s talking about. I will add tho that Jones' bout with Ruiz was cleverly picked by Jones and his camp. As soon as the bout was made I knew that Jones would win and I'm sure that most of the experts and fans in the know knew it too. Ruiz was no Schmeling. Don't compare the two.

 

They were if you are going to seriously try to argue that Loughran and Flowers were the best of their era when Greb fought them. But you notice how Greb actually rematched them even as they become better and better and he got worse and worse and did so multiple times when he did not have to, particularly Flowers who he could have ducked forever had he chosen to or he could have forced him to fight for the title in Pennsylvania. I dont think any Jones fan really wants to compare any aspect of Jones' career to Greb...

Jones fans love that Hopkins name is on his resume but love to forget that Hopkins had literally fought nobody of note to that point and was fighting his first big fight. Even then its not like he was disgraced and shutout fighting a former olympian with a ton more amateur experience, better resume in the pros, and more financial backing. So please, lets not pretend that Jones walked into the lions den on that one and fought "the best fighter of the era." Hopkins became one of the best fighters of the era while Jones was ducking and dodging him and everyone else while claiming to be the second coming.

 

Hopkins was 28 in his physical prime and unbeaten for 12 years later until the 2 disputed loses against Taylor. This was a brief moment of Hopkins career when he fought 3 minutes of the round and could throw 90 punches around while being technically excellent. He may have developed more trickery later in his career but he was certainly past his physical prime not having the stamina or speed of his later career. Hopkins famously turned down a massive career high payday for the rematch in 2002, knowing his limitations.

Toney was either P4P no1 or no2 when Jones faced him in the biggest fight of his career. It's pretty obvious you weren't watching boxing during the period if you don't acknowledge that. Pointing to the Griffin losses when they were controversial and after Jones stole Toney's heart highlights your obvious hatred, bias and spin.

 

This is the laughable argument that keeps getting bandied about. The question is simply Jones Vs. Schmeling. Not "Jones Vs. Schmeling if you shrunk Schmeling down or made him come in 20 pounds under his best weight to handicap him" Nobody gives a **** whether Hopkins or any of those guys were better P4P fighters than Schmeling. That wasnt what I asked. What I asked was could any of those fighters beat Schmeling at the point in their careers that Jones fought them. Only Jones ridiculous fans keep trying to heep on qualifiers for how these guys would beat him: "Uhhh, well, well, uhhh, if Schmeling were forced to lose 20 pounds and come in with ankle weights and one arm tied behind his back then some of these guys might beat him." Thanks, the ridiculous hand wringing that Jones fans have gone through simply to figure out a way SOME of those fighters MIGHT beat Schmeling IF HE WERE SMALLER tells me all I need to know.

 

So, by the same logic, I assume we can discount two of Jack Johnson's greatest pelts in Langford and McVea.

Furthermore, Hopkins was 28 years old had almost 100 amateur fights (95-4?), about as many as Roy who had 130 or so, and had fought a couple more pro fights than Roy, albeit not quite on the same level. It was a great match-up of physically primed, emerging superstars. And it was an important victory for Roy.