Is Roy Jones in the top 20 all time great?

[robertzimmerman]

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'

Hey man, please share your story, that would be great!

How do you know Bill Miller and Jackie?

I'm very interested.

I don't have any real knowledge on the subject. My information is from a book titled - Dark Trade: Lost in Boxing, by Donald McRae.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

[MrRolltide91]

he's up there

[Rockin']

Hey man, please share your story, that would be great!

How do you know Bill Miller and Jackie?

I'm very interested.

I don't have any real knowledge on the subject. My information is from a book titled - Dark Trade: Lost in Boxing, by Donald McRae.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks.

Jackie was my manager when I turned pro, Bill was James Toneys trainer up at Galaxy. We were all out of the same stable. I actually made Jackies logo for her when she started up the the Galaxy stable when I was 17 or 18. We had been working out of the same amateur gym since I was about 15 or so,; Jackie, James and I.

Bill Miller was one of the neatest guys that you could meet in the sport. Just a great guy with some incredible first hand stories. I miss that guy.

But that's all that I can share seeing as it has been motioned that I not be allowed to share my experiences anymore on this website because I don't want my real name out there, even though a mod already posted it up........ Rockin'

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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

I'm curious.

Thanks again.

I have hagler slightly ahead of jones for few reasons

1. I think hagler is a better fighter.. Hagler on his best night vs Roy on his best night, I think hagler would lose some early rounds but would track Roy down with his great double jab and eventually beat Roy up.. the hagler that fought Alan minter or hearns would never lose a fight IMO boxing is about 90% mental and hagler in those fights was in the mindset of being robbed, no respect, no mercy, WAR!!!
Beating hearns IMO is slightly better than beating toney

Out of the millions of boxers I got hagler around 12-18 and jones around 25... Both are great great fighters, but hagler was a legit monster and mental toughness was 2nd to none

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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?

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.

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

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.

Roy beating Eubanks, McClellan, liles etc would be much better than Lucas, Brannon, Paz, Byrd... I don't even see how it's debatable.... No one was asking for Lucas fight or the Brannon fight or Paz or mccallum etc

[Sugar Adam Ali]

One last thing in regards to hagler


He was robbed and dodged for his first 50 fights, then got a crack at the title and got robbed with a draw
Then finally had the last chance vs minter, went into hostile territory and would not be denied..
Then couldnt land any big fights, and finally landed hearns but hearns backed out with a hurt pinky,, then fought Duran and won but Duran got all the accolades for being competitive, then he did finally land hearns and with his back up against the wall, no room for error or loss, hagler was mentally a monster and would not be denied just like in the minter fight..
He came, took Tommy's vaunted right hand, was cut, and wobbled, but hagler would not be denied and went thru the fires of hell to ice tommy...
Nobody that Roy ever fought would bring the heat like hearns did, and hagler mentally did not care and walked thru everything destroyed him... That's why hagler is rated so high,,, willpower to walk thru anything to win

The hagler that fought minter and hearns is one of the scariest fighters ever,,, losing was not an option

[LacedUp]

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.

Were Eubank, Collins, Benn, Nunn not major players in Roy's divisions for years? Did Nunn not redeem himself after his loss to James Toney and put himself in a position to fight for the title only to lose a close decision?

Collins, Eubank, Benn etc were established champions and would have undoubtedly added to Roy's resume. How can you even deny that?

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 don't necessarily think I would judge someone differently after they lose. But Roy was so clearly not the same after his fights with Tarver, which shows me he just wasn't the same fighter he used to be. Therefore, I don't necessarily detract from his legacy because he was the best fighter of his generation when he was in his prime. He was an awesome physical specimen and would, imo, have handled Tarver with ease in his prime.

When I think about a fighter and his career, especially someone as awesome as Roy, I take what he did in his fighting prime first and foremost. At the moment, he wants to do his thing with winning a title in the CW division etc - and if he manages it, great. It will add to his legacy. If not, I won't subtract any amount of respect from him whatsoever. Though I don't agree with what he's doing.

[LacedUp]

Roy beating Eubanks, McClellan, liles etc would be much better than Lucas, Brannon, Paz, Byrd... I don't even see how it's debatable.... No one was asking for Lucas fight or the Brannon fight or Paz or mccallum etc

Exactly my point.

How this is even debated is a mystery to me.

[BoxingGenius27]

Exactly my point.

How this is even debated is a mystery to me.

I asked you yesterday to go back through this thread and review if you didin't understand my point, and you said yes when you clearly don't.

Let's start here on this post, then we'll go to some of my next posts explaining my position:

I can't remember if they were champs or not during the times you're talking, but I do know there was no public outcry for these fights you talk about.

Your other problem is you're mentioning a lot of the UK champs. No disrespect to IronDan and my other UK buds on here, but they were the K-9 Bundrages of their division and boxing. The US was the gold standard. Was Roy supposed to go to the UK or something? Heck no.

K-9 was a champ, but that didn't mean he should've fought Floyd Mayweather in some unification fight.

How old are you? I'm beginning to think you were either a toddler, not born, or to young to remember when some of this stuff was going on in the early to late 90's.

[BoxingGenius27]

@ LacedUp

There were several points I made regarding the matter... I don't think you're reading the dialogue between Sugar and I from beginning to end before chiming in