Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[Hitman Hodgson]

His resume is what aligns him with Leonard and Duran and what in my opinion puts him well over Hearns and Hagler.

Also who are all these stiffs I might ask? In modern boxing the depth of Roy's resume is matched only by Ali

Jorge Vaca
Jorge Castro
Bernard Hopkins
Thulani Malinga
James Toney
Merqui Sosa
Mike McCallum
Montell Griffin
Reggie Johnson
Eric Harding
Julio Cesar Gonzalez
Clinton Woods
John Ruiz

All of them proven and dangerous opponents not only did Roy beat them he rarely even lost a round.

Not to mention guys who I wouldn't call necessary proven but he also dominated SUPER durable and dangerous guys like Glen Wolfe, Thomas Tate and Tony Thorton(all guys who suffered their only KOs of their career to Roy) and Lou Del Valle

How is that resume matched only by Ali? Don't get me wrong he has a excellent resume but you seriously think only Ali's is better?

[joe strong]

of course he does even though he is one of the few boxers a hate...he made me $700 when he got knocked out by tarver in 2 rds...there was a pool in the bar i was at & you had to pick the round because everyone picked jones to win but since i picked tarver i would split with anyone else who picked him...lol! i was the only one who picked him. i also won $400 when i was the only one who picked tyson to ko mcneeley in the 1sr round...i thought id split that 400 with the entire bar...

[bojangles1987]

OK... Prez of the RJJ fan club! I never did say Roy wasn't a great fighter. I was just curious as to whether people viewed him as an elite ATG on the level of the Ray Leonards, Hearns, Duran, Hager etc. You cannot say he didn't fight a lot of stiffs. And, yes I forgot to mention his win over Virgil Hill which was impressive. But, you are gonna fault me for ranking Hopkins did a tad higher. He had the best middleweight run since Hagler.

Yes, Hopkins had defeated an "older" Roy. But, then Roy defeated a "greener" Hopkins. Roy was shot later in career which is why he lost to Bernard. Why? Why was Roy all of a sudden was perceived as completely shot to where beating him was meaningless?? While Bernard, who had a somewhat similar career wasn't??? Both, have had great work ethics and took care of themselves very well...

Roy wasn't "suddenly" perceived as shot after the Hopkins rematch. He was shot way before that, we knew it going in, and the Hopkins win in the rematch was completely meaningless.

Roy and Hopkins were basically at the exact same point in their career in the first fight, somewhat green fighters with no championship fights.

[THE REED]

The reason Roy didn't have that "gutty performance'

he did though..

[THE REED]

OK... Prez of the RJJ fan club! I never did say Roy wasn't a great fighter. I was just curious as to whether people viewed him as an elite ATG on the level of the Ray Leonards, Hearns, Duran, Hager etc. You cannot say he didn't fight a lot of stiffs. And, yes I forgot to mention his win over Virgil Hill which was impressive. But, you are gonna fault me for ranking Hopkins did a tad higher. He had the best middleweight run since Hagler.

Yes, Hopkins had defeated an "older" Roy. But, then Roy defeated a "greener" Hopkinsshot. Roy was shot later in career which is why he lost to Bernard. Why? Why was Roy all of a sudden was perceived as completely shot to where beating him was meaningless?? While Bernard, who had a somewhat similar career wasn't??? Both, have had great work ethics and took care of themselves very well...

How the **** was roy "all the sudden shot" in 2011?

[NearHypnos]

I think he's just trying to say why is Roy considered shot and not B-Hop, as in..trying to say it's somehow ok. lol


Anyway, Roy been getting knocked out for years now. Unless you saw the first Tarver fight after Ruiz when it became pretty evident he was on the decline, you just wouldn't understand the difference in RJJ then, and before.

Bhop's style in the ring and lifestyle outside it have translated better to age.


Anyway, he's an ATG in terms of fairly recent fighters. But he's not on Duran, Leonard, Hagler level imo.

[turbotime]

I have him top 20 ATG and probably my #1 fighter in head to heads.


Outb4Thehate

[Mintcar923]

How the **** was roy "all the sudden shot" in 2011?

Not suddenly shot in 2011. I meant suddenly percieved as shot when he started his losing streak. Yes, he was considerably older in Hopkins 2. But, then what the hell was Bernard?? Let's not give B-Hop any credit for the win because they hadn't had their re-match earlier before he was "shot." It's just simply unfair to Hopkins. Besides, I think he wanted the fight to happen in years prior, as well. But, I'm not sure Roy did.

You know, Tarver 2 may have just have been a lucky punch. The Glen Johnson fight, also. Roy also lost to a much lesser known Danny Green. But, then B-Hop also had a bad night earlier in his career against a relative unknown who's name escapes me. Was B-Hop shot?? Oh, Roy KO's Montell Griffin in the first round. Umm, maybe cause Griffin was shot at that time. Let's discredit Jones. It's kinda like a double standard, here. RJJ may not have been in his prime several years ago but he was still a decent fighter.

[NearHypnos]

Not suddenly shot in 2011. I meant suddenly percieved as shot when he started his losing streak. Yes, he was considerably older in Hopkins 2. But, then what the hell was Bernard?? Let's not give B-Hop any credit for the win because they hadn't had their re-match earlier before he was "shot." It's just simply unfair to Hopkins. Besides, I think he wanted the fight to happen in years prior, as well. But, I'm not sure Roy did.

You know, Tarver 2 may have just have been a lucky punch. The Glen Johnson fight, also. Roy also lost to a much lesser known Danny Green. But, then B-Hop also had a bad night earlier in his career against a relative unknown who's name escapes me. Was B-Hop shot?? Oh, Roy KO's Montell Griffin in the first round. Umm, maybe cause Griffin was shot at that time. Let's discredit Jones. It's kinda like a double standard, here. RJJ may not have been in his prime several years ago but he was still a decent fighter.

No offense...but that's an awful argument to make. In all honesty, I don't think it's worth debating over since it seems you don't really get it...but whatever.

Tarver 2...You didn't watch Tarver 1? There was nothing lucky about it in 2. Nothing lucky about it against Glen. Danny Green you can argue at least that he had illegal handwraps....but even then it's not getting to the issue that Jones was considered on the decline when people saw him in Tarver 1. It was even mentioned, and he tried to attribute it to losing weight. He's not shot because of his age..he's shot because his skills have degraded and I don't even think he has a chin anymore. Shot doesn't equal age. It's a degradation of skill and sometimes also a degradation of endurance/chin. Look at Cotto, he's young..but a lot of people consider him shot compared to how he once looked.

[McGrain]

Well the Toney argument has some basis (Even though Jones struggled sometimes to make weight as well) but I don't buy the Hopkins argument at all. As I said before, it seems to be based on circular logic. The only indication that we have that Hopkins was green is the fact that he lost to Roy. But one can't use the win to de-legitimate itself. Hopkins was the number 1 ranked contender in the world fighting for the vacant title (against Roy) and he didn't lose another fight after that for 10 years.

No, for me there are other indicators that he was greenish outside of his losing to Roy.

First of all, Hopkins is a fighter who became GREAT based almost entirely upon attributes that improve with experience. He is great because he learned how to feint, how to make angles, how to perfect footwork, how to set traps and with the dark arts he uses to get by now. These are not things that come overnight. They are not things that most modern fighters learn at all because they call for more top-line experience against top-line opposition. You just don't learn how to fight like that in 24, or whatever it was, fights against limited opposition.

"It took two years to teach him to trick an opponent to the ropes and counter them."

That's Freddie Roach talking about Pacquiao. The two years he's talking about encompassed fights with Barrera, Morales and Marquez.

No, Hopkins - and for that matter Jones - visibly improved after their fight.