Is Roy Jones in the top 20 all time great?

[robertzimmerman]

I remember Sugar Adam Ali saying Roy should've fought Frankie Lyles. But my thing is this, if Roy doesn't get credit from you for beating Toney, Hopkins, McCallum, Johnson, and he barely got credit for beating Virgil Hill, then how can you possibly give him credit for beating Frankie Lyles?

It's like this, if Roy had beaten Collins, Liles, Eubank and Benn etc, but missed other guys, there'd be people saying "Yeah, he had some good wins, but he never fought Toney, Hill and Tarver etc"

I've argued with guys on other forums who have questioned why he didn't fight deserving fighters such as Victor Cordorba, Vincenzo Nardiello and Ray Close etc.

Roy would have needed to have fought 80-90 opponents to have satisfied everybody.

Also, what if Roy had beaten Liles, Eubank, Collins and Benn etc?

How much credit would he have got?

I don't want to be disrespectful, because I've got a huge amount of respect for any fighter that steps through the ropes, either amateur or pro.

But let's look at someone like Collins. I respect him a lot. But what did he do, apart from beat faded versions of Benn and Eubank?

Eubank was never the same after the Watson rematch, and he was extremely lucky not to have lost against Ray Close, Dan Schommer and Nigel Benn before fighting Collins. Eubank has said that in his opinion, he lost the Schommer fight and the Benn rematch. Benn also faded fast after his fight with Gerald, and came out of retirement to fight Collins after he'd lost to Malinga.

Yet people always criticise Roy for not fighting the likes of Collins.

Again, how much credit would Roy have gained from beating Collins?

[BoxingGenius27]

It's like this, if Roy had beaten Collins, Liles, Eubank and Benn etc, but missed other guys, there'd be people saying "Yeah, he had some good wins, but he never fought Toney, Hill and Tarver etc"

I've argued with guys on other forums who have questioned why he didn't fight deserving fighters such as Victor Cordorba, Vincenzo Nardiello and Ray Close etc.

Roy would have needed to have fought 80-90 opponents to have satisfied everybody.

This is what I'm saying, it would've never been enough... If the guys he beat, which happen to be better than the ones Lacedup/sugar wanted Roy to fight, I can't see how that changes anything if he actually did fight the Collins's, Eubanks, Benn's, etc.

[Brandish]

name these 20 champs,,,, Its about quality not quantity,,,

I dont need boxrec, i watched roy before he was a pro,,

he beat hopkins for a vacant belt,, didnt defend vs anyone worth a damn

same thing at 168,,, vinny paz, brannon, lucas, are those high caliber defenses

at 175 the division was relatively weak and roy beat everyone but the clear #1 besides roy in michlewski,,, i dont blame roy for that fight not happening,,

Look i think roy is top 50,,, i got him around 25 roughly,,

I just dont think his resume makes him top 20,,,


Am i really being a hater when i claim the guy top 50 ATG and roughly 25,,,

It discredits guys like ross, mcclarin, hagler, benny leonard, when you put a resume like roy's in their league,,,

Haglers run was legendary but be didn't win a heavy title and he didn't unify 175 his fourth weight class.

. In this era alone he has to be 1-2 so to find 50 fighters who started at 154 and went to heavy and win a title please show them to me.

[Larry the boss]

no.............

[robertzimmerman]

Because the guys I mentioned were all champs at one point when Roy was champ..

Remind me again of all the unification fights at 160 and 168 Roy had,

From 93-97 name the top ten guys at 160 and 168, and the list won't have Hopkins on it, he was unknown, and toney will be the only guy on the list that roy fought..

You can't sit there and say Brannon, Paz, Byrd, Lucas, etc are better fighters than Eubanks,Watson, liles etc

Roy did good at 175 and I give him props for pretty much clearing it out, though I think mccallum was a horrible win, and hill was solid.. Harding, woods, tarver, we're his best wins at 175 IMO,, johnson and griffin close as well, but none are atg wins, let alone enough to get you into top 20 atg

If you knew about Roy's career, you'd know that he wasn't in a position to unify at 160 and 168.

[robertzimmerman]

Benn, Eubanks, Watson and Collins were way better than k9,,, and forget foreign fighters,, why didn't Roy fight McClellan or mccallum when they were champs at 160 or nunn and liles at 168
Foreign or domestic Roy wasn't looking for big fights after he got his hbo contract



Benetiz also was winning world titles at an age when Roy was getting dropped by g-man and liles with headgear and big gloves... Let Roy fight the guys that Benitez fought and see how young he was when goes shot... Plus benetiz wasn't right mentally and didn't train or take it serious after he made some money...nth at will always cause a quick downfall... Roy always was very professional



Can you please show the quote where some one says Roy has no skills... Roy threw wicked combos vs Frazier and Byrd, etc... The top 3 guys he fought he never threw any highlight reel vicious combos.. Roy vs anyone good equals 12 round decision every time... Name the top wins that ended in ko...

1. Roy was never really in the position to fight the best at 160, because his Dad had held him back, and he'd fought nobody until Hopkins in 93. Fred Levin tried to line up title fights and Big Roy pretended that Roy wasn't interested. Go and watch Beyond the glory. After Hopkins, Roy wanted big money fights, and went looking for Toney. Also, Roy was a big MW, and I don't think he could have remained there for much longer.

2. Roy was content to carry people. He didn't always go for the knockout.

[robertzimmerman]

That's all fine and dandy,,, yes I'm being harsh on Roy, if your willing to say he is top 20 atg then you better show me some great wins, not just highlight reels of frazier, Brannon, etc..
To me Roy's resume is clearly too thin to be top 20... I don't it's being harsh when I say he is top 50 atg

The point of the thread is if he is top 20 atg, and your whole post clearly shows a guy without the resume to be top 20 atg

It's highly subjective. There's so many things to consider when rating a guy in my opinion.

I look at a fighters overall ability, a complete breakdown of skills etc and then look at who they fought, when they fought them, and what the circumstances were. I also look at what their opponents had achieved before, and then look at what went onto achieve afterwards.

I've absolutely no problem with any poster who doesn't rate Roy top 20.

I wasn't saying you were harsh for not having Roy top 20, I said that you were harsh for the specific things that you wrote.

[robertzimmerman]

All of what you've said makes sense. But how do we compare a belt holder with legitimate competition that he didn't fight with earlier periods where the title holder was almost always THE MAN? We know that Duran was THE MAN in the 1970s because he fought 4x / year and cleared out his division. Yes he fought a lot of stay-busy fights but that's OK. He held the crown for 7 years and took out everyone.

Look at Monzon clearing out the division. RJJ didn't do that - for whatever reason it may be. To me, as a fan, it diminishes his ATG standing.

I think that prime RJJ would be a tough fight for any great and H2H he may well be TOP 10. But by resume he's not there.

I understand where you're coming from, and it all depends on what the criteria is. Every fighter is faced with a different set of circumstances. There's so many things to take into consideration when ranking a guy.

These debates are great!

It's like asking who ranks higher between Manny Pac and Lennox Lewis?

Manny has won titles in 8 divisions, and Lennox hasn't. But obviously Lennox didn't have the opportunity, because he's a HW, and he only fought in one division. But he unified the HW division.

But then people say that he never had a clear win over a great fighter in their prime.

Again, my criteria is:

A full breakdown of the skills of said fighter.

A look at who the said fighter fought.

At what point?

Evaluate the circumstances involved.

A look at who they didn't fight.

Again, evaluate the circumstances involved.

Evaluate how strong the era was.

Evaluate what opportunities they had.

Evaluate any politics involved.

A look at what their opponents had accomplished before.

A look at what their opponents went on to accomplish afterwards.


That's my criteria.

Roy's circumstances were different to Monzon's.

Monzon did clear out a division. Roy didn't due to circumstances, but he won belts in four divisions, and fought at HW. But Monzon didn't have the opportunity to fight in four divisions.

If you do a comprehensive and objective breakdown, things get very interesting.

If you think Monzon ranks higher, that's cool. I'm not going to argue. But if you could explain why in more depth, that would be great.

Thanks.

[robertzimmerman]

Toney was not in great shape,, he was very flat,, he wasnt sharp like he was vs mccallum,,, He wasnt a fat turd like he would later become, but i would say he wasnt sharp at all... Looked like how roy looked in the first tarver fight,,, just flat,, His training camp was him losing weight and not getting sharp



Dude just stop about duran,,, he is universally acclaimed and fought everyone for over 3 decades



I actually have monzon and jones fairly close,, monzon is probaly 18-20 ATG and roy is somewhere 20-30,
We are really splinting hairs when ranking these guys



I dont think its an excuse,,, Toney was not totally out of shape like he was vs rahman 1 or his fights in 2000, or vs tiberi,, but he was not at his best, that much is clear,,, Your right he was outdone every round, and i have even in stated earlier that jones would beat toney regardless, it just would have been more competitive and Toney may catch him late like he did nunn after he was outpointed him..
Toney is about the most unconsistant great fighter ever,,,

Weight losses makes you flat from the beginning,, look at ward-dawson as a recent example, or even canelo-floyd,,, Tarver getting fat from rocky movie, and then spending his whole camp losing weight vs hopkins and looked very flat as well,,,

This is a great debate, and I respect your opinion.

Everybody seems to have a different criteria when ranking guys.

I don't want to argue with you, and it's cool if you have Monzon slightly ahead of Roy on your list.

But could I ask why?

Again, I have no problem with it, but could you explain in detail why you think that Monzon ranks higher?

Thanks a lot.

[bose]

I don't know. I'm pretty sure he was considered P4P the best when he fought Tarver the first time. But I agree that after that he wasn't the same, and shouldn't be judged thereafter - absolutely.

It's like saying Holyfield should be judged on his performances vs Toney and Ruiz etc. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is a consensus top 12 heavyweight of all times.

So after a fighter loses, anything he does after that is not up for discussion or for critique...

With Roy he had a few fighter he should have fought and didn't. Toney wanted a rematch but was being forced to go throw loops to get one.

Hopkins hadn't done anything when Roy fought him.

Marco Anotino Barrera was considered done after the Jones Jr. fight, Morales was considered done after the Barrera wars. Pacquiao was considered done after the Marquez fight. Holyfield was considered done after the 1st Bowe fight. M.Moore was considered done after G. Foreman...what are you about when you lose? Old time boxers say it all the time, a lose means nothing in your record, you go on and win, put the lose behind you and move forward. Don't know why Roy fell off so fast other fighters have been ko'd in that manner before and made some more waves. Really don't know why Roy couldn't, but prime or after Roy has some holes in his brilliant career.