Thoughts on Jones Jr as an example of the definition

Roy's stoppage defeats have been devastating to his legacy. Greats like Robinson, Walcott and Moore did not sustain multiple losses like that as they advanced in years. After Ruiz, he should have gotten out. The knockout losses to Green, and back to back against Johnson and Tarver at age 35 especially hurt him in an era where many are successfully competing at more advanced ages. By virtue of never having been stopped and continuing to compete well, the older Hopkins has surpassed him. (And at age 45, stoppage losses similar to the ones Jones sustained at age 35 to Tarver and Johnson wouldn't hurt him as much legacy wise.)

 

I think we should bring some Wittgenstein in here.

 

Why should that be? Unless you think Jones was not washed up and that there was an element of "exposure" about his losses to Tarver and co., I don't see why those losses are relevant. A fighter is judged on their ability and achievements. His achievements are there whatever happens down the line. His ability was established before he destroyed himself post-Ruiz.

 

He should absolutely not have been washed up. He never took a beating, and ought to have proceeded forward well after Mackie Shilstone's training regimen for Ruiz. So yes, I believe there was an element of "exposure" about those stoppage defeats, which he could have cloaked behind a timely retirement after Tarver I or even III. (Tarver III could suggest that the stoppage in Tarver II was an aberration, but it happened to him twice more. I felt very strongly though that Roy needed to get the hell out after Tarver I.)

 

Jones was an ATG great fighter with excellent fighter accomplishments.

 

Ah. So you think Tarver beats a prime Jones?

 

agreed

 

Jones was a fighter with ATG potential but only excellent fighter accomplishments.

 

So therefore Ezzard Charles, Ali, Langford and aren't great because of there defeats in old age. Jones was clearly old and never the same after Ruiz, he was actually slowing before that from 98 onwards but maintained the winning run, until the age of 35. Robinson lost to people he shouldnt have in his prime at this age to

 

Roy Jones Junior is the greatest talent to ever step inside of the boxing ring, phsyically and technically he is maybe the greatest ever. I compare him to Michael Jordan, Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Muhammad Ali..

He redifined an art....

 

No.

 

In the case of Charles, we now know he was developing terminal ALS, and Langford was blind through the long final portion of his career. Robinson was never punched into a stoppage defeat, and he continued until he was 45. (Incidentally, Robby fought 14 times in 1965.) Charles had 119 fights, Robby, 201, and Langford, about 300. Jones had 50 fights when a single Tarver hook did him in. When Robby was between 35 and 40, he only lost to Gene Fullmer, Basilio (subsequently avenging defeats to both), and twice on a split decision to Pender in Pender's own Boston. The defeats they suffered are nowhere near as egregious in nature as what Jones sustained at the hands of Johnson, Tarver and Green.

Granted, the ideal is to never take a hard shot, as you're not supposed to get hit, but it sure does help to be able to take a punch or at least have the capacity to recover from distress. When has he shown he could cope with adversity, and come back from under extreme duress?

 

um. no. Technically roy was ****. Athletic, yes. Technical/Fundamental. Hell no. Thats why he keeps getting his ass kicked.