Where does Roy Jones Jr rank?

I would say that he hurt his legacy more by not taking more risks in his prime.

Ultimately an underachiever.

 

I have him above Mayweather to go off the other thread as well .. His wins over Hopkins and Toney are great, but his resume might still be a little thin.. Yes I would agree that some gravitate a little towards the end of his career because he missed better fighters early on. So yes for him fighting to long does hurt a little .. BUT I will say that RJJ was such a special talent that if he fought the better guys early on and won, which he probably would have, then latter in his career wouldn't hurt him as much … IMO. I really think RJJ had his chance to be that top 10 all time p4p Great, I think 25-30 is a good spot for him

 

He could have been as good as Floyd Mayweather who I rate as one of the top 10 of all time but he didn`t develop as far as Floyd did as a fighter and wasn`t tested that much, for me he could have been an all-time great but he`s way beneath Ray Leonard and I`m nott talking about at middleweight, Ray achieved far more that Roy and I bring up Ray because I don`t think Roy could have beaten Hearns at middle and Ray beat Tommy at his best weight, their second bout was bull**** and Roy would have toyed with that Hearns, Hagler scored more shots on Duran than Roy would have at middle, he was better at opening a fighter up. Hearns performance v Benitez was better than any performance Roty ever gave in a bout, Benitez was far better than the version of Toney that fought Roy and the gren Hopkins in his boresnore v Roy. It would been great if Roy had of been born the same year as Ray, Marvin or Hearns though, but I feel he would have ducked them anyway.

 

With the way I rank fighters in an ATG (résumé and Achievements in the ring) Jones is between 45-50 for me

 

These would have been good options for him.

I guess that you look at the level of talent of the fighter, and ask two questions:

1. Where should this guy end up based on his level of talent?
2. Is it in his interests to avoid difficult fights to prevent losses, or take them to get better wins wins?

I think in his case the answers are that he should have ended up ranked higher, and there was more profit than loss in taking the more dangerous fights.

 

He's got to rank very highly, especially on a H2H basis.

It depends what criteria you use. But even using trafitional criteria, his resume is pretty strong in my opinion, especially if you take into account how easily he beat most of his competition when he was prime.

Years ago, I always thought that him carrying on wouldn't affect his legacy, as I always held the belief that you can't undo what's already been done. But sadly, I've had a change of opinion. Because fans of the sport who were never there to witness his prime, really have no idea how great he truly was. So I think it has affected his legacy, especially with the modern fans and the casual element.

 

He took risks.

We've discussed this many times.

He missed out on lots of opponents, but the truth is, most of them weren't viable for one reason or another.

 

Floyd and Roy were 2 completely different fighters.

You can't say that he didn't develop like Floyd.

Roy Snr perfected a unique style that was based around Roy's unique athleticism. But it was very hard watching his downfall, as I always knew that he either needed to retire very early with his style, or he needed to adjust it to compensate for his age. Nobody can defeat Father Time. Roy's style was built around split second timing. You simply cannot fight the same way in your late 30's and your 40's, as what you did in your 20's, when you're dealing in milliseconds.

Of course Roy's an ATG.

He wasn't tested that much due to his greatness.

You can only make a case for Floyd being top 10 of all time on a H2H basis. His biggest win was over a faded version of Oscar.

Regarding SRL, he fought better opponents than Roy. But Roy didn't have the guys the calibre of the 'Fab Four' to fight in his era. His biggest rival was Toney. But Roy still accomplished an awful lot, going through 4 weight classes up to HW and back.

Regarding Hearns, Of course Roy COULD have beaten him at MW. Why on earth not?

Regarding Duran, he would never have beaten Roy.

Regarding Benitez, what difference does it make if you think that he was better than the version of Toney who Roy fought? What point are you trying to make exactly?

Regarding Hopkins, he was 28 years of age and Roy had an injured hand yet wouldn't postpone the fight because it was his first big opportunity after being a pro for 4 years. It's not at all relevant if you think that the fight was boring. It was a very tactical fight. People may think that Hearns-Benitez was boring. It doesn't matter. It was a quality win for Roy under the circumstances.

Why do you think that Roy would have ducked the 'Fab Four' had he have been born in the same era? On what grounds do you base your opinion on?

 

He couldn't fight those guys.

 

He didn't avoid difficult fights.

It's a myth that I've debunked time and again.

 

Stop being silly.

 

Hearns proved he could outbox a fighter who was ranked 30th in a list of the greatest fighters of the last 50 years in the Ring magazine in 1996, Roy never beat anyone rated as high as that by experts and Roy had a chance of beating Hearns at middle given the fact that aside from the Shuler and Hagler fights Tommy was pretty poor at middle compared to how Roy was at the weight, I was just so impressed by Tommy v Hagler that I don`t feel Roy would have beaten him and his reach matched with power would have been something that Jones never faced at all.

 

Why couldn`t he fight Benn? I`m not talking at middleweight either to be precise Benn was awful at middle and got exposed by Eubank 2 years after Roy won the Olympics, that version of Benn would never have beat McClellan at super middle.