Roy Jones' Legacy...

I'll have to continue this debate tomarrow. I feel like I've gone 15 rounds with this one today. I wonder if I'm debating with THE REAL hands of stone.

 

I think certain aspects of Roy's legacy will look better in retrospect - ie: guys like Hopkins, Lucas, etc. going on to win titles years later.

However, he has a number of terrible mars against his legacy.

His legacy will always suffer badly from his failure to follow up on big wins and to absolutely prove himself the best in his divisions (as opposed to it just being speculated). He never really followed up the Toney win with another meaningful win at SMW, and never really certified his claim to the #1 spot at LHW (and thus the #1 in the world along with that) by besting the best available opponent in the division - he never fought Dariusz, the #1 opponent out there for most of his reign, and the next #1 to come along, Tarver, he lost 2 out of 3 to. I know there were those people who always dismissed Dariusz, but I think it's going to look especially bad in retrospect that in an otherwise undistinguished era for light-heavies, he never fought a guy who eventually went 48-0, held various belts in his career, and even had lineal recognition. He also never settled that title dispute with Rocchigiani, at least not in the ring - he let the matter go to court, and even ended up losing there.

On top of that, the way he was so consistently embarrassed in his losses hurts his legacy terribly as well. He was absolutely crushed by Tarver while still rated as highly as he ever was - and Tarver couldn't do **** with an ancient Hopkins coming up in weight; and then he was totally outclassed and KO'd by aging journeyman Glen Johnson in a way I've never seen Johnson to do a supposedly elite fighter. Even getting outclassed by Calzaghe hurts his legacy, as that was a long overdue, much-debated fight against a contemporary of his from the '90s.

And if he somehow loses to Sheika - a washed up, punch-drunk, semi-retired never-was - that will be yet another blow to his legacy.

 

On the contrary, that was precisely my point. I listed Jone's reign as being exceding the length of the reigns of Spinks, Hagler, and Duran as a matter of stats, among the MANY Reasons as to why he belongs on the same wall as those guys. You THEN turned it into an arguement about COMP. I used the Louis comparison because while he may have had a longer reign than any other HW champ, there are some who have been credited as having fought better comp, but that his longevity should not be discredited because of it. Therefore, when I'm talking about Jones having a longer reign than some and you say " yeah but, these guys fought x,y,z " it is exactly the point that I am refuting..

Make sense?

Louis is not necessarily rated higher than Ali by EVERBODY.

All good

How is the fact that he never came into the ring as an underdog a valid criticism? I think its rather obsurd if you ask me.. So because he was generally viewed by some as the greatest fighter of his era, hence being favored to beat pretty much anyone, especially those he fought, it should work against him? As for him spacing his real challenges 9 years apart, it sounds a tad ridiculous. This almost reads like he intentionally planned his career track to only meet certain challengers a decade apart from one another. Avoiding several challengers? Give me a break.. He avoided a few guys, not several, and after debating this for two days now I still haven't heard an explanation as to why he " avoided " these so called several challengers. I also have yet to here you acknowledge your double standard of criticizing Jones for ducking, but not addressing the fab 4 avoiding challengers, except when it came to Hagler who according to you " didn't have time"...

Well, I certainly find this to be a contradictory position for someone who has already stated that he rates the guy very high on a head to head basis - something that by the way, I wasn't even arguing in the first place. Anyway, he basically kicked everybodies ass up until he was in his mid thirties when he was beaten by Tarver. It was also during this time that he was dropping and gaining a ton of weight inside of a one year frame in order to challenge Ruiz at heavyweight, then drop 20+ lbs very quickly to fight Tarver. If it is your position that he failed to overcome an opponent in his prime, and under favorable circumstances, then I would have to say you're wrong.

I think you are underrating him, and outside of listing the plain facts, I can't see how on earth I am guilty of overstating anyone's greatness. Let's review our positions for a moment, and hopfully it will give us a better perspective on where we both stand on this:

I SAY - I don't rate Jones as being higher than the members of the fab four. I do not even rate him as being equal to the fab four. I rate him below all the members of the fab four, but feel that the margin is maybe one or two small steps beneath.

YOU SAY - Jones is not even within driving distance of ANY of the members of the fab four. He doesnt' even come close..

To recap what I have been trying to say all along - It is a reasonable argument to say that Jones does not make the ranks of the fab four. It is NOT a reasonable argument to say that he is leagues, and leagues, and leagues, and leagues, and leagues, away from them..

Its sort of like saying that the greatest heavyweights of all time are these:

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
-
-
-
-
25. Holmes

Your approach is greatly lacking in balance for the fighters you are comparing. The problem of course, is that place great weight in the fab four, but not so much in Roy Jones. That's fine. But you can't ignore the fact that while they had their great acheivments, so did he. And its not up to you nor I to asign value to one acheivment being greater than the other. Jones WAS the best fighter of HIS era, while Leonard, Duran, Hearns and Hagler were among peers. Jones won titles at middleweight, supermiddleweight, lightheavywieght, and heavyweight. The members of the fab four did not. While Hearns has the claim of winnign multiple belts at many wieght classes, Duran and Hagler have the claim to being dominant in a single class over a long period.. Jones has claim to BOTH!!!! He reigned at lightheavyweight longer than any of those guys reigned at their weight classes AND he holds the record for winning belts in a progression that hasn't been set since another all time great did years ago. Jones avoided challengers. The four avoided challengers. Trying to dismiss one entity for performing the same action, while holding the other accountable is selective bias, no matter what the reasons are for the action.

I realize there is a lot more to your post, but that's all I have time for now. At least you know where I stand.

 

Louis' can be rated above Ali due to length of reign. But Ali can also be rated above Louis because he beat better opponents. Louis never beat anyone like Liston, Frazier or Foreman. All top 10 heavyweights. Name one fighter than Louis beat, never mind three, who are consistently rated among a top 10 heavyweight list.

 

Good post, although I can't hold the Calzaghe loss against him ... he finally fought someone who was an actual challenge -and came in an underdog. He showed old school courage and I salute him for it.

 

Here's the thing... I just don't see any worth in the comparative length of Jones' reign.

*Spinks had a shorter reign but so what? He fought better comp.
* You are wrong by my count about Hagler. Hagler's reign at MW was actually longer than Jones' at LHW -by roughly 3 months. So what, either way.
*Duran's reign was less by 7 months. So what?

---these are matters of months! Louis is another story!

Nor by me! Ali is #1, Louis #2. I confused you there. Apologies.

"Never having come into the ring as an underdog" can be a problem because it usually means that the said fighter didn't test himself. Greatness is tested in fire, and Jones -until recently- chose not to test himself in fire, but to relax with heating pads.

He knew it, I knew it, managers knew it, and you make excuses.

As to your accusation of a double standard, that's way off. If Jones faced Steve Collins (whom I think is woefully underrated) and Eubank at SMW, I'd forgive him for not facing Frankie Liles and Benn, for example. Hagler faced Hearns, Mugabi, and Leonard. He didn't face McCallum. Give him a break. If Hagler never went to Philly and avoided Hearns and Leonard, and chose to fight municipal workers like Roy did: (a fireman, a mailman, a police officer, a rubbish man, a bus driver, and a school teacher) then I'd fight the glorification of his legacy too. What do think -I like Marvin's bald head?

You are trying to equate Marvin's not fighting one man -McCallum, and dismiss the known great fighters that he did fight and say that its the same as Roy's known patterns of not fighting known threats. That horse tripped out of the gate.

No, Jones' problem is that he spent too much of his prime "overcoming opponents". He did not test himself. His career is ass backwards....
He's doing at 40 what he should have been doing at 28 -testing himself! Actually he is not testing himself so much as trying to salvage his legacy.

I know well where you stand... you do not understand where I stand and are hanging your hat on accusations of bias and double standard.

I don't care much for Mickey Mouse Belts and how many KOs a guy had against guys with make-pretend 0s on their records. We simply don't know HOW great Jones really was because he never had or accepted a Sandy Saddler or a Thrilla in Manila or a Raging Bull or a Hands of Stone or a Harry Greb or a Michael Carbajal ...the list goes on.

Throw in that he COULD HAVE faced more worthy challengers throughout his career, that he had opportunity to, and then add in that he even outrightly ducked at least one, and you have to question his legacy. You have to, but you are not.

Where does Jones shine? Athletic powers in demon speed and grand power. H2H, he would trouble many greats due a style that was very difficult to cope with. He was among the greatest SMW ever, even so. Calzaghe may dispute his being number one.

Now, Duran is a top 10 fighter of all time. Leonard is a top 20 fighter of all time. Hagler and Hearns are not as high but they are up there. Jones isn't near Duran or Leonard and to say he is just makes no sense.

You are content to call upon stats and belts against generally unmemorable opposition outside of Toney, Hopkins, and Ruiz. If you want to call him great, I'll stand with you. BUT If you want to launch him into the top 20, I'd say that you need to look more closely.

 

Roy was incredible. Greatest fighter of the 90's.Even if Roy continues i'll still watch and be pulling for him.

 

You do realise Liles and Eubanks ducked him, as in wouldn't fight RJJ in a million years? RJJ tried to get a shot at Eubanks before he was a champion and his pre-68 days. Eubanks was also offered a shot after he lost to Collins around '98 I believe

A Collins fight was muted, but Collins wanted £6million that he wasn't worth for it. If you think Collins was underrated your nuts, hes overrated, very crude and basic, hes similar to Margarito today but Marg is probably the better boxer. He was just in the right place at the right time to get shot versions of Eubanks/Benn and Eubanks still deserved at least 1 of those verdicts

Now a BEnn fight was on the table but RJJ would have had to have signed with Don King

Seriously this is like accusing Wills of ducking Dempsey or accusing Napoles of ducking Ortiz/Laguna

 

Really, name them, and make sure they aren't fighters that ducked RJJ :deal

 

I'm with you Powerpuncher. Can't really believe Jones ducked anyone the way he stripped titles from titleholders the way I take candy from babies

In Roy's case he just wasnt able to get to all these second raters like Collins, DM and whoever else was out there. I think they should all be greatful he passed them by.

 

**

 

I have no real problems with Jones in the top 20, but no real problems with him a bit outside the top 20 either. No matter who ducked who, if he had fought and beaten Eubank, Benn, Collins and Liles he would have been a lock for top 20 IMO. If he'd also rematched and beaten Toney and, especially, Hopkins he would have a case for top 10. Throw in a victory over DM and he would be really hard to keep out of the top 10.

If he'd done the above things he would have established absolute dominance at SMW and at LMW, as well as having a very good run at MW and claiming a belt at HW. Add to that that the first real loss came when he was 35 and had first gained then lost quite a lot of weight, and his resume looks very strong.

 

...

Did you know that when Tarver finally became a number LHW one contender in 2000, Jones had his manager, Murad Muhammad write a letter questioning his credentials to be number one? Read between the lines. Jones didn't want to face Tarver -and didn't for 3 years. He didn't want to fight Nunn. He didn't want to fight Liles. And he tried to block Tarver from challenging him for the title at LHW. Now ask yourself what these 3 had in common.... All three were tall southpaws with skill. Apparently Jones didn't like those kinds. Jones fought Liles twice in the Olympic trials by the way and I know that he won their last match by 3-2. Close all the way. We know the struggles that he had with Tarver.

Stevie Collins and Liles were trained by Freddie Roach. It was Roy who wouldn't fight either of them. (And this post of yours tells me that you don't know much about the Celtic Warrior.) Any insinuation that these guys were somehow equally to blame for not fighting Jones is naive. Jones was the boss. He was the superstar. He called the shots.

Eubanks? He didn't duck Jones. He didn't duck anyone.

These Jones fans out here amuse me. Jones was an undeniable powerhouse in the mid 90s at SMW. He was IBF champion. That's one belt. Why didn't he try to unify the titles? I'll tell you why. Because Benn was WBC champion -not Brannon. Because Liles was WBA champion and Roy didn't like Liles' right hook or his tall southpaw stance. Roy didn't even bother with the WBO belt... Because Collins was champ and Roy knew that Collins was a hard man.

--now, do you really believe that Collins, Liles, and Benn would turn down the millions that they would make fighting a superstar like Jones? OR... is it more likely that Jones (armed with his HBO contract which meant guaranteed millions no matter what contender he chose to fight) turned them down because he knew he'd get millions anyway...?

Cut the excuses. Accept that Roy was a great, but not an elite fighter. Is that asking too much?

 

That logic works both ways. Given the way guys like Tarver, Johnson, etc. destroyed him, why is it hard to believe that he would've "ducked" other fighters?

 

great fighter but i rate him lower down in the list of greats. i dont think he did enough to warrant being in the elite category of greats like the robinsons and armastrongs

he was arguably the most talented of alltime.

i can see why he has some detracters. he never always fought the best around. joe calzaghe and dariusz michalzwski were great challengers that he never got it on with (i am not taking sides on this one)

when he beat hopkins in 1993, bhop was only a 25% of the fighter he later went on to be.

the failure to have a rematch with bhop will always be held against him.

the critics will always argue that james toney was weight drained when he fought jones in 1994. also dont forget about some of the gifts that toney had got before that

mike mccallum was well past it

Jones is like mike tyson in that he proved his greatness by beating guys with such ease and often in spectacular fashion. he just never had that defining blood and guts fight with a ATG/POtential ATG fighter that would put him up there with the elite ATG