How would Roy Jones be remembered if he retired after the first Tarver fight?

Those are legit loses. He may of been the favorite but no one knew just how much of a toll going up and than right back down in weight Would put on his body. Neurologically, his body fell apart from that. Bernard Hopkins said he knew the same thing would happen when he fought Tarvar, and Tarvar was coming off bulking up for Rocky. That's why Hop moved up to fight him. So you do hold the losses against him? Plus what do you mean by neurologically his body fell apart? It doesn't make sense, as he seems to be doing pretty well from a neurological stand point. I've always been skeptical about the whole "Roy lost too much weight too quick"...he didn't he had a near 7 month gap between heavy and light heavy although I admit he didn't look at his best at the weigh in (from memory ,I may be wrong). However, it wasn't size or lack of size or a badly tuned body that got Roy, i twas the fact that he couldn't pull his usual **** with Tarver, who countered beautifully all night long. In the second fight, Tarver just picked up where he left off, once again countering effectively and limiting his offense. No doubt Jones' reflexes had slowed bu the was far from a shot fighter but he couldn't deal with a peak, well trainer fighter, something Jones had not faced in years. It was unusual for him, to go from fighting losers or has beens or middling heavyweights to fighting a legitimate guy at the time. He looked human because that's just what he was when he reflexes slowed even by a tenth of a second. No chin, no basic technique and little grit. It's what makes me sad about Jones, he never had those types of tough, hard nights in his youth, because of a lack of opponents, or bad management or just the plain fact he was the best in a mediocre lhw division, he ad and shoulders above everyone else. Other fighters, guys like Ali, Leonard, Robinson, Pep et al, when their reflexes and natural gifts diminished, they had other tools to rely on, Jones never did. It's what separated the truly great from the very good.

His wins weren't magically wiped out when he finally lost at 35 years old. I remember him now as I did then -- as the P4P baddest on the planet. Folks talking about his legacy is in danger clearly never watched him back then. They don't know about the mystique. You can't get that from YouTube highlights. growing up, it wasn't about if Roy was gonna win...it was how was he gonna win this guy was such an athlete, he played a semi pro basketball game the day he defended his world title against future champion Eric Lucas who by no means was a scrub This guy really made good and great fighters look like nobodies in his prime and if you didn't see it live, its no the same mystique as you said People called Roy boring, not because of his style or because he wasn't getting knockouts, it was because he hit fighters with 3, 4 even 7 punch combos and would be across the other side of the ring before you could say " Yall Mustve Forgot" Personally, this isn't even resume based because the guy beat like 20 champions and at least half a dozen hall of famers Roy Jones is the greatest boxer Ive ever seen and is the G.O.A.T. to me.....everyone is entitled to their own opinion

He destroyed a lot of top ranked guys, and beat James Toney and Bhop. Those may of not been megafights at the time but he stbest boat both of them. Toney was one of active, best pfp fighters in the world at that time. I know what he did but when you look at great fighters with great resumes and then look at Jones, you could seriously tell the difference. you dont judge a great movie based on a failed sequel...that's how i look at it at their absolute best, that's where i gauge fighters just like i dont hold Tito's loss against Roy when he came back, i dont weigh these Roy losses that heavily It should. The name is still attached to the property. So if Jones were to pull a miracle out of his ass and win THE CW championship of the world, it shouldn't count for him then? That's double standards from the way I look at it. I respect you three great posters(Addix,you, & Iron) and your opinions but I don't agree with this opinion.

It shouldn't be. Do you judge a movie based on just the climax of it? He was a beauty to watch but apart from some wins, his resume isn't that great. I really wish he did have an atg resume but he doesn't. He destroyed a lot of top ranked guys, and beat James Toney and Bhop. Those may of not been megafights at the time but he stbest boat both of them. Toney was one of active, best pfp fighters in the world at that time.

would and do you hold the second tarver fight and the johnson KO against him? He was favourite in both. Those are legit loses. He may of been the favorite but no one knew just how much of a toll going up and than right back down in weight Would put on his body. Neurologically, his body fell apart from that. Bernard Hopkins said he knew the same thing would happen when he fought Tarvar, and Tarvar was coming off bulking up for Rocky. That's why Hop moved up to fight him.

It shouldn't be. Do you judge a movie based on just the climax of it? He was a beauty to watch but apart from some wins, his resume isn't that great. I really wish he did have an atg resume but he doesn't. May aswell agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, well I guess that whole subject is debatable. My point is regardless of how anyone feels that's how the public are going to view him. In my eyes Roy Jones is one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen. It shouldn't be. Do you judge a movie based on just the climax of it? He was a beauty to watch but apart from some wins, his resume isn't that great. I really wish he did have an atg resume but he doesn't.

Ideally losses a fighter sustained while miles past their prime shouldn't affect what a fighter achieved in their heyday, but unfortunately it doesn't work like that. A huge part of any ATG's legacy (in sport, music or whathaveyou) is based on the mystique that they are untouchable in their field, and always will be. Think of all the legends that went out at the top of their game, and became immortalised as a result. Would anyone think of Jimi Hendrix in the same way if he hadn't died young but lived to become a shadow of himself well into his seventies? Jones's prime can never be taken away from him, but that mystique he once had has now been tainted beyond repair.

Cause people will only judge a boxer by his wonder years. Shouldn't be like that. If that's the case, I'd be preaching Oscar should only have 3/4 losses or any other of my favorite boxers but I don't. Yeah, well I guess that whole subject is debatable. My point is regardless of how anyone feels that's how the public are going to view him. In my eyes Roy Jones is one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen.

How did everyone score the first Tarver fight? I had The Duke commenting on the version I saw, and he swayed me that Tarver won it and was robbed. I agree that Royston looked unbeatable when he was bashing up refuse collectors on ripped fuel... I think what's damaged his legacy more than anything else, something no one else has picked up on, is when he took that photo of his cock. I'd expected a black samba, and instead was confronted with a charcoal penny whistle. I think all of his close wins should be retroactively given to the opponent just becaue he's not packing. what did I just read??? Keeping it with the boxing, I haven't seen the Tarver fight in a long, long time but I always felt Jones won by a round or 2 BUT it could have gone the other way. No robbery though.

if you were a fan of his in the mid 90s til his mid 2000s downfall....people wanted to see the man lose America cant relate to a fighter who is boastful, doesn't get hit often and makes it look easy He wasn't supposed to make hall of famers like Toney, McCallum, Hopkins, Virgil Hill look like easy work, yet he did as he is the only fighter I've seen go fights without losing a round....that's why the first Tarver fight was a shock and he was visibly drained, muscle loss and complexion out of wack you never saw Vitali Klitschko, I guess

I've heard from a few different people that he's made some bad business investments and lost a lot of money as a result plus he's got some major tax issues so he literally needs to fight for the money. That's why he keeps fighting apparently, he's basically got no choice. But I guess if that is the real reason (which I can't completely confirm) then he's lucky that he's Roy Jones and can still earn some decent money from the sport because he might be in serious financial trouble if he couldn't do that and if he didn't make a name for himself when he was younger.

Cause people will only judge a boxer by his wonder years. Shouldn't be like that. If that's the case, I'd be preaching Oscar should only have 3/4 losses or any other of my favorite boxers but I don't. I agree, it shouldn't just be the wonder years but we shouldn't use the well post-prime/close to shot/ shot years against a fighter or any other sportsman either. I still hold the following two Tarver fights and the Johnson debacle against Roy because he wasn't yet shot, not quite prime but far from a lost cause. He got beaten by two guys who wanted it more and two guys who could punch well enough to crack that china Jones has, probably the worst chin of any ATG fighter.

You could argue that he would be regarded higher because now when matching Roy Jones up with fighters before or after him in a mythical matchup, people wil always use the arguement "if so and so caught him, it would be over". It's not that he lost past his best but the way that he's lost since the Tarver fight, which is a shame. For instance Robinson lost 19 fights, most of which way past his best but he was only stopped once. Many fighters lost past their bests but could it be argued that when Jones fought beyond the Tarver fight a weakness became apparent that we were not aware of?

No one will hold his late part of his career against him. Not unless there fcking morons at least. would and do you hold the second tarver fight and the johnson KO against him? He was favourite in both.

No one will hold his late part of his career against him. Not unless there fcking morons at least. :dance::dance::dance:

Why's that? Cause people will only judge a boxer by his wonder years. Shouldn't be like that. If that's the case, I'd be preaching Oscar should only have 3/4 losses or any other of my favorite boxers but I don't.

His wins weren't magically wiped out when he finally lost at 35 years old. I remember him now as I did then -- as the P4P baddest on the planet. Folks talking about his legacy is in danger clearly never watched him back then. They don't know about the mystique. You can't get that from YouTube highlights.

Well this is surprising. Why's that?

It's because he's still active... in 10 years itll be different. if you were a fan of his in the mid 90s til his mid 2000s downfall....people wanted to see the man lose America cant relate to a fighter who is boastful, doesn't get hit often and makes it look easy He wasn't supposed to make hall of famers like Toney, McCallum, Hopkins, Virgil Hill look like easy work, yet he did as he is the only fighter I've seen go fights without losing a round....that's why the first Tarver fight was a shock and he was visibly drained, muscle loss and complexion out of wack