Roy Jones Jr's alleged "weak opposition"

[robertzimmerman]

BKM,

No disrespect to you but this is history revisionism. I remember what a diva he was and a pain in the arse when it came to making fights. It is simply impossible that in every instance he wasn't the reason the fights didn't happen. The Old Left Hook may have an agenda towards RJJ, but he's far closer to the truth in this thread than most.

No disrespect to you, but it isn't revisionism at all.

Everything I've wrote is factual and can be backed up.

The second thing I would like to tell you is that in terms of historic rankings, it actually doesn't matter as much who was responsible. Even if the big bad world prevented him from reaching his true potential in his resume and he's completely innocent, the bottomline is still this: Who did he beat, what did he accomplish? Historians don't give people leniency out of pity. You can't go "Oh it wasn't poor Roy's fault, lets just overlook that and rank him higher anyway because he looked so good against the ones he fought". You get ranked based on your resume, above all, because that's the most factual aspect we have in this sport. Not the woulda coulda stuff.

Yes, of course he has to be ranked on who he actually fought.

That's fair enough.

His resume is still very good though, and he also achieved a lot. A lot more than what he gets credit for.

I've got a friendly challenge for you, if you're interested?

List every guy you can think of, who you think Roy should have fought.

Guys such as: Eubank, Benn, Nunn, Collins, Liles, Calzaghe, Dariusz and Rochigianni etc.

List them all, and then tell me who out of the list has a better resume than Roy.

I'll put Roy's resume up against anyone's from the same era, who fought in and around the same weight divisions.


And that same question goes out to everyone else who's involved in this debate.

[soul_survivor]

I used the same criteria how?

My criteria for Toney being overrated is he didn't dominate or have an impressive performance against a top level opponent and he struggled and lost to sub par opponents. Jones did neither of those things.

This thread isn't about whether Jones has a great resume or not it's about the specific fights listed. No more no less.

It's not about who he could have of should have fought or who his best wins are.

The fights listed, that's it.

Look, you know exactly what I mean, you've realised your initial argument is weak and you're trying to change it. Now, let's forget the whole Toney thing, do you really think, beating the guys that you listed, makes Jones the fighter of the decade for the 90s?

That's a simple yes or no question.

[robertzimmerman]

Humean,

How many ATG's do you think there are in lets say a space of 10 years? Lets be quite ******* and say 10, now if Roy (or any other fighter we are evaluating) is one of those 10 then that leaves 9, 9 other ATG fighters across the timespan of a decade within a sport of 17 divisions. The chances of one bona-fide ATG fighting another bona-fide ATG are not that high especially not "at the right time". After all Jones did defeat an ATG, namely Bernard Hopkins, and yet he is dismissed for being too green (there is some truth to this). Jones can be accused of not fighting a number of very good fighters but who were the ATG's that he should have fought?

Good points.

It's rare for a fighter to fight a fellow ATG whilst they're in their absolute prime.

Floyd Mayweather never did it.

I think the money could have persuaded many, you are being much too favourable to Jones. Ottke was one of the best at 168 so I think it not unreasonable that he could have tried to lure him up in weight. Perhaps Jones wasn't much interested in what was happening in Europe at the time, how times have changed now that the Russians are the only ones who still want to watch him fight and now that he is a Russian citizen.

I'm not being too favourable, I'm just trying to give you guys some perspective.

You're a good poster who has lots of knowledge.

I don't want to be rude to you or disrespectful to you in any way. But you mentioning Ottke, is absolutely ridiculous.

Ottke was in his own bubble in Germany, defending a belt that Roy had relinquished years earlier.

Go and look at his resume.

Go and look at who he was fighting when Roy became the unified champ at LHW.

Go and look at who he was fighting when Roy was trying to negotiate with Dariusz and Hopkins.

Go and look at who he was fighting when Roy signed to fight Ruiz.

Go and look at who he was fighting when Roy fought Tarver.

I hope this is not coming off as me being condescending. That's obviously not my intention.

But we need to be real here:

Why would the world's best fighter who was the unified LHW champion, and who would go on to become the WBA, HW champion, want anything to do with a German SMW, who nobody rated outside of Europe?

The fight was never viable.

Without being disrespectful, Sven Ottke was a nobody when Roy was prime.

[soul_survivor]

How common is it for a fighter to fight an ATG opponent whilst they are prime?

Roy has Toney anyway. He's an ATG ,who was 26 and undefeated, and who was considered by many has the 2nd best fighter in the world at the time. It's just a shame that Toney's weight issues take the shine off of the win.

It's so easy to type that he should have at least fought Dariusz. Do some research. Kerry Davis of HBO, tried everything to try and land the network the fight.

Roy didn't only fight subpar opposition. And do you know why most of his fights looked like sparring sessions? Because he was that damn good.

You're criticising him for not having obliterated guys like Tyson? Whatever next?

What do you mean "By the time he decided to fight legit threats...." ?

Go and read my previous posts. Everything I've wrote can be backed up.

In the upper echelon of boxing, it's what makes truly great fighters...truly great. I hate to name the obvious names but Ali, Robinson, Duran, Moore, Charles, more recently Pacquiao, heck even Mayweather has a better list of opponents. It's not that difficult for me to list some more but you're just arguing for arguments sake, or your an Rustydan alt lol

[IronDanHamza]

Look, you know exactly what I mean, you've realised your initial argument is weak and you're trying to change it. Now, let's forget the whole Toney thing, do you really think, beating the guys that you listed, makes Jones the fighter of the decade for the 90s?

That's a simple yes or no question.

My initial argument is weak? What is my initial argument and in what way have I tried to change it?

I have no idea what you mean. I keep seeing this, there is no alterier motive here. It's very easy, the clue is in the thread title and OP.

Are the specific opponents listed as weak as they're made out. That is literally it I can't understand how it's going in all these different directions.

To answer your question do I think Jones is the fighter of the 90's? Yes. Between him, Whitaker and Holyfield.

[IronDanHamza]

In the upper echelon of boxing, it's what makes truly great fighters...truly great. I hate to name the obvious names but Ali, Robinson, Duran, Moore, Charles, more recently Pacquiao, heck even Mayweather has a better list of opponents. It's not that difficult for me to list some more but you're just arguing for arguments sake, or your an Rustydan alt lol

"RustyDan" ha! I get it. Because Iron rusts right? Comedic genius at its finest.

Yeah he's my alt by the way, that guy is me. I went back and forth with myself for about 15 pages in the Toney thread.

[robertzimmerman]

In the upper echelon of boxing, it's what makes truly great fighters...truly great. I hate to name the obvious names but Ali, Robinson, Duran, Moore, Charles, more recently Pacquiao, heck even Mayweather has a better list of opponents. It's not that difficult for me to list some more but you're just arguing for arguments sake, or your an Rustydan alt lol

How am I arguing for the sake of it?

I didn't ask you who'd done it, I asked you how common it was.

It's not very common at all.

I have a huge amount of respect for the names you've listed, but they had the opportunity.

If you haven't got the opportunity, then it's not possible.

Floyd is/was one of the best ever. But he never fought an ATG while they were prime.

Name me the prime ATG's who Roy could have fought.

[robertzimmerman]

"RustyDan" ha! I get it. Because Iron rusts right? Comedic genius at its finest.

Yeah he's my alt by the way, that guy is me. I went back and forth with myself for about 15 pages in the Toney thread.

Ha!

That made me laugh.

[soul_survivor]

How am I arguing for the sake of it?

I didn't ask you who'd done it, I asked you how common it was.

It's not very common at all.

I have a huge amount of respect for the names you've listed, but they had the opportunity.

If you haven't got the opportunity, then it's not possible.

Floyd is/was one of the best ever. But he never fought an ATG while they were prime.

Name me the prime ATG's who Roy could have fought.

I didn't just say the criteria was Jones having to fight prime ATGs and that's it, that I'm not willing, as a boxing fan to accept anything else. I understand, needs must BUT I also mentioned Dariusz, instead Jones faced the guy who lost to Dariusz. And then, where's the leading fighters of his day, at his weight, wheres Eubank and Benn and Collins? At least one of them would have done. Then, where's the Hopkins rematch?

Like I originally said, Jones, when his career wound down and HBO weren't willing to pay him to fight bums, started fighting tests or traveling aaaand rematching Hopkins.

And again, you're wrong because the true upper echelons always have some greats or worthy fighters on their resume, you can normally make a longer list of top guys (not just ATGs) they fought than top guys they DIDN'T fight but that's not true of Jones.

Edit: I just realised I replied to a guy calling himself Robert Zimmerman. Ok, this "discussion" is over.

[soul_survivor]

My initial argument is weak? What is my initial argument and in what way have I tried to change it?

I have no idea what you mean. I keep seeing this, there is no alterier motive here. It's very easy, the clue is in the thread title and OP.

Are the specific opponents listed as weak as they're made out. That is literally it I can't understand how it's going in all these different directions.

To answer your question do I think Jones is the fighter of the 90's? Yes. Between him, Whitaker and Holyfield.

You just said yes, you think he is the fighter of the 90s and then you're mentioning names I put forward as better. What's your criteria? How flashy a fighter looked in sparring matches? Or how much HBO paid them? Because by any true boxing standards, Jones is not the fighter of the decade.

I'm not putting him down, he was good, possibly top 10 in the decade and the achievement of winning a heavyweight title rounds out his post 90s career very well but there literally can't be a justification for facing the names he did and avoiding the names he did, for a fighter who is considered, by most in the sport, as great.