Measured Against All Time: Roy Jones Jr.

[crold1]

Great article, Cliff, but regarding your saying that because of the flaws in his résumé, he doesn't get into the top 50 of all time, I think you're over-emphasising résume - as opposed to quality as a fighter - when ranking people. For example, Jack Dempsey gets into most boxing historians' top 50, but his résumé wasn't that great, and he avoided many top fighters (mostly due to race). He's ranked that highly because he was such a complete fighter. Jack Johnson gets into the top 20 of some boxing historians' ATG lists, but he too doesn't really have that brilliant a résumé, and there were a few fighters he also should have faced and didn't - but again, he gets rated as highly as he does because he was such a complete fighter. I'm not saying résumé isn't very important, I just think that someone as brilliant in the ring, and as dominant in most of his fights, as Jones was, deserves to be at least in the top 50 despite the question marks over his résumé. At his best, he was as wonderful to watch as Ali was, and could do things that no other fighter I've ever seen could do.

I agree and would have Jones in my top 50...Dempsey doesn't sniff my top 50 though he gets into the top 100. A lot of people factor 'historical importance' but I'm concerned with what's in the ring. Dempsey was great but others were far greater. Same with Jones in the top 50.

[philb]

Wasup boxing scene people! just finally decided to sign up for an account, i'm an avid boxing fan and get on this site everyday, good to see some fellow fans speakin on the articles everyday.....wit that said...Roy Jones i think gets alot of flack for losing the way he did, and people try to descredit him just cause he was a confident flamboyant mayweather type fighter, and people seem to love moments when fighters like that finally lose, especially by KO, seems to be human nature (aka haterz)...

For me i don't look at their persona's i look at what they do in the ring. I think roy has had an amazing illustrious career to say the least, and people always dawg him conveniently after he lost, but the best gotta lose sometime u know, i was heartbroken when shane mosley first lost to vernon forrest, he my fav boxer, but i think they all need to taste defeat at some point to truly be great and learn from mistakes. These are the same people who jump on the tyson bandwagon without lookin into history, tyson was great and had alot of potential before his issues, but in the end he lost all his big fights mostly later in his career, even wit the embarrasing Lennox lewis KO, but u don't see people bring that up alot when they say tyson was the best...think about it.

[Jone2ts]

Very good article over all, but there are a few glaring errors in your reporting.

#1. Lou De Valle did not legitimately knock down Roy Jones Jr. Roy's back foot clearly slipped. To describe it as a "nasty left hand" is simply dishonest.

#2. Eubanks and Benn's careers were for the most part played out by the time Roy arrived on the scene at 168, and... they fought exclusively in England, had little to no name recognition state side, and would have been nearly impossible to make a deal with due to their bloated ego's.

#3. James Toney would have never been a viable rematch as he wouldn't have been able to make any reasonably contracted weight.

#4. Its clearly documented that Roy Jones Jr. suffered from Shane Mosley syndrome throughout a large part of his career. Nobody would fight him. They either demanded outlandish sums of money for what would have undoubtedly been a loss, or simply avoided the matter all together in favor of making their own meaningless title defenses (Dariusz Michalczewski)

Its really bad that you bring up Dariusz who was about as willing to unify titles as Sven Ottke was, actual less so, since Ottke actually managed to pick up two straps.

Michael Nunn was also not a viable option. A fight with Roy would not be marketable after his loss to James Toney, especially since Roy took apart Toney, and Nunn had severely diminished as a force in the division.

Same thing goes for Hopkins, he was quite about Roy until Roy moved far enough up in weight that negotiations would be difficult enough as to never result in a fight between the two.

Roy's situation is difficult because he demonstrated the willingness to take the most difficult fights on offer to him such as Toney and Hill, but at the same time, he was forced to fight less difficult opposition when the big names would not fight him.

At one time HBO attempted to take over match making for Roy Jones jr only discover what Roy had been claiming all long was true. Nobody was willing to fight him for any reasonable sum of money.

Granted you did mention some of this in passing at the end of the article, it is not given enough emphasis as timing is everything when talking about what fights are made.

Good post I agree.

[joseph5620]

By Cliff Rold - This Saturday night, Roy Jones makes his 59th career start, still in search of an ending to his liking. Across the ring, he’ll find a former Super Middleweight titlist, Jeff Lacy (25-2, 176 KO), looking for a big name to revive his fortunes.

That’s the storyline of this single fight.

It is only a small part of a bigger storyline which has been a prominent part of boxing for over two decades. While others were bigger stars, the peak Jones was the preeminent physical talent of his generation. The talent might not be what it was any more, but the memories of better days remain strong with boxing fans.

The memories of lesser challenges, even at his peak, do as well and it is part of what makes Jones so compelling. Was he the Ray Robinson of his time? Or was Jones a carefully manufactured athletic specimen who got too much credit for beating less than he could have?

As we prepare for the latest in the last chapters of the Roy years, it’s a good time to ask: how good was RJJ measured against all-time? [details]

In his prime nobody at 168 beats him And he would have had a good chance of beating any middleweight in history at 160. He was that good.

[crold1]

In his prime nobody at 168 beats him And he would have had a good chance of beating any middleweight in history at 160. He was that good.

More true statement at 68 than 60...he was still developing at 60 and would have struggled mightily with the better fighters all time there.