Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[Anthony342]

Looking from Michalczewski's (likely) point of view, he was happy making millions fighting where he was comfortable. I guess that speaks for him as both a businessman and a boxing world champion. Same with Roy.

For younger fans, I was basically trying to indicate that it was nothing like a Floyd-Pac situation. That kind of money wasn't there for it and neither was the public demand.

So then, is it at least safe to say that Roy Jones was the best light heavyweight of his era, in his prime, in the '90s and would have most likely beaten Darius Michalczewski had they fought back then? Possibly a Jones UD win?

[Anthony342]

I love lineage and even I can agree with this. Lineage is the best way to track champions, but not always the most truthful about who was the best at a given time. It's a valuable tool when someone does what a REAL world champ should, fights the top guys, and defends the title with meaning.

If a fighter can get a crack at the lineal crown, cool. It's why I had no beef with Baldo-May. It's what comes after that counts. Do you validate your place as champion or not. Roy didn't bother after Toney, facing his worst overall run of championship foes between Toney and McCallum.

Given the argument here, neither Roy nor DM ever validated their place against each other at Light Heavyweight, though Roy's opp was overall tougher. In 2000, it mattered as they were both still. After that, DM's slide made the question far less relevant.

All that said...of course Roy belongs in any discussion of the elites. There were pockets of suck, but also a slew of quality foes and jaw dropping performances. He's still getting grief for not catching Robinson.

But how many guys are catching Roy?

Well said, totally agree. Lineal champion is often the best way to tell who the best is of an era, but that are some cases like this when if you beat everyone else there is to beat in your weight class and have more quality opponents than the lineal guy and stay on top longer, then that guy's better. Roy Jones is one of the best light heavyweights of all-time. He wasn' too bad at middle and super middleweight either.

[Anthony342]

Oh yeah and great or not, the guy needs to retire already. He's 43 now and at 41, looked very bad against Bernard Hopkins in their rematch and was badly beaten by Lebedev. Why do these guys stick around so long? Is it the money, do they need to stay in the spotlight or do fighters feel they have nothing else after their boxing careers are over? Then again, there are so many cases of this, guys going on too long, Jones, Holyfield, Mosley, Holmes, Duran or staying too long after comebacks, Robinson, Louis, is it actually LESS common for fighters to retire before their skills and mental faculties start to decline?

[raf727]

Oh yeah and great or not, the guy needs to retire already. He's 43 now and at 41, looked very bad against Bernard Hopkins in their rematch and was badly beaten by Lebedev. Why do these guys stick around so long? Is it the money, do they need to stay in the spotlight or do fighters feel they have nothing else after their boxing careers are over? Then again, there are so many cases of this, guys going on too long, Jones, Holyfield, Mosley, Holmes, Duran or staying too long after comebacks, Robinson, Louis, is it actually LESS common for fighters to retire before their skills and mental faculties start to decline?

He was actually doing pretty decent against Lebedev, and was up on one of the cards in Russia. I watched the fight, it wasn't pretty, but Roy wasn't getting slaughtered, he got KO'd with like 10 seconds left.

[IMDAZED]

Explain who he faced that was even remotely in his class in between Hopkins 1 and Tarver? Maybe Toney, but there were theries he had a bit of a weight problem at the time. Again, I'm not being pessimistic toward Jones which seems to be a misconception around here. I'm just trying to be objective. And I don't say success at an advanced age is everything. But, it does mean something. All a fighters attributes should be placed in a blender when judging their all-time status IMO...

Wow.. This is an interesting discussion since we have a lot of different viewpoints!

You said serious challenge, which he got from Montell Griffin. Whether he was in his "class" or not.

[Scott9945]

So then, is it at least safe to say that Roy Jones was the best light heavyweight of his era, in his prime, in the '90s and would have most likely beaten Darius Michalczewski had they fought back then? Possibly a Jones UD win?

Yes, I would agree with all of that. Michalczewski in his prime was a rock solid fighter with a very hard jab, but prime Roy Jones was simply on another level. The fight still should have happened though. A win over an unbeaten champion in Germany would have been a sparkling addition to RJ's resume.

[Mintcar923]

You said serious challenge, which he got from Montell Griffin. Whether he was in his "class" or not.

Griffin was not in Jones' class which Jones-Griffin II had proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure many would agree Roy was just uninspired in the first fight...

[bose]

Griffin was not in Jones' class which Jones-Griffin II had proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure many would agree Roy was just uninspired in the first fight...

If you saw both fights back to back you can clearly say the samething about Griffen in the second fight.

Roy great fighter but roids messed up his legacy a bit.

[res]

Griffin was not in Jones' class which Jones-Griffin II had proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure many would agree Roy was just uninspired in the first fight...

Why does this guy keep making silly arguments ? You knock down one argument and he comes with another.

What does "in Roy's class mean"? Do you mean someone that SHOULD have been a challenge for Roy or someone who WOULD have been a challenge. If you mean the second, then your argument is nonsense. Montel Griffin was an undefeated light heavyweight champion that had decisioned James Toney twice.

How the heck does Roy Koing him in one round indicate that he SHOULD not have been a challenge? Now someone else Koing him in one round would indicate that. This reminds of the "Hopkins wasn't in his prime when Roy beat him because Roy Beat him" argument.

[THE REED]

Why does this guy keep making silly arguments ? You knock down one argument and he comes with another.

What does "in Roy's class mean"? Do you mean someone that SHOULD have been a challenge for Roy or someone who WOULD have been a challenge. If you mean the second, then your argument is nonsense. Montel Griffin was an undefeated light heavyweight champion that had decisioned James Toney twice.

How the heck does Roy Koing him in one round indicate that he SHOULD not have been a challenge? Now someone else Koing him in one round would indicate that. This reminds of the "Hopkins wasn't in his prime when Roy beat him because Roy Beat him" argument.