Is Roy Jones in the top 20 all time great?

[robertzimmerman]

top 20 atg in no order just 20 fighters

1 srr
2ali
3armstrong
4 srl
5 ezzard
6 greb
7 langford
8 duran
9 hagler
10 monzon
11 manny
12 floyd
13 moore
14 ross
15 chavez
16 sanchez
17 pep
18 mcclarin
19 louis
20 benny leonard

roy is somewhere in the next 20 guys along with hearns, ortiz, johnson, argeullo

This is the beauty of having different opinions on boxing.

It's so subjective, and I guess it depends on what era you grew up in etc, your knowledge of the sport, and your criteria for ranking fighters.

Simply put, nobody is right and nobody is really wrong.

I'm sat at home now, scratching my head as to why someone such as Manny's on that list, but Roy isn't. Ha!

[robertzimmerman]

well from all the reports from his handlers, trainer, and everyone in camp,, Its not a secret that toney liked to eat,,, He was near 200lbs with about 3 weeks till the fight,,, and about 17 lbs over the week of,, He was basically pulling a chavez jr

Toney definitely had to lose a lot of weight.

But according to Jackie Kallen, James was up for the fight and thought he'd win. Then afterwards, he implied that Jackie had made him fight, and he went round to her house with a ******* because he was so mad. Jackie later added, that nobody made Toney do anything that he didn't want to do.

I always found it strange how James never mentioned rematching Roy in his post fight interview with Merchant.

[bklynboy]

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 they 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 in more depth, that would be great.

I was a big RJJ fan. I think he was fantastic; one of the most gifted fighters ever. But my criteria in ATG are

1. did you clear out your division
2. the caliber of your opposition (includes when in their career they fought)
3. how did you look against them
4. other factors such as going up weight classes

1. Before 1960, when there was one belt, point 1 could be ignored. To be champion you got to the top 20 then beat guys in the top 10 and then fought and won the championship. For the most part if you were the champ you were the best in the division. If you were active and held the belt for a few years you (almost always) cleared out the division.

2. Caliber of opposition

Now WK has cleared out the HW division. Good for him but the quality of his opponents are mediocre at best. This lack of quality opponent brings down his ATG status IMHO.

Roy Jones Jr.

RJJ had acceptable opposition to be ranked highly but he didn't clear out his division. There was always one or two other very competitive fighters which he didn't fight. Michelcweski as for example. I think that RJJ would have won but since they didn't fight we don't know. Styles makes fights. This is true in all sports. We have blow-outs when we expect close fights. We have close fights or upsets when we think there is no competition. That's why you need to fight everyone, that's why you have to clear out your division.

So RJJ is lacking in point 1 (my most important criteria). He's fine (not great) in point 2. He was awesome regarding point 3 and great in point 4.

[robertzimmerman]

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,,,

Tell me why you rank Hagler higher than Roy, and why you think his resume is better?

I'm curious.

Thanks again.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

Exactly. It would never have been enough.

[bklynboy]

Tell me why you rank Hagler higher than Roy, and why you think his resume is better?

I'm curious.

Thanks again.

You didn't ask me - but for myself it's because Hagler cleared out his division starting before he won the crown. He then defending his title against mostly quality opponents. Now I happen to consider Hagler and RJJ to be very close. I have Hagler clearing out the division and fighting slightly better opponents. RJJ looked incredible his victories held the crown as a light heavy and was a belt holder in as a middleweight, super-middleweight and heavyweight.

As said. I see them as very close. I won't quibble if RJJ is placed above Hagler. But I don't see RJJ as a TOP 20 ATG.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

I wouldn't say it's specifically a loss, but where they were in their careers at the time and the circumstances involved.

You can't ignore losses, but they need to be put into context.

I don't think Roy's losses to Calzaghe, Green and Lebedev etc, really hurt his legacy. Not for me they don't.

Roy started out at 154, fought 50 times, went to HW and back and didn't lose until he was 35.

[robertzimmerman]

I was a big RJJ fan. I think he was fantastic; one of the most gifted fighters ever. But my criteria in ATG are

1. did you clear out your division
2. the caliber of your opposition (includes when in their career they fought)
3. how did you look against them
4. other factors such as going up weight classes

1. Before 1960, when there was one belt, point 1 could be ignored. To be champion you got to the top 20 then beat guys in the top 10 and then fought and won the championship. For the most part if you were the champ you were the best in the division. If you were active and held the belt for a few years you (almost always) cleared out the division.

2. Caliber of opposition

Now WK has cleared out the HW division. Good for him but the quality of his opponents are mediocre at best. This lack of quality opponent brings down his ATG status IMHO.

Roy Jones Jr.

RJJ had acceptable opposition to be ranked highly but he didn't clear out his division. There was always one or two other very competitive fighters which he didn't fight. Michelcweski as for example. I think that RJJ would have won but since they didn't fight we don't know. Styles makes fights. This is true in all sports. We have blow-outs when we expect close fights. We have close fights or upsets when we think there is no competition. That's why you need to fight everyone, that's why you have to clear out your division.

So RJJ is lacking in point 1 (my most important criteria). He's fine (not great) in point 2. He was awesome regarding point 3 and great in point 4.

Thanks for the reply. You've made some great points, and I respect your opinions.

Again, it's all subjective.

Roy beat the best guy at 168, but couldn't clear out the division. He then cleared out 175 apart from DM. He then went to HW at 34.

So the question is, was beating the main man at 168, then going up to 175 and HW, a bigger accomplishment than what Hagler did at 160?

Who accomplished more?

Who had the better wins?

Roy's best wins are Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill, Ruiz and Tarver.

What are Hagler's best wins?

How do they compare?

[robertzimmerman]

You didn't ask me - but for myself it's because Hagler cleared out his division starting before he won the crown. He then defending his title against mostly quality opponents. Now I happen to consider Hagler and RJJ to be very close. I have Hagler clearing out the division and fighting slightly better opponents. RJJ looked incredible his victories held the crown as a light heavy and was a belt holder in as a middleweight, super-middleweight and heavyweight.

As said. I see them as very close. I won't quibble if RJJ is placed above Hagler. But I don't see RJJ as a TOP 20 ATG.

Another great post.

That's fair enough. I'm a fan of Marvin's.

Clearing out a division depends on the circumstances for me.

There were politics involved with Roy, and Roy had opportunities that Marvin didn't have, because he fought in a different era, with more weight classes and he had a bigger frame and was able to move up.

Roy hit a roadblock at 168. But he just moved up to 175 instead.

Marvin spent his whole career at 160. He was too small to fight at 175, and 168 didn't exist. If Marvin's circumstances had been different, he may not have stayed at 160 as long and cleared it out.

It's very interesting to speculate, and I wish he was fighting today.

[Rockin']

Toney definitely had to lose a lot of weight.

But according to Jackie Kallen, James was up for the fight and thought he'd win. Then afterwards, he implied that Jackie had made him fight, and he went round to her house with a ******* because he was so mad. Jackie later added, that nobody made Toney do anything that he didn't want to do.

I always found it strange how James never mentioned rematching Roy in his post fight interview with Merchant.

I could tell you the whole story, as told to me by Bill Miller and Jackie themselves. But then people would bash me for having experiences and talking about them, Here at the Scene bull**** talks and experience walks, it only took me 10 years to figure that out................. Rockin'