Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[THE REED]

Umm.. OK that makes sense. I'm sure many would agree, Griffin was about as much in Jones' league as Spinks was in Tyson's in '88. Spinks was undefeated and decisioned Holmes twice. But, he was no match for Tyson. The same goes for Griffin against a prime Jones. Also, what previous "argument" are you talking about that I supposedly made that was knocked?? Hopkins was a bit greener than Jones and both were not in their primes in Jones-Hopkins 1...

Nonsensical analogy.

Spinks was a career LHW that moved up to HW and got KTFO.

Griffin was a career LHW and Roy was the one that moved up.

[Mintcar923]

Nonsensical analogy.

Spinks was a career LHW that moved up to HW and got KTFO.

Griffin was a career LHW and Roy was the one that moved up.

I don't get how your statement has anything to do whatsoever with what we're talking about. Guys move up and down all the time. Michael Spinks was a bonafide established heavy for a couple of years by the time Tyson knocked him out.

[SCtrojansbaby]

lol just because Tyson made him look bad doesn't mean Spinks wasn't a very good/great win.

Same goes for Roy against everybody, just because he made guys look bad doesn't mean they weren't really good. Perfect example is Merqui Sosa has good wins against Glen Johnson and Prince Charles Williams x2 and more importantly gave other A level fighters Toney and Nunn HELL. He is clearly a very dangerous opponent despite the fact that Roy stopped him in 2 rounds

[JAB5239]

lol just because Tyson made him look bad doesn't mean Spinks wasn't a very good/great win.

Same goes for Roy against everybody, just because he made guys look bad doesn't mean they weren't really good. Perfect example is Merqui Sosa has good wins against Glen Johnson and Prince Charles Williams x2 and more importantly gave other A level fighters Toney and Nunn HELL. He is clearly a very dangerous opponent despite the fact that Roy stopped him in 2 rounds

What you're missing is the fact Spinks is a top 10 all-time great lightheavy.

[SCtrojansbaby]

What you're missing is the fact Spinks is a top 10 all-time great lightheavy.

huh? I think you missed the point of my post

[wmute]

What you're missing is the fact Spinks is a top 10 all-time great lightheavy.

make that top 5

[wmute]

New fans look at the losses at the end of a fighters career and think he wasn't that good because those guys beat him. They were not around when Jones was dominating three divisions. Most if the information they get is in Non stop boxing and that is not the best source.

three??? I must have missed something.

[Ray Corso]

Gifted athlete, very good boxer, good enough fighter but not an All Time Great on my list. Maybe top 50 as a middleweight and lighthvy, came into battle in shape and seemed to work hard. At the beginning of his career I didn't watch alot of boxing so I missed his growth but he was obviously a good student in the amatuer ranks and brought that skill to the pros. Ray.

[res]

Also, what previous "argument" are you talking about that I supposedly made that was knocked??

Almost all of them, but in this particular case I was talking about your analogy that suggested that it was just as sensible to state that Montel Griffin was past his prime when he fought Roy Jones as to say that Roy was past his prime when he fought Hopkins the second time. The Hopkins-Jones argument is weak and circular, but at least it isn't bizarre like your others.

Umm.. OK that makes sense. I'm sure many would agree, Griffin was about as much in Jones' league as Spinks was in Tyson's in '88. Spinks was undefeated and decisioned Holmes twice. But, he was no match for Tyson. The same goes for Griffin against a prime Jones. Both Jones and Hopkins were not yet in their primes when Jones-Hopkins 1 occured IMO...

Griffin fought his entire career at lightheavy, Spinks had 3 opponents at Heavyweight (and avoided the mandatory with Tony Tucker). Sorry, but that isn't enough to prove that he was legit heavyweight.

Spinks was one of he greatest lightheavies of all time, so the issue was NOT that Tyson was out of his league technically, it was that Tyson was too big for him.

[Mintcar923]

Almost all of them, but in this particular case I was talking about your analogy that suggested that it was just as sensible to state that Montel Griffin was past his prime when he fought Roy Jones as to say that Roy was past his prime when he fought Hopkins the second time. The Hopkins-Jones argument is weak and circular, but at least it isn't bizarre like your others.





Griffin fought his entire career at lightheavy, Spinks had 3 opponents at Heavyweight (and avoided the mandatory with Tony Tucker). Sorry, but that isn't enough to prove that he was legit heavyweight.

Spinks was one of he greatest lightheavies of all time, so the issue was NOT that Tyson was out of his league technically, it was that Tyson was too big for him.

Spinks may not have had a lot of fights at heavy. But, he was there for a couple years time. Hell, Evander won the heavyweight title two years after he moved up. Spinks had weighed 212 and Tyson perhaps round 217. Tyson was too big? Also, for the record guys have beaten other guys who were 30 pounds heavier. Size can be a factor but it isn't necessarily the deciding factor every fight. Holyfield established himself against many guys considerably bigger. Tommy Hearns moved from welterweight to light heavy and was still successful. Furthermore, my stating that Griffin was shot in the 2nd Jones fight was just a theory, not a fact. Perhaps, after having all those "tough" fights pre-Roy he may've not have been himself that night. Who knows? I'm just trying to be fair and open-minded. I'm a Roy fan but i'm not tryin to come across as a Roy nuthugger. I think some people like you just plain misunderstand me sometimes...