Roy Jones' Legacy...

I see you avoided my point on the Jones-McCallum fight. To say that was anything but an easy win for Jones is simply stupid. For you to say it was one of Jones' toughest fights, simply laughable beyond belief.

And I don't know why your comparing the McCallum of 93 and earlier to the abilities of Benn and Collins. I'm not for one minute saying that Benn and Collins are higher as all-time greats or better H2H. This isn't the point. You're drifting away from the cruix of the matter.

Jones fought an over-the-hill McCallum who happened to be 40 years old and was past his best by at least 6-7 years. His ability was extremely limited. He looked flabby around the waist, lacked speed, and looked a shell of himself. He was past his best by some margin. Yet you went onto rave about Jones win over McCallum, who was better than Collins and Benn? Not at that point in his career he wasn't. Collins and Benn were tougher fights on paper at that time. When Benn beat McClellan, he was still a hell of a fighter in 1995, as was Collins. They were more youthful and far more capable fighters than the 1997 version of McCallum. You're making it out as though McCallum had 'Hopkins like' ability at the age of 40. He clearly didn't. Even Stevie Wonder could see the difference.

 

No one has claimed that Jones's losses are that bad, as far as I know. It's rather the fact that a number of top names is missing from his record that's highlighted (just whose fault it is that the fights never happened is less important IMO). I think many would have liked him to rematch Hopkins as well.

 

Ouch!!!

I'm glad I decided to duck out of this one

 

On the subject of Hopkins I agree but remember how stubborn of a buisness man he is ..He as well as Darius can also share some of the blame for not making these fights ..It always takes 2 to tango ..For all the scrutiny he gets people forget that Roy was always the smaller man fighting much bigger men for most of his career ..And to the original point about Tarver that the thread starter brought up what diffrnce did it make if Roy tried to block his contendership now when they fought 3 times ?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Why not? Is Dariusz in your top 10? Or Virgil Hill?

What do you define as "a lot"?

So? That's nothing that wasn't known going into the fight. How does that somehow "justify" not being able to last more than 2 rounds (and one solid punch) vs. someone like Tarver a full year later?

What's your justification for such an extreme claim as that?

 

I'm surprised it took this long for some to bring up the old generic "Yeah, well Ray Leonard blah blah blah" that's inexplicably used as a "defense" Roy.

I guess whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Better yet, I'd like to see your top 10 and the justification behind rating no less than TEN figthers ahead of Roy Jones.

Montell Griffin, Glen Kelly, Julio Gonzalez, Eric Harding, Antonio Tarver, Otis Grant, Lou Del Valle or aging versions of Hill and McCallum were not what I would describe as great opponent's persay. But, I will stand by my statement that they were above average, and Jones handled most of them with minimal trouble. Weather popular opinion supports it or not, there were a lot of unbeaten guys in that crowd, or men who had little more than a single loss in numerous bouts. There were a few past, future or present world titlists among the bunch as well, and lots of guys who had never before been KO'd. There were some past-primers in there, but they were few by enlarge. Jones may not have the head of Archie Moore mounted on his wall, but he definately has more than just a few respectable trophys.

Deserving or undeserving, Jones received the nod in his first match with Tarver - a fight that in all honesty probably should have been his last. By this point, he had not only climbed to the top of ONE mountain, but had reached the summit of MANY. He had established himself as a champion at middleweight, Supermiddleweight, lightheavyweight and heavyweight. He had done what Ezzard Charles, Tommy Hearns, Archie Moore and many, many others could not. Needless to say, someone is going to read this and scream but, but, but... He never faced anyone like ( fill in the blank, ) but so what. Anyway, he was 35 against Tarver and along with abusing his body in the ad and subtract game of losing and gaining Lbs, he had also run out of things to fight for......Jones was done.

I don't think that any real justification is warranted. Its common sense really. How many all time greats with past prime losses are rated accordingly by anyone who has any common sense?

 

Why is that "better" for you? I take it that rather than build Roy's own case for being in the top 10, your intention is to critically devaluate every other candidate until Roy basically has to be in by default, correct?

If you want me to post my list, so be it... but only after you've answered my questions about your list.

As for my justification, it would be very simple: I rank them ahead of Roy because I consider them to be better and more proven.

So be it if you think all of those fighters qualify as being above average. However, I would say you have an extremely broad definition of "above average" if you would include Glen Kelly in it.

Not "having things to fight for" - which is crock anyway, there's always something more to fight for - doesn't justify his chin giving way under his opponent's first landed punch a mere 2 rounds into the fight. Especially at a time when he was rated higher than ever on P4P lists, and his chin was no less than it ever was.

That's as ridiculous as saying Virgil Hill had nothing to fight for when he lost to Jones - so that explains why his ribs gave way under Jones' best shot.


Just out of curiosity, who did you pick to win the Tarver-Jones rematch before it happened? Did you say, "Jones moved up and down in weight once a whole year ago, and he probably has nothing left to fight for; that means he might crumble under a single good, clean shot from Tarver"? Be honest.

All of them. The toughness and resilience a fighter shows in overcoming adversity, bouncing back from hard losses, coming back when past his prime, etc. is one of the most looked at factors when assessing all-time greatness.

A better question is, how many fighters get rated as all-time greats despite being one-punch KTFO in back-to-back fights right on the heels of being rated higher than they had ever been? Or, how many consistently get KO'd or totally outclassed by allegedly "lesser" fighters who are the same age and at the same stage in their careers as they are (as opposed to being at an obvious disadvantage against much younger, fresher fighters)?

 

If we're going to make a big deal out of Jones's losses to Tarver then we better look at how Langord, Armstrong, Charles etc fared at an similar age.

 

Langford was KOing Tiger Flowers and fighting tooth and nail with Harry Wills, Sam McVey, and Joe Jeanette.

Charles was beating Charlie Norkus and Paul Andrews and coming back to avenge his loss to John Holman.

I don't see why that's supposed to be relevant anyway. The issue here is ROY's legacy, not anyone else's. Changing the subject to talk about someone else's career doesn't make Roy's losses any less embarrassing or inexcusable.

 

Bu I don't care that much about why never fights never took place. It might be of historic interest, but when it concerns Jones's standing the important thing is that these names are missing.

If Jones had beaten Eubank, Benn, Liles, Collins, DM, and beaten Hopkins in a rematch as well, he would have been the unquestioned top dog of MW, SMW and LMW (the 155-175 bracket) for a 10 year period. Seeing how he also claimed a belt at HW this would surely put him among the very best.

 

Many of the guys that are in most top 5s have lots of losses at this age (we can throw in Duran for good measure). So it's certainly not something that only happened to Jones. You'll see a lot of red in the right column of Charles's record after the Marciano fights. As for Armstrong...

Langford was not a very good comparison, though. Take that back.

It's not like Jones didn't have have any wins after the losses to Tarver. He claimed two belts, beat Trinidad and gave a game effort against Calzaghe.

 

While that's true, the age itself is not what excuses a fighter for a loss. It's his condition at the time and the overall circumstances around it.

If being 35 (or any age) automatically makes a guy unable to be held to any standards, then why was Roy an 8-1 favorite to win that fight with Tarver, and his next fight with Johnson as well? Why was he the most highly rated he ever was the year before after beating Ruiz, and still the consensus P4P #1 going into the 2nd Tarver fight?

The fact is he was at the height of his career only the previous year. Whether his age happened to be 25, 35, 45, or 105, the matter is that he was nothing remotely close to being a washed up fighter, which means he has no excuse for being completely inept as he was made to be. Especially when you consider that Tarver was the exact same age, and himself went on to be beaten by two guys even older than that.


Consider: Lennox Lewis was upset by Rahman at the exact same age and stage in his career, and in a similarly embarrassing one shot KO, and no one simply said afterward, "Well, he's 35, he's exempt from any obligation to win or avenge his loss." Quite the opposite, he was ridiculed up the ass and expected to go right back at Rahman and avenge the loss in order to salvage his reputation and legacy - which he did. On top of that, he followed up by winning his long overdue "legacy fight" with Tyson. Imagine if Roy had gone right back into a return fight with Tarver after being KO'd (rather than looking to grab a title elsewhere vs. Glen Johnson), then turned the tables and KO'd him (as opposed to running away and quitting, like he ultimately did in their rubber match), and then went on to blast out Calzaghe - that would be equivalent to what Lennox not only did, but was actually expected to do in order to maintain his legacy.

Why should Roy become exempt from the same standards/expectations as another fighter simply because he failed where that fighter succeeded?

He had wins of course, but not of any major significance or meaning. He failed in his biggest post-Tarver fight vs. Calzaghe (who was also past his own prime), he preferred to quit in the Tarver rubber match rather than avenge that loss, and he showed no interest at all in avenging the loss to Glen Johnson, despite Glen being right there in front of him and very much available the whole time. In order to get a win of any note, he dragged Tito out of retirement and up another weight class. In a nutshell, those actions don't speak well for his heart and determination as compared to genuine all time greats.

 

I agree with almost all of this.

The posters at ESB -his fans and critics, seem to agree that he had less to fear than he thought. Fear meaning fear of losing, fear of injury...