If Roy Jones Retires 49-1 in 2003 where would you rank him all time?

Agree to disagree. I think had he retired 49-1 pretty much undefeated, taking into consideration how imperious he was at his best I think he would have been regarded higher for sure. I think that because his decline was so sharp and swift and clearly linked to his athletiscm, it kind of counts against him, like he didn't have the versatility or you could say the tools to change and adapt. I have heard a lot of people call it that way, respected boxing people. There is no doubting that his peak though was the highest I have personally seen, he was an absolute phenomenon. I didn't watch the entire video but did Naazim say n the video that Hopkins tries to imitate Mayweather? That's what it sounded like.

Same as today. Prime for prime the most unbeatable fighter in history. Harder Joe LMAO :gay:

Same as today. Prime for prime the most unbeatable fighter in history.

Well he would have the same meaningful wins that he has now so....... This is typical nsb gobbledy****. "Yeah guys...lets just ignore every time this dude got knocked the fcuk out and focus on his wins." Lmao

What if he dropped down to CW and won a title there after beating Ruiz? He probably wouldn't have gotten much credit. It was an unglamorous division, and it wouldn't have topped winning a version of the HW title.

His best win would still be Hopkins. He still would not hold wins over anyone else of note other than Toney. He would still have a tonne of b or c list guys on his resume. He would still have the most useless heavyweight title win at the time. However, that image of invincibility and that unique athleticism would probably have him ranked a little bit higher. The losses to Tarver and Johnson really hurt his legacy imo. Absolute nonsense.

Yup. I don't get topics like these. It doesn't matter how many cans beat him in the twighlight of his career as a broke fighter. It doesn't change what he did in his prime and what he accomplished as a whole. If you have short term memory, if you only care about the moment, then that's your problem as a person and how you look at a fighter, not about the fighter themselves. Exactly let's say 3 years from now Floyd comes back and gets knocked out by Canelo it wouldn't diminish anything he accomplished

Well he would have the same meaningful wins that he has now so....... I agree. Just because he fought way way way past his prime shouldn't take away from what he had already accomplished

Yeah but I think the Tarver and Johnson losses definitely affected his legacy in particular. Roy was past prime in those fights even the first Tarver fight I would say, but his fall from grace was so steep and dramatic that I'm wondering how people would rate him up to and before those losses happened. Its interesting because at that point Roy was basically undefeated (bogus DQ loss) so you can draw parallels between 49-1 and 49-0 that Floyd is, although Floyd achieved more later and retained his consistency longer, I don't think he was quite as impressive as Roy at his peak. He was actually frustrated by Griffin and clearly smoked him when he was down. Obviously it was an off night for Roy, as he destroyed him in the rematch, but the DQ was fair you can't hit someone like that when they take a knee. Similar to the Abraham Dirrell fight.

It's hard not to count some of his post prime bouts after him and that is unfair but its the truth. He would have personally seemed unbeatable.

I was thinking about this the other day. Although I don't hold a lot of his later career against him, hypothetically where do you think Roy Jones ranks all time if he had retired after Tarver I. On natural talent alone he is top 5 (maybe top 3) ever in my humble opinion. Would he be in the argument for GOAT. You could argue he would have been a top 5 all time. WIth the losses you could argue top 10 all time. Truth is he is dropping farther down the list every time he steps into the ring.

He should've retired after winning the HW title. At that point there was nothing to prove. IDK where to rank him all-time but athletically and handspeed, I've never seen anyone more gifted.

People would've said he ducked the rematch with Antonio Tarver because... well... we know why he should have ducked that rematch. That wouldn't have lasted longer than a little while anyway; with Roy retired, three world titles immediately come vacant, Antonio Tarver still has Glen Johnson and others to deal with, with Bernard Hopkins/Chad Dawson coming along just behind that. With Tarver's run on top unlikely to last all that long, no one would care about the Jones rematch anyway.

I was thinking about this the other day. Although I don't hold a lot of his later career against him, hypothetically where do you think Roy Jones ranks all time if he had retired after Tarver I. On natural talent alone he is top 5 (maybe top 3) ever in my humble opinion. Would he be in the argument for GOAT. If Roy retired 49-1, after winning world titles at 160, 168,175, and heavyweight (before coming back down to defend his belts again), Roy stands firmly in that ATG (though Jones' resume quality likely keeps him out of that top-top conversation with Ray Robinson/Henry Armstrong/Archie Moore/Joe Louis). comfortably in the top 15, though.

In despite of all his recent losses, I still consider him an all time great. Roy Jones, Jr won't be remembered for the eight subsequent losses on his record due to being past his physical peak but for how good he was in his prime.

I think you are actually the first person that has answered the question in the thread lol...so thanks. I pretty much agree. lol no problem bro, Roy was unstoppable in his prime, getting knocked out ruined his legacy

How was that a "bogus DQ loss"???? Griffin was frustrating him and it was a close competitive fight. Jones clearly hit Griffin when he was down out of frustration. It's a legit loss even though he won the rematch with a first round KO ! I don't think he was frustrated in that moment, more likely overanxious to get a knockout in a tough fight. I guess bogus isn't the right word, but he was on the verge of a stoppage win, he had plenty of time in the round to get it, not only that but the knockdown would have had a big effect on the scorecards had it gone 12 rounds, which I highly doubt. In fairness I have seen worse than that and fighters not even lose a point, Griffin's play acting didn't help.

How was that a "bogus DQ loss"???? Griffin was frustrating him and it was a close competitive fight. Jones clearly hit Griffin when he was down out of frustration. It's a legit loss even though he won the rematch with a first round KO ! It was legit DQ but not legit lose.

Yeah but I think the Tarver and Johnson losses definitely affected his legacy in particular. Roy was past prime in those fights even the first Tarver fight I would say, but his fall from grace was so steep and dramatic that I'm wondering how people would rate him up to and before those losses happened. Its interesting because at that point Roy was basically undefeated (bogus DQ loss) so you can draw parallels between 49-1 and 49-0 that Floyd is, although Floyd achieved more later and retained his consistency longer, I don't think he was quite as impressive as Roy at his peak. How was that a "bogus DQ loss"???? Griffin was frustrating him and it was a close competitive fight. Jones clearly hit Griffin when he was down out of frustration. It's a legit loss even though he won the rematch with a first round KO !

Well, anyone who would rank him higher than he is now just because he retired before he lost would be making a mistake. Roy's career is what it is. His wins are his wins. Retiring after the Tarver win doesn't make his wins look any better than they are now, when he hasn't. The myth can be the myth, lord knows there's no stopping boxing fans and their myths (see Tyson and Toney), but the reality would show Roy in the same place regardless of whether he retired after Tarver 1 or not. Agree to disagree. I think had he retired 49-1 pretty much undefeated, taking into consideration how imperious he was at his best I think he would have been regarded higher for sure. I think that because his decline was so sharp and swift and clearly linked to his athletiscm, it kind of counts against him, like he didn't have the versatility or you could say the tools to change and adapt. I have heard a lot of people call it that way, respected boxing people. There is no doubting that his peak though was the highest I have personally seen, he was an absolute phenomenon.