Hey guys,

I always respect the amount of knowledge and passion for boxing on this board. I can't think of a fighter who's legacy has been hurt and diminshed faster than RJJ, can you guys think of any? My question is, where do you think he would have been ranked amongst the all timers had he retired after the Ruiz fight? I feel that had he done that he'd be ranked amongst the top 5 fighters of all time. Now I dunno what to think.

Hey guys,

I always respect the amount of knowledge and passion for boxing on this board. I can't think of a fighter who's legacy has been hurt and diminshed faster than RJJ, can you guys think of any? My question is, where do you think he would have been ranked amongst the all timers had he retired after the Ruiz fight? I feel that had he done that he'd be ranked amongst the top 5 fighters of all time. Now I dunno what to think.


2 knockouts in a row dimmish your legacy
real fast, but i still think RJJ is one of
the Fastest fighters ever, if he had more boxing skills
he would have been unstopable, but he lost his phyasicall
ability and he started going down hill.
thats why i admire someone like Hop
bacause even tho e got old he can still box. :boxing:

Had he retired after Ruiz, he would be a living legend and could be enshirned as the best P4P boxer ever for a long, long time. Tsk-tsk...just 2 KOs, coming at the tail-end of a brilliant career and all fame and glory's gone. :(

Which is very unfair. :mad: Much like Evander, he deserves all the respect and recognition for his enormous and remarkable contribution to boxing and for being one of, if not, the best in his class of his era. :hail:

Had he retired after Ruiz, he would be a living legend and could be enshirned as the best P4P boxer ever for a long, long time. Tsk-tsk...just 2 KOs, coming at the tail-end of a brilliant career and all fame and glory's gone.

It truthfully means little to nothing. Someone's perspective may be that it's significant, but it really isn't when you consider the factors. I'm sorry, but popular opinion isn't what determines a legacy, facts do. And it's a fact that Roy was great, IS one of the all-time greats, and would have whipped both Johnson and Tarver in his prime.

That should be obvious to everyone. Bert Sugar is one of the oldest and most respected boxing historians around and he says it doesn't hurt Roy's legacy at all.

Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Hindsight bias is definitely at work here. People who prayed and hoped Roy would lose were finally right, just like a blind mouse finds cheese every now and then.

There were PLENTY of people who said, even just after the Ruiz fight, that they did not like Roy and that he's not an all-time great. It should be no surprise that they would say that now. Don't let those opinions sway you too much.

Roy WAS great, and all great fighters encounter that moment in which they are no longer great. Will Hopkins' legacy be damaged if he loses badly to Jermain Taylor this year? No. I will tell you why...Bernard is FORTY! lol...if you cannot use age as a legitimate reason for losing when you are FORTY then when the hell can you use it?

Fighters get old, and that's one thing that has happened to Roy, although I certainly can understand the argument that he was extrinsically motivated to fight and that sped up his downfall. Any way you slice, you can't point to just one thing and say "that's why Roy is gone". There are many issues to look at. Life is complex, the world is complex, and so is boxing.

No matter what you may think, it is COMPLETELY erroneous and simple-minded to say that "Roy has no legacy and his past fame and glory meant nothing".



:boxing:

roy also cheated, did steroids, and doubts himself to this day.

and the fact that he didn't face a single opponent on his level for a decade, and blantantly ducked Nigel Benn, make him un great. he is simply a good fighter that cheated on his road to the top, much like golata.

No matter what you may think, it is COMPLETELY erroneous and simple-minded to say that "Roy has no legacy and his past fame and glory meant nothing". :boxing:

Good post! I also happen to write on the last part of my post:

"Which is very unfair. Much like Evander, he deserves all the respect and recognition for his enormous and remarkable contribution to boxing and for being one of, if not, the best in his class of his era."

The first part of my post is just an echo of other people's opinions. That last part is MY own opinion, my true feelings towards RJJ. For your info, I am a huge, huge fan of RJJ, very much like yourself I presume! :)

http://www.autogrammpool.de/Autogramme/Dariusz%20Michaelczewski.jpg

roy also cheated, did steroids, and doubts himself to this day.

and the fact that he didn't face a single opponent on his level for a decade, and blantantly ducked Nigel Benn, make him un great. he is simply a good fighter that cheated on his road to the top, much like golata.
except Golotas never held a belt in his life! Well maybe that'll change very soon! RJJ legacy is hurt bad!

Roy Jones Jr (Record= 49-3, 38 KO's)

Middleweight champion of the world
SuperMiddleweight champion of the world
LightHeavyweight champion of the world
Heavyweight Champion of the world

Ring p4p fighter of the year: 95, 96, 98, 99, 02, 03

2 KO's earlier in his career maybe would have effected his legacy but not after someone has acheived all this, he can be forgiven for losing his hunger.

greatest fighter of our era, unles ur old and saw Ali fight

LightHeavyweight champion of the world
Heavyweight Champion of the world

= paper champion

he wasnt a paper champ... he was one of the best in the 90's... juss sad that it ended like it did... but dont doubt his accomplishments...

To all the haters out there, Tell me one guy you don't think Roy could beat in his prime. The Jones that beat Toney and Hill and Pazienza and Hopkins was unstoppable.

I haven't doubt: Roy Jones Jr was the best p4p in his era (1990-2000 decade) and one of the greatest of all time.

To all the haters out there, Tell me one guy you don't think Roy could beat in his prime. The Jones that beat Toney and Hill and Pazienza and Hopkins was unstoppable.

How about a list of everyone he never and should have fought, Nunn, Rocchigiani, Jackson, Michalczewski, Jirov, Sanders, McClellan, Benn, V. and W. Klitschko, Lewis, and Byrd, ie except Byrd and Rocchigiani anyone with power who could KO him. I got hand it to him though, he knew his limitations and he was very smart about who to fight and who he shouldn't fight.

How about a list of everyone he never and should have fought, Nunn, Rocchigiani, Jackson, Michalczewski, Jirov, Sanders, McClellan, Benn, V. and W. Klitschko, Lewis, and Byrd, ie except Byrd and Rocchigiani anyone with power who could KO him.

So why didn't your hero Dariusz fight them then, buddy? Please get a clue. If DM wanted to fight Roy he could have come to America to do it. German judges protect their fighters big time, whether by bribery or "patriotism". Sven Ottke is a perfect example of this. The only thing DM did was beat Roy's left-overs.

I doubt you'll find more than 5 people on here who believe DM would have beaten Roy in his prime. Roy was the legitimate lightheavyweight champion, and not DM. Roy was the champ by title, popular opinion, and most importantly, Ring Magazine.

Roy's resume could have been better, but so a lot of fighers'. Why should Roy have fought Lewis? Why Byrd? Why Klitschko? Are you seriously trying to take away from Roy's legacy for not fighting KLITSCHKO? Get out of here, dude. Lewis didn't even want to fight Roy, and why would he? If he gets beat, it makes him look bad, and if he wins, he did what he was supposed to do by beating the smaller man. No-win situation for Lewis and that's why he didn't want the fight.

For you to assume the only reason some of those fights didn't happen was due to Roy, and that Roy NEEDED to fight guys like Klitschko to improve his legacy, makes you an ass, plain and simple.

Paper champ? who did Vitali win the title off Corrie Sanders, it wasnt exactly the hardest opponent all though it was nice to see Vladimir get whooped by him. Then for his 1st defence he fights Danny Williams a guy who was fightin for British domestic titles at the start of the year, i think you are mad because Roy Jones will be remembered in a few years as a great fighter and the only thing Vitali will be remembered as is that white guy who was Lennox Lewis' last opponent. Jones beat Toney the first man to do so and he was the last guy to beat Hopkins. Vitali is ruling what can be considered the weakest division in boxing

So why didn't your hero Dariusz fight them then, buddy? Please get a clue. If DM wanted to fight Roy he could have come to America to do it. German judges protect their fighters big time, whether by bribery or "patriotism". Sven Ottke is a perfect example of this. The only thing DM did was beat Roy's left-overs.

I doubt you'll find more than 5 people on here who believe DM would have beaten Roy in his prime. Roy was the legitimate lightheavyweight champion, and not DM. Roy was the champ by title, popular opinion, and most importantly, Ring Magazine.

Roy's resume could have been better, but so a lot of fighers'. Why should Roy have fought Lewis? Why Byrd? Why Klitschko? Are you seriously trying to take away from Roy's legacy for not fighting KLITSCHKO? Get out of here, dude. Lewis didn't even want to fight Roy, and why would he? If he gets beat, it makes him look bad, and if he wins, he did what he was supposed to do by beating the smaller man. No-win situation for Lewis and that's why he didn't want the fight.

For you to assume the only reason some of those fights didn't happen was due to Roy, and that Roy NEEDED to fight guys like Klitschko to improve his legacy, makes you an ass, plain and simple.

DM fought Rocchigiani, the rest were at lower weight classes besides Nunn. He was at cruiserweight well before Jirov was the champ and regardless he never called any of those people out. Something happened to my DM vs. RJJ poll, but it was pretty even.

I guess you need explain why DM finished off Hall, Harmon, and Griffin faster by calling them RJJ leftovers, but maybe you are right. I could understand your dislike of European judging, but DM had one decision win from 1996-2003 which was the Hill fight, and he only had 7 decision wins during his entire career.

Roy fought the weakest of 4 heavyweight champions (Byrd, Lewis, and W. Klitschko) and then vacated the title once Vitali had become his mandatory.

Paper champ? who did Vitali win the title off Corrie Sanders, it wasnt exactly the hardest opponent all though it was nice to see Vladimir get whooped by him. Then for his 1st defence he fights Danny Williams a guy who was fightin for British domestic titles at the start of the year, i think you are mad because Roy Jones will be remembered in a few years as a great fighter and the only thing Vitali will be remembered as is that white guy who was Lennox Lewis' last opponent. Jones beat Toney the first man to do so and he was the last guy to beat Hopkins. Vitali is ruling what can be considered the weakest division in boxing

Obviously Jones is one of the best boxers I have seen he was just lacking in one department apparently and neither Toney or Hopkins had the power to exploit it.

Roy fought the weakest of 4 heavyweight champions (Byrd, Lewis, and W. Klitschko) and then vacated the title once Vitali had become his mandatory.

You can't really fault him for going back to lightheavy. Many people DEMANDED that he fight Tarver and insisted that he was ducking Tarver.

The simple fact is, you are holding Roy to a different standard than DM, which isn't fair at all. Dariusz has NEVER fought outside of Europe that I know of, and he certainly hasn't fought in the states, so what does that say about him? He could have done much more to fight good fighters by coming here.

I'm just using the same arguments you're using against Roy. It's easy to say someone should have fought this guy or that guy. Maybe McClellan would have had his shot vs Roy, but he got beat by Benn and had to quit boxing, plus he and Roy were friends and maybe never would have fought anyway.

Dm was a very good fighter, so you should hold him to the same standards you do Roy.

Obviously Jones is one of the best boxers I have seen he was just lacking in one department apparently and neither Toney or Hopkins had the power to exploit it.


The hardest puncher in the world could have fought Jones and wouldn't have done **** to him. He was outta there before he was hit cleanly. Power didn't mean ****. You actually had to get to him and hit him which was almost ****in impossible. The only thing I see beating a prime Jones would be a relentless swarmer with one hell of a beard and great composure.

Roy's chin and abilities in his prime are a lot different than today. Just look at the Griffin rematch and see how focused and lethal Roy was. Look at his swiftness and bravado in the Hall fight.

Compare those fights to the Tarver rematch and Johnson fights.

Two different guys.

rjj's legacy wasnt diminished by his getting ko'd (was Holmes' legend status gone when tyson ko'd him?). His legacy was ruined by the fact that he was an immensly skilled technical fighter who ducked most of his serious competition during his heyday

His legacy was ruined by the fact that he was an immensly skilled technical fighter who ducked most of his serious competition during his heyday

Totally untrue and simple-minded.

You can't really fault him for going back to lightheavy. Many people DEMANDED that he fight Tarver and insisted that he was ducking Tarver.

The simple fact is, you are holding Roy to a different standard than DM, which isn't fair at all. Dariusz has NEVER fought outside of Europe that I know of, and he certainly hasn't fought in the states, so what does that say about him? He could have done much more to fight good fighters by coming here.

I'm just using the same arguments you're using against Roy. It's easy to say someone should have fought this guy or that guy. Maybe McClellan would have had his shot vs Roy, but he got beat by Benn and had to quit boxing, plus he and Roy were friends and maybe never would have fought anyway.

Dm was a very good fighter, so you should hold him to the same standards you do Roy.

DM has fought in 3 countries and RJJ has fought in just 1. Yes they are obviously both great fighters, and they could have fought if RJJ wouldn't have demanded a 70-30 split even when the fight was going to be in the U.S. I think that Jones is fighting Harding and if he get's by him and if DM get's by Tiozzo they really should just fight and get all of this over with even though they are both well past their primes.

Is he retired right now or just ducking to see what will happen in the close future?

Yes they are obviously both great fighters, and they could have fought if RJJ wouldn't have demanded a 70-30 split even when the fight was going to be in the U.S. I think that Jones is fighting Harding and if he get's by him and if DM get's by Tiozzo they really should just fight and get all of this over with even though they are both well past their primes.

I never heard anything about a 70/30 split for Roy, but that wouldn't surprise me. I still would like to see some proof. The United States is very big and the fact that DM fought in 3 different countries doesn't make the fact that he was unwlling to come to the U.S. to fight Roy any better.

Does it really surprise you that Roy would get more of the money had they fought? Roy was the one bringing in the dollars, especially in the United States. That 30% still would have been a lot of money, the most DM ever made for one fight alone.

It's just a rumor that Roy will fight Harding, and I haven't heard Roy say it himself so I can't really believe it. If DM and Roy fought now I think we all know what it would mean, regardless of who won...nothing.

My basic point is, at the very least, Roy is no more at fault for that fight not happening than DM is.

I never heard anything about a 70/30 split for Roy, but that wouldn't surprise me. I still would like to see some proof. The United States is very big and the fact that DM fought in 3 different countries doesn't make the fact that he was unwlling to come to the U.S. to fight Roy any better.

Does it really surprise you that Roy would get more of the money had they fought? Roy was the one bringing in the dollars, especially in the United States. That 30% still would have been a lot of money, the most DM ever made for one fight alone.

It's just a rumor that Roy will fight Harding, and I haven't heard Roy say it himself so I can't really believe it. If DM and Roy fought now I think we all know what it would mean, regardless of who won...nothing.

My basic point is, at the very least, Roy is no more at fault for that fight not happening than DM is.

Who's supposed to get more money, the champion or the challenger? I thought it was the champion, but I could be wrong. And seeing how DM was the linear champion the split should have at least been somewhat even. DM was the man who beat the man first. And you have to admit that it would have been pretty much impossible for DM to get a decision win vs. RJJ in the U.S. The fact that the judges had it 77-75, 77-75, and 78-74 when Roy really won one or maybe two rounds, and the others were Glen Johnson blow outs pretty much proves this fact. They should have fought in a neutral country like the U.K.

I always heard that it was 70-30, but this place says 60-40. http://east2westsports.com/index_files/Page330.htm