Going Against My Own Belief: Never Again

[ProBox1]

In following Boxing for the last 38 years, I’ve developed a few core beliefs that I stand by and usually never deviate from. Such as a Heavyweight must have a great chin in order to become a legitimate all-time great. It’s not how many you beat, but it’s who you beat. Another one is who did a fighter knockout is more telling than his KO percentage. The one I may actually feel the strongest about is the belief that you can’t accurately rank a fighter until his career is complete. This is something I feel very strongly about and usually hold firm on.

Over the years I’ve resisted the temptation to get caught up in the euphoria of the moment after a fighter scores a spectacular victory in a big fight. It’s impossible to rank a fighter historically until his career has heard it’s final bell. Had Sonny Liston been in a serious car accident after the second Patterson fight and never fought again, he may have been held in a higher regard than Joe Louis as an all-time great. Liston was actually that highly thought of after knocking out Floyd Patterson twice. Had Liston never fought after Patterson, we would’ve never seen him lose to Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali. Against Ali we found out that Liston was somewhat of a front runner and couldn’t handle a good boxer with speed and toughness like Ali.

The same thing applies to Mike Tyson. Although I never felt he was totally the genuine article because of his lack of mental toughness and character, had he retired after knocking out Michael Spinks in one round, he would’ve been ranked alongside of Louis and Ali. Had Tyson never fought after stopping Spinks, we would’ve never seen him get taken apart by Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield. Now we know that he does not belong in the same sentence as either Louis or Ali as a fighter or in an historical sense. [details]

[OliverNo1]

I dont understand peoples problem with RJJ - yes he's faught mostly bums for the last 5-6 years but hey he still has Nard/Toney on his record!. I dont care for him as a fighter but surely he deserves credit - most people on this board nuthug Nard and totally diss RJJ. Who's Nard beat - Tito(and thats it-dont even insult me with someone who should have lost to Sturm) - At least RJJ has two career defining fight wins.

FFS give the man credit.

[Tudors]

I am so sick of the RJJ hate brigade, let me quote this guy
"spinks never lost at LTheavy"
So what he also never moved back down to LTheavy after becoming a heavyweight, he has a 31 fight record lost his last fight and never fought again, now I have nothing against spinks he was a great fighter but to use him as a example of how not so great Jones was is just ridiculous (don't quit the day job). Did spinks fight at Middleweight (no) Supermiddle (no), RJJ went from Middle all the way to Heavyweight and had 18 more fights than spinks, maybe we should have let Spinks fight 18 more times before judging him, this topic contradicts itself in every way, any fighter can retire on top (RJJ could have after Ruiz) but if they decide to fight on and loose do we stript there greatness no!, after fighting Merqui Sosa (number 31)RJJ KO'd Griffin RD1, Hill with a bodyshot, unbeaten Harding, unbeaten Gonzalez, unbeaten Kelly, TKO Woods and then WBA heavyweight champion. I think I made my point.

[hatcheeks]

He also seems to neglect to mention that RJJ started as a middleweight, fought at supermiddle and lightheavy before moving up to outbox heavyweight ruiz. not many fighters have won legitimate world titles at 4 weights. When spinks moved up to heavy it was much more natural for him and he didnt look that small as a heavy where as RJJ loooked like a dwarf. the only points i agree with are that RJJ hasnt fought many top fighters. Did he avoid the best through his carear or were there not that many great fighters around in his era ? probably a bit of both. certainly at lightheavy there were no real big names.

[wmute]

none of the guys he mentioned fought at 154,160,168

to me the most relevant (and malicious, since lotierzo usually know his stuff) omission is that jones lost at 35 and his style was based on speed

what was spinks doing at 35? retired
what was qawi doing at 35? he was 28-6-1

now if we go back to foster, moore, charles, tunney, well that's a bit different, these are ppl who regularly fought HW's and became HW champs or very close to, and moore and charles weighted around 160 at the beginning of their careers, so if you wanted to show someone that rjj is not the best fighter in the division sport these would be very good examples not spinks

[Tudors]

none of the guys he mentioned fought at 154,160,168

to me the most relevant (and malicious, since lotierzo usually know his stuff) omission is that jones lost at 35 and his style was based on speed

what was spinks doing at 35? retired
what was qawi doing at 35? he was 28-6-1

now if we go back to foster, moore, charles, tunney, well that's a bit different, these are ppl who regularly fought HW's and became HW champs or very close to, and moore and charles weighted around 160 at the beginning of their careers, so if you wanted to show someone that rjj is not the best fighter in the division sport these would be very good examples not spinks

The entire topic just annoys me, there are too may people on the RJ hate express right now, I watched Eubank on a recording the other day and laughed to myself because he is one of the guys they say Roy should have fought, but he never stood a chance at 168, I am british by the way and Eubank was a great fighter but all I am asking is why are so many people trying to take away RJJ's accomplishments, Nigel Benn's career ended at 168 to Malinga ending a potencial Benn V Jones anyway and Roylater KO'd Malinga who had never been knocked out, thats right people before Benn lost to Malinga RJJ V Benn was going to happen, Eunbank made a spirited effort at Cruiser but couldn't take it yet Roy went on the win a Heavyweight title. I think the time as come to take these things into consideration when judging one of the best natural talents boxing has ever seen.

[Guest]

Eubank says this in his autobiography about whether he would have been able to beat Jones had they fought: "I doubt it."

[marvdave]

Roy Jones is one of the finest boxers I've ever seen. Forget all the weight divisions,age,etc. At 175, I would pick Spinks to beat Jones...both in primes. The Qawi comment puzzels me however. Jones in my opinion would have boxed circles around Braxton/Qawi.

Not a knock on Jones, just my opinion. I think Jones was better at 160-168. He had better competition there.