Did Roy Jones start losing at LHW when his competition stepped up?

[SergioMaravilla]

Him being active today is so irrelevant you have to be completely obtuse to bring it up. Evander Holyfield is still active and he hasn't been in his prime since Napster was out. Second, moving up to heavyweight and fighting much, much slower fighters helped mask how much Jones had slowed himself. He was 35, 50 fights in and well past his prime at that point. Whether he was considered pound for pound or not.

It depends on how shot you consider Jones to be. I posted earlier

Recently Jones was stopped in the final round against D Lebedev. On one of the judges cards Jones was ahead and could have been given the benefit of a KD in the last round before the stoppage. In Lebedevs previous fight he fought world champ M Huck to a SD which many felt he won.
Now Lebedev has fought J Toney and beat him in every single round, and nobody felt Toney was shot before the fight and if they really did, I never heard anyone say Toney was more shot than Jones. I read quite alot of people felt Toney was going to win and Toney was more proven at CW than Jones.

Jones chin has never been the best as evidenced by how badly shook up he seemed when Lou Del Valle caught him flush and put him down.

If we look at Jones last 2 fights against Lebecev and Hopkins -
Against Lebedev Jones was ahead on one card in the final round and unlucky not to have a KD scored against a CW who had just fought a world champ to a SD and
Against Hopkins, Jones scored a KD that Hopkins made out was behind his head as he wasnt able to continue without some time out and Hopkins is now recognised as the LHW champ. That could have been a KO win for Jones.

Overrated as compared to whom? Overrated in what sense? As in, he's not an ATG? What are you saying?

Overrated in that he's not as good as people make out. He has a terrible SMW resume.

So? Who did Johnson beat during that run? Were they better than Micalcewzki? BTW, I love how you like to point out that Toney needed to cut weight but don't point out that Hill had toe issues that limited his mobility versus Dariusz and he had to have foot surgery after the fight. No excuse though, right? Selective, I see.

People point out that Jones was dehydrated against Tarver, I'm pointing out that Toney was dehydrated against Jones. Doesn't diminish his win. Interesting point about Hill, he was passed fit to fight. How do you know how much the foot would have affected him? We all know the effects of being dehydrated and drained (which Toney was).

Jones wasn't past his prime when he faced Calzaghe, he was shot. Second, Jones was inexperienced when he fought Hopkins as well. Third, to say that Hopkins needed two more tries to win the title shows you have NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Tell me something - did you watch ANY of his fights against Segundo Mercado?

Jones was ranked number 6 by the Ring magazine, and looked good beating Ajamu and Trinidad. Many professional boxers and experts at the time picked Jones to beat Calzaghe.

Hopkins-Mercado 1 was a close fight, many will feel Hopkins should have gotten the nod. He didn't, remember he had two knockdowns scored against him. He needed another two attempts to win a vacant world title.

[therealpugilist]

"How was Jones at the end of his career? It's 2012 and he's still active, this was in 2003-2004."

After reading this I know we're being trolled. Anyone can see it.

i think what he meant was the end of his career as a top shelf guy....we all know most fighters fight on too long...dude was 35 and had been declining for years before losing to Tarver and the guys after.....we can go down the list and look at all the greats records in their 20's then look at their records after 30 past prime...most guys lose to guys they would have embarassed in their prime and their amount of loses doubled or tripled sometimes.....Ezzard Charles, Ray Robinson, Duran, Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ali, the list goes on....not fair to hold loses against a fighter and they were in their late 30s and 40s but in their prime were the best of their time...No one did that to Robinson

[LHK]

Here is the question. Was Roy "shot" by the time he fought Tarver, Hopkins and Calzaghe because his skills were completely diminished, or was it because he lost?

If Roy lost 1 steps or even 3, is that "shot" as a fighter? Or was his sharp decline in in ring performance predicated on the fact that he didn't have that much outside his freaky athleticism in the first place.

[IMDAZED]

It depends on how shot you consider Jones to be. I posted earlier

Honestly, that is the dumbest thing I've ever read by a nonpact*rd/edgarg on here. I'm running through the rest of your post. You better have something good here or go back to using your other screenname because this one has lost all respect with this nonsensical rambling.

Overrated in that he's not as good as people make out. He has a terrible SMW resume.

People have different opinions. So explain yourself better.

People point out that Jones was dehydrated against Tarver, I'm pointing out that Toney was dehydrated against Jones. Doesn't diminish his win. Interesting point about Hill, he was passed fit to fight. How do you know how much the foot would have affected him? We all know the effects of being dehydrated and drained (which Toney was).

You know because Toney told you. Just like Hill told us.

Jones was ranked number 6 by the Ring magazine, and looked good beating Ajamu and Trinidad. Many professional boxers and experts at the time picked Jones to beat Calzaghe.

So then why was he a decided underdog?

Hopkins-Mercado 1 was a close fight, many will feel Hopkins should have gotten the nod. He didn't, remember he had two knockdowns scored against him. He needed another two attempts to win a vacant world title.

I remember because he scored about four knockdowns on Mercado that weren't called. And his knockdowns were out of fatigue and being unable to adjust to the atmosphere in Ecuador. On two occassions he needed help going back to his corner. You didn't watch the fight. You don't know what you're talking about and you're simply just another cornball d*ckrider using an sn because you've either been run off another board or because everyone knows your trolling tactics here. Don't tell me to play nice while you play dumb. F*ggot.

[Poet682006]

True, which makes me question Roy's true place in boxing lore. Well that and his competition. Personally, I will take the the likes of Morales, Barrera and JJM well ahead of Roy even if they didn't win a "HW title". And that is just the tip of the iceberg imo.

Winning via your speed and reflexes isn't illegitimate. It's a perfectly valid way to win fights. Hence why Ali is held in such high regard. Fighters are rated historically based on their overall abilities in their prime not on how well they adhered to the textbook. There is no right way to fight, there is only what works for YOU as a fighter.

And it's not like Jones had a short prime either so there shouldn't be any taking points off for a lack of longevity.

Poet

[IMDAZED]

Here is the question. Was Roy "shot" by the time he fought Tarver, Hopkins and Calzaghe because his skills were completely diminished, or was it because he lost?

If Roy lost 1 steps or even 3, is that "shot" as a fighter? Or was his sharp decline in in ring performance predicated on the fact that he didn't have that much outside his freaky athleticism in the first place.

He was fading against Tarver. He didn't fight Calzaghe for four more years. You figure it out.

[therealpugilist]

Here is the question. Was Roy "shot" by the time he fought Tarver, Hopkins and Calzaghe because his skills were completely diminished, or was it because he lost?

If Roy lost 1 steps or even 3, is that "shot" as a fighter? Or was his sharp decline in in ring performance predicated on the fact that he didn't have that much outside his freaky athleticism in the first place.

what athlete have you ever seen be in their prime 35+

Roy wasnt the same, no fighter is, look at Ali who depended on Natural gifts, you could clearly see he lost stamina, speed and sharpness and he was just 30 and kept fighting on, thank god he had a great chin

he lost alot of confidence, his legs, and sharpness(seeing openings and swinging)

Dude aint fight all them amatuer fights and go 48-1 in his first 49 fights and just have athleticism, you can hear that when he calls fights and commentates, dude was a great counterpuncher, knew how to outbox boxers, counter counterpunchers, and fight with swarmers...every fighter does what works best for them

[LHK]

Winning via your speed and reflexes isn't illegitimate. It's a perfectly valid way to win fights. Hence why Ali is held in such high regard. Fighters are rated historically based on their overall abilities in their prime not on how well they adhered to the textbook. There is no right way to fight, there is only what works for YOU as a fighter.

And it's not like Jones had a short prime either so there shouldn't be any taking points off for a lack of longevity.

Poet

Fair points.

But then you bring up Ali. The grit, the strategies, the dog fights etc. He clearly wasn't the same fighter when he returned from his exile and yet he made it work.

Thus I disagree that prime is all important. For those that fight long past their prime and accomplish great things, does it become irrelevant because they are past their primes? I can't help but watch Hopkins and stand in awe of him and what he has done the last decade.

It is a philosophical difference, which is why I do not say those that place Roy at a certain level are outright wrong. But I think there is plenty of room for discussion on the matter.

[LHK]

what athlete have you ever seen be in their prime 35+

Roy wasnt the same, no fighter is, look at Ali who depended on Natural gifts, you could clearly see he lost stamina, speed and sharpness and he was just 30 and kept fighting on, thank god he had a great chin

he lost alot of confidence, his legs, and sharpness(seeing openings and swinging)

Dude aint fight all them amatuer fights and go 48-1 in his first 49 fights and just have athleticism, you can hear that when he calls fights and commentates, dude was a great counterpuncher, knew how to outbox boxers, counter counterpunchers, and fight with swarmers...every fighter does what works best for them

But there is a clear difference between being "shot" or "done", and just not being as good anymore.

You mention Ali's chin, but does it not count as a + for a fighter? Jones not having a above average one isn't exactly a good thing no?

[Poet682006]

Fair points.

But then you bring up Ali. The grit, the strategies, the dog fights etc. He clearly wasn't the same fighter when he returned from his exile and yet he made it work.

Thus I disagree that prime is all important. For those that fight long past their prime and accomplish great things, does it become irrelevant because they are past their primes? I can't help but watch Hopkins and stand in awe of him and what he has done the last decade.

It is a philosophical difference, which is why I do not say those that place Roy at a certain level are outright wrong. But I think there is plenty of room for discussion on the matter.

What happens with a fighter past-prime can only help his standing, it can't hurt it. Why? Because when you're past-prime you're SUPPOSED to lose to top fighters and you're NOT supposed to beat them. That's why when you DO beat them you get kudos because you did something you weren't supposed to be able to do. That's why when you lose them you don't take criticism.....because you were SUPPOSED to lose to them.

Poet