the jones jr debate.

*Probably the greatest ever... BUT, Tarver knew something. Tarver had Jones number. every real boxing expert will tell u.."there's always someone with ur number"...and he might not even be the best...but for some reason, he can give u trouble...Tarver was Roy Jones Achilles. if those guys fought 10 times, Tarver prob wins 6.

 

Jones at his prime would have beat Tarver by a wide margin. Jones in the 4th and 5th rd of their third fight was getting at Tarver. A prime Jones would have been even faster and sharper and would have been able to keep it up for the entire 12.

The drop down from heavy back to lt. heavy really killed Jones' body

 

My opinion is, his resume is a lot better than what people give him credit for. I think at times, he was too good for his own good, and he didn't/doesn't get the credit he deserves. He made decent fighters look like nobodies, who went on to find success after they'd been beaten. He never needed rematches or trilogies in his prime, (apart from Griffin, due to the DQ) and that seems to work against him when he's ranked. There's many examples to give, but think of someone like Manny. He's a great fighter, with a great resume. When you look at it, there's two great fights with MAB, three with Morales and four with JMM. They jump out at you straight away. That's 9 exciting and competitive fights against three great fighters. Manny deserves a lot of credit. But the point is, Roy is penalized because he never had thrilling fights like that. Apart from Griffin, he didn't need rematches. He didn't need two or three fights with Toney, Hopkins and Ruiz etc. He was never in back and forth fights that were close and exciting. Which is why people say that he didn't fight anyone.

I'd bet my life, that if Roy had needed two or three fights with Toney etc, that were back and forth fights, he'd get a lot more credit than he gets. Toney gets huge credit for the Jirov win (and rightly so) yet Roy gets none for the Ruiz fight. If Ruiz had've dropped him, it'd have been an exciting fight, he'd have got huge credit. In my opinion, he never got the credit that he deserved for the following fights: His 2nd round knockout of Tate, his win over Malinga, his knockout of Hill, his knockout of Griffin, (from a lead uppercut) his finish of Vinny Paz (a 6 punch combo, whilst walking forwards) and his domination of Johnson and Woods. So I definitely believe that Roy gets penalized for being too dominant. I'd put Roy's resume up against almost anyone's from the same era, around the same weight classes. Roy is criminally underrated on this forum.

 

I think Tarver would always have posed problems, but I can't envisage Roy losing to him when prime.

 

Tarver caught him at the right place and at the right time .Their trilogy was very entertaining .

 

I agree.

People waited years to see Roy have a rival.

But let's say that Tarver had've beaten Harding in that eliminator in 2000, and Roy had've then fought Tarver instead of Harding.

Would we have seen a trilogy between them?

I don't think we would have done.

There was a documentary on Roy in 2000, and I can't remember who said it, but someone said (apart from Griffin) that Roy had never had any rematches. It was said as though it was a bad thing. He was penalised for not having had a genuine rematch or for having an exciting fight against a rival. Bizarre!

 

Roy Jones jr. Possibly the G.O.A.T. in 154lbs, 16-0 (KO 16)

Any other weight he goes down in ATG ranking, good wins early on

Mayweather more certain G.O.A.T. @130

Both close level, Mayweather still can improve

 

He schooled Hopkins and Toney in his prime, when they were in their prime age. Both were ATG, I can't think of more dominant wins over 2 atg's in their prime. And yes Bhop was prime, no reason to suggest otherwise.

 

Can't wait for Rico's post. Ha!

 

Jones just beat better fighters at the time than Tarver but respect to the majic man he got back into the mix and finally got to Jones .


And as far as the rematches I can't hold that agaisnt him because any fight that left any doubts he obliged in a rematch win or lose like with Tarver and Griffen so agree that statement is bizarre .

 

Yes, Tarver should get respect. He deserves it. But if their 2003 fight wasn't really close, there probably wouldn't have been any call for a rematch. That's why had they fought earlier, I don't think we'd have seen a trilogy.

People always claim that Roy has a weak resume. But although it could have stronger (which applies to almost any fighter) I think he's got a very good resume. In my opinion, he's definitely been penalised over the years for being too dominant.

 

Everyone agrees(at least I hope) that he was a phenom in his prime. Some say his resume is weak though, but I cant see it.

Hopkins and Toney are 2 banker HOF fighters. Jones didnt just beat them, he easily beat them. He beat Hopkins when aparently had a broken wrist.
Virgil Hill is another who will make(has he already) the hall of fame.
Mike McCallum was past it, but hes another hall of famer.
John Ruiz was a legit HW title holder, who was ranked as a top 5 HW when Jones basically shut him out, while giving away 30 lbs.
Reggie Johnson
Thulani Malinga
Antonio Tarver
Clinton Woods
Eric Lucas
Jorge Castro
Montell Griffen
Otis Grant
Julio Gonzalez

Were all legitimate title holders,who beat some good names between them.

This is not a "weak" resume.

 

I agree entirely.

He beat good fights with ease, making it look like they were nobodies.

But if you look at who those guys fought, they had good competitive fights against other good fighters.