Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[BennyST]

The first undisputed unified light heavyweight champion since Michael Spinks? Yeah, I'd say he's an ATG and had all-time great ability. Were there ever guys he should've fought that he didn't? At light heavyweight, I have a hard time believing that since he reigned supreme there for so long. Maybe at middleweight or super middle? I'm not sure though. What I am sure of is the guy needs to retire already. If he keeps it up much longer, he might start to look as bad as Evander Holyfield. I hope that never happens.

No. While he was the man, he wasn't Undisputed and was only partially unified. It's often the only real dig that anyone ever has about him in that LHW was his best division, the one he was at longest, his most natural and the one in which he really spent all his time and did most of his accomplishing etc etc, but he didn't fight the other main guy there and longest reigning champ, despite the fact it was a foregone conclusion.

Whatever people say about him though, he's a clear ATG of the highest level.

[BoxingGenius27]

He had some awesome skills back in the '90's but then again, he fought a lot of stiffs. He had beaten James Toney and outpointed Hopkins earlier in his career. Even though he holds wins over them, do you believe he was really superior? He was an excellent fighter but I don't think he was quite as good as Hopkins...

Were you even around to experience what Jones did in the 90's?

Sorry, for my silly question.

Of course you weren't.

[zab191]

RJJ - ATG?

Of course

[Verstyle]

Nope............but all-time great of course.

[bojangles1987]

Hopkins-Jones II was maybe the ugliest main event that I've seen in the over 40 years I've been following boxing. With Roy's skills all gone and Hopkins with his usual dirty tactics and whining, it was excruciating to watch. They fought the same year as Mosley-Mora, which was God awful, and it still was the worst fight of that year. That's why people were so impressed with Hopkins after the Pascal fights. Everyone figured he had nothing left. I give neither fighter any credit for what happened in Hopkins-Jones II.

Worst fight I've ever seen between two guys who were at some point both great fighters. Why should I give Hopkins credit for beating Roy in the rematch, when Roy was shot to sh** and Hopkins still cheated and mauled and whined his way to what was really an unimpressive win?

He couldn't manage to look impressive against that Roy, why the hell would I consider him a better fighter than Roy at his best, when Roy had beat him at a time when it mattered?

[McGrain]

That's the thing, I disagree that it's a different question.

...you disagree that "Was Hopkins ATG at 25-0?" and "how many fighters would beat that Hopkins whilst 20-0?" are different questions?

They're obviously different questions.

All successful fighters learn over time as we said earlier.

But some fighters are more given to improving. Jones peaked early and tailed off dramatically later on. Hopkins got increasingly better, for reasons discussed earlier, until he started to gradually drop off.

Hopkins improved dramatically later on, as do all fighters who become great based upon his kind of style.


Not all fighters improve as they learn. Mike Tyson, for example, peaked incredibly early and then dropped off dramatically, in spite of the fact that he continued to learn new things in the ring. Hopkins should be thought of as a sort of opposite.

Put it this way: I'd pick almost all post 1925 top 20 Middleweight (all time) types to beat the Hopkins that Jones beat, but Hopkins would beat many of them at his peak. That's the type of dramatic improvement we are talking about.

[Anthony342]

No. While he was the man, he wasn't Undisputed and was only partially unified. It's often the only real dig that anyone ever has about him in that LHW was his best division, the one he was at longest, his most natural and the one in which he really spent all his time and did most of his accomplishing etc etc, but he didn't fight the other main guy there and longest reigning champ, despite the fact it was a foregone conclusion.

Whatever people say about him though, he's a clear ATG of the highest level.

What other main guy would that be?

[wmute]

What other main guy would that be?

Pretty sure he is talking about Dariusz Michalczewski. He is right, too.

[New England]

What else would we do?

i'll f#ckin talk sh#t about roy jones


he beat one of the weakest hw "champions" of all time, and the easiest out at HW for a strap at the time ('03.)


and i'm still waiting for a good reason to believe he's an unstoppable force at MW when we saw so little of him there and so much from so many other great fighters with long tenures.

again, i have no reason to think a prime monzon, close to prime middleweight robinson, prime greb, and prime hagler would simply be outclassed by roy jones. i think the idea is pretty damn preposterous. the best h2h mw ever? based on what exactly?

[bojangles1987]

i'll f#ckin talk sh#t about roy jones


he beat one of the weakest hw "champions" of all time, and the easiest out at HW for a strap at the time ('03.)


and i'm still waiting for a good reason to believe he's an unstoppable force at MW when we saw so little of him there and so much from so many other great fighters with long tenures.

again, i have no reason to think a prime monzon, close to prime middleweight robinson, prime greb, and prime hagler would simply be outclassed by roy jones. i think the idea is pretty damn preposterous. the best h2h mw ever? based on what exactly?

Get out. NOW.

I'm biased, but I can picture Roy beating all of them. With his combination of size, speed, power, and smarts, the man would hold advantages over just about all of them.