Roy Jones, Jr

He can't be considered unbeatable, because he didn't get hit flush enough by big punchers in his prime to prove he had a strong chin. If he had gone in with a Spinks-type puncher at lhw or a Benn-type puncher at smw or a McClellan-type puncher at mw, and took their best, then you'd have a stronger case, because Jones was undoubtedly supernatural at his peak. Unfortunately, the opportunities to fight huge punchers like McClellan and Benn never materialized for Roy though.

 

I'm 33 years old, so that makes me one year wiser, so listen up:

You are wrong because you're statement that RJJ was the greatest boxer you've ever seen should be what I would state personally:

"Roy Jones Jr is the greatest athlete I've ever seen in boxing"

Everyone is beatable. He was superhuman, or so it seemed, but as Popkins said, he never allowed that toughness or grit or chin to be tested. He opted for safer opposition.

I had been telling anyone who'd listen for years that as soon as Jones fought someone who isn't awestruck and intimidated that can crack a little, you'll see Jones on the deck. I was correct (not that I'm some kind of oracle or anything)...

He was not a good boxer. Fundamentally, he was flawed, just as the case is for Ali. He got away with things because of his speed and reflexes.

He was was awesome in his prime, but I've heard that he's "unbeatable" before and I don't buy that for a second. His speed and athleticism, along with his good power take him far in a head to head scenario, but he's too open jumping in and too reluctant to engage. Anyone steaming ahead with a good chin, high volume, and a good punch (and fast enough to cut him off) has a great chance.

But hey, Charles didn't have the best chin in the world and he's regarded by most to be the greatest LHW of all time...

Everyone has their opinion.

 

Nobody's unbeatable. Some are just made to look that way against the opposition they're pitted against. That said, Jones Jr. is one of the most impressive fighters I've ever seen at his best. He just didn't prove it like so many others.

 

i'm almost 37 and jones is the best i've seen as well. jones' stock will go up over the years. everyone now focuses on the losses because he's still around. this, and the fact that a lot of boxing fans hate him. the reasons above are comical: he never got hit in his prime by a true power puncher, he's not a good boxer, and there's even some domestic australian fighters who could have beaten him.

jones was named fighter of the decade and was the best fighter of his era. no one is unbeatable but at his best, jones was incredible and one of the greatest fighters to ever step in the ring.

 

In terms of his contemperies. I think Whitaker is better. I also think Mayweather Jr. is right there with Jones Jr. This is not to take anything away from Jones Jr. I would not pick anyone to beat Jones at his beat at 168 & 175. He was fast real real fast not for a big guy just fast. Who knows how good his chin was and who cares. He was fast enough that the question doesn't matter. (there is a youtube video showing Jones taking punches or there used to be one for anyone who cares). I always thought the point of boxing was hitting and not getting hit. Very few were ever better than Roy Jones Jr. at doing just that.

 

Such as?

 

I cant' say you're wrong if you say he's the greatest boxer you've ever seen. But I can assume you didn't spend much of those 32 years watching boxing.

 

Whitaker was the better 90's king. Fought better opposition and still looked ridiculous doing it.

 

Aesthetically he's the best fighter I've ever seen.

 

Roy Jones is an ATG but far from the best. Probably around top 40-35 is good.

Roy Jones has a Great resume, but it isn't an ATG resume.

Roy Jones has ATG skills, dominance, speed, power all that **** the only letdown was his resume.

I mean you still have guys like

Montell Griffin
Bernard Hopkins
Reggie Johnson
Antonio Tarver
Thomas Tate
Eric Harding
Jorge Castro
James Toney
Thulani Malinga
John Ruiz
Virgil Hill
Merqui Sosa
etc...


So it's a really good resume, I think it's just a tad under ATG. If he could have added Michalczewski, just that one win, it would have meant so much.



IMO He is Top 3 H2H at Middleweight (Honestly he could be #1 at Middleweight) and Number 1 H2H at Supper Middleweight. Top 5 H2H at Light Heavyweight.

 

Well i wouldnt say hes the greatest overall fighter ive seen but in his prime he was possibly the most dominant fightre ive seen... HTH i thik he beats any MW,or SM in history,,, Not saying hes the greatest mw as he didnt put enough work in there, but i think he was as close to unbeateable as one can get.... However at LH i can think of a few guys that would beat him Spinks, Foster and probably Charles come to mind... Overall i think Jones just cracks the top 20 atg... BUt HTH pfp he is probably top3 or 4... .. There are a few opponents he didnt face that hurt his standing a little and thats a shame cause he would have beat those guys... Mccellan,Benn,Eubank,Mccaluum at Mw, Michalcewski,Calzaghe at Sm....... also i think his ko losses have hurt him a little.. He was past it but it casts some doubt as to Jones chin even in his prime.

 

Who we see as great and impressive has to do with how old we are. I am 46 and my favorite fighter is Thomas Hearns. Roy Jones to me was not unbeatable and avoided many tough fights when he was prime. He was fast and sharp, but he did not test his skills against the best to prove he was the best ever. Great fighter though, but he did not fight the best like Hearns or Duran or Hagler or Leonard did. That means a lot. Had he fought the best or had that opposition he would have had a different win loss record. They were that good.