Was Roy Jones a paper champion??

James Toney and Roy Jones have a far better SMW resume than Nigel Benn...Eubank has a better SMW than Toney and most likely a better SMW than Jones.

H2H at SMW Jones and Toney are still better than Benn and Eubank though

Jones was definitely the man at LHW beating far better fighters than Michalczewski did.

Dariusz

Virgil Hill
Graciano Rocchigiani x2
Montell Griffin


Roy Jones

Virgil Hill
Montell Griffin
Julio Cesar Gonzalez
Reggie Johnson
Clinton Woods
Antonio Tarver
Merqui Sosa
Eric Harding



Out of all the Middleweight boxers there were in the 90's only James Toney and Bernard Hopkins have a better MW resume than him, and Roy Jones beat them both.


Actually Micheal Nunn and Mike McCallum have better resume's at MW than Jones also, but they both got beat by Toney, eventually Jones beat McCallum as well but that was at LHW.

 

the visual evidence of Roy Jones, the abundant visual evidence, is all we need.

 

At 160 he was very fortunate. The unknown convict he beat went on to dominate for a decade so it reflects well on jones.

At 168 he has a good argument for being the man, but due to his short stint noone will know.

At 175 it isn't debatable, dariusz was the man.

At hw it isn't debatable, lewis was the man.

To answer your question he was never a paper champ but nor was he ever the man. He was at worst a valid titlist and at best the favourite to beat anyone in his division.

A paper champ would be what rochigianni was, or the guy before bute at smw. Jones beat enough guys at lhw to be considered a top level fighter, but not enough to be the man.

In his prime h2h he's a nightmare for anyone, but that is for a different thread...

 

175 had no clear lineage: a new lineage needed to be created after spinks. Thus, "the man" at 175 was the fighter who the ring, every magazine and credible boxing analyst dubbed "the man". that was roy jones and quick look at the many articles or rankings from late 90s-2003 verifies this

 

There was a clear lineage. Just because the ring decided not to award the belt to virgil hill does not prevent the truth.

Anyone following boxing knows dariusz was the man at the weight. Triple beltholder and lineal champion. The man jones never travelled to challenge.

Boxing politics took the belts off dariusz and awarded them to roy.

But it aint debatable that dariusz was the man.

 

well, i can't totally disagree here but i don't agree either. i certainly don't object to a lineage starting with hill, i just don't see it as clear cut in the least. there were two options for a lineage and most don't acknowledge hill (but then again, retroactive bias may factor in).

regardless of the lineage, dariusz was not the man in any real sense. jones was considered the champ by virtually every boxing scribe in virtually every country. lineage i can't say for certain and that may go to dariusz but who was considered the real champ by every single source: that was jones

 

Well that's a different debate "is the lineal champion the man"

If by man you mean the best at the weight, that is purely down to opinion for instance I think solis is the best heavyweight today but I wouldn't call him the man.

I believe in linearity for instance lewis picked up the linearity when he beat briggs. Tyson picked it up when he beat spinks and so on and so forth.

So I see 'the man' as the lineal champ. I guess it comes down how bailley views linearity as to what this thread is debating.

I did say at best roy is a favourite over anyone in his division. I guess that correlates with your meaning of the man? So perhaps here we are both right?

 

and i think we reached a consensus here:deal this makes sense to me and i see jones as the guy you have to beat to become the top dog. the lineage argument is damn difficult and does depend on what bailey meant by the man.

 

The only people that agreed with your nonsense are the same clowns that discredit Jones ..You asked if he was a paper champ I provided you with FACTS ! Maybe you should pratice what yuou preach !

And a proven cheat how many times have we gone over this ? I love how you haters exxagerrate this cheating business ! Facts were also provided as to what he took but people like you make him out to be Barry Bonds when thats was simply not the case ..Your agenda is clear and the so called facts you provided only provide a small picture into his career ..You really need to get over it :good

 

Oh I know back the lineage crap ..Lets see how many belts did Jones have minus the one that DM held hostage ?Answer me those facts then we will revisit the paper champion thing again ..You also said that DM beat the man who Jones chose not to fight please enligten us and tell us who that is .I know who it is but make sure you also point out all the facts as to why that fight never took place.




Once again more FACTS. Nothing wrong in acknowledging FACTS

There were no facts as to what Jones took ?You sure about that ?How is it then that he is labeled a proven cheat then when we dont know what it was :think I know for a FACT he and his opponent tested for the same thing thats why there were no fines suspensions or stripping of titles .

Well your thread title reeks of hate but if your not a hater then I apologize .

And was Jones ever the man in any division ?Are you really going to ask that ?Ask your self who did everyone want to fight back then ? DM ?


Here is the Ring's Lt Heavy weight rankings in 1998 :



Title Vacant

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

Jones also beat 6 out of 10 contenders yet you want to ask when was he ever the man in any division ??