Is Roy Jones in the top 20 all time great?

[robertzimmerman]

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'

Thanks for the reply mate, I find it fascinating. I'm 34, and have loved boxing since I saw Ray fight Marvin in 87. I've never boxed myself, or even been in a gym. But I have the utmost respect for any amateur or pro fighter, and I respect your wish to remain anonymous.

If you don't mind, could I just ask a quick question?

Is what I've wrote, in anyway accurate?

Or has the story from the book been misconstrued?

Thanks.

[robertzimmerman]

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

I respect your opinion.

Personally, I think Roy would have beaten him at 160. Although I can obviously see why you'd pick Marvin. He was a great fighter.

I agree that the Hearns win was better than the Toney win.

But it would be interesting to do a head to head between their top 5 wins, assessing the circumstances involved.

[BoxingGenius27]

What about McClellan and liles and michlewski, especially g-man and liles...

Wins over those guys much better than Lucas, Brannon etc...

I would give Roy all the credit in the world cuz he would have fought most of the big fights,,, I highly doubt if Roy didn't fight Byrd or Paz or Brannon that we would be saying 20 years later, "man I wish Roy fought Lucas, or Paz". GTFO. No one would saying that

McClellan and Roy were very good friends. I couldn't see that fight happening in 10000 years.

Liles - That fight was possible although I don't remember too much hype surrounding it. Either way, Liles wasn't really at the top to long anyway

Michlewski - He wouldn't come to the US for the fight. Roy was the gold standard and definitely didn't deserve to go overseas and get robbed like he did in the olympics. Dariuzs wouldn't come here and Roy wouldn't go there. They were at a standoff similarly to Roy-Hopkins II for so long

[BoxingGenius27]

There was a good few people talking about Benn at the time, no?

Politics prevented it from happening if i'm not mistaken.

Me, personally, I don't remember anyone mentioning the Benn-Jones fight at the time post McClellan-Benn. But if they did, I wouldn't doubt it... But nothing like some of you guys tried to make it seem in this thread.

There were very few, if that, at all... But that's it

BTW, you never answered me, where did you get Michael Nunn from? He was done post Toney

[robertzimmerman]

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

There's no doubt about that. In a perfect world, yes.

But my point is, if Roy had've fought all of the guys he missed, in return missing a few of the guys that he did fight, then he'd still get criticised.

Some people would never be satisfied. You could bet your life that had he stayed at HW, he'd get bashed for not having fought Tarver.

Again, Roy would have needed to have fought about 80 times to have satisfied the critics.

Also, let's suppose that he did beat Eubank, Benn and Liles instead of Paz and Lucas etc, but still fought the guys who he fought.

Then what?

There'd probably be people who'd say that Benn and Eubank were decent fighters but nothing more.

Simply put, who did Roy miss, who would have moved him much further up the ATG list?

I've read all of your posts, and you're not really impressed with Roy's victories over Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill and Ruiz etc.

Which is fair enough.

But like me and BoxingGenius have asked, realistically, would you have been impressed if he'd have beaten Eubank, Benn and Collins etc?

Be honest.

If you don't rate Roy's domination of a top 5 HW, at 34, after having had 50 fights, then why would wins over Eubank and Collins have impressed you when he was in his 20's?

They wouldn't have would they?

Eubank was a good fighter. But he struggled with Close, Schommer and Benn. He should have lost all of those fights.

Collins's claim to fame was beating faded versions of Benn and Eubank. I don't want to disrespect him, but what else did he do?

Nunn was 35 when he was Roy's mandatory at 175, and he wasn't the same guy who Toney had beaten in 91. So how much credit would you have given Roy if he'd have beaten Nunn in 97?

I don't think Roy would have impressed you, if he'd have beaten all of the guys he missed.

I think Roy was always in a no win situation.

If he'd have beaten DM, would he have got credit?

Why does Toney get huge credit for the Jirov win, yet Roy gets none for the Ruiz win?

Because Toney's fight was exciting, and Roy's wasn't?

You strike me as a guy who'd never be satisfied.

Put Roy's resume up against any 168-175 fighter from the same era.

Put his resume up against Toney's, Hopkins', Benn's, Liles, Eubank's Collins', Calzaghe's, Nunn's, DM's, Hill's and Johnson's etc.

His resume will be near the top. It's quite a strong resume for his era. It just doesn't look that way, because of how dominant he was.

Hopkins was beaten with an injured hand at 24, and then he didn't lose for another 12 years.

Benn and Eubank struggled with Malinga, then Roy breezed through him easily.

Thomas Tate was blown away in 5 mins, then nine years later, he was a credible opponent for Calzaghe until he had to withdraw.

Hill was shot to s**t, but then knocked out Tiozzo in a round.

Gonzalez was a Mexican road sweeper, who went on to beat DM.

Hall was a nobody who then gave DM problems.

Griffin got iced, but had given Toney problems.

Woods was toyed with, but gave Johnson three tough fights.

Ruiz was a nobody, but he'd beaten and knocked down Holyfield, who was robbed of another title 5 years later.


Can you see a pattern emerging?


Roy has a decent resume.

[BoxingGenius27]

There's no doubt about that. In a perfect world, yes.

But my point is, if Roy had've fought all of the guys he missed, in return missing a few of the guys that he did fight, then he'd still get criticised.

Some people would never be satisfied. You could bet your life that had he stayed at HW, he'd get bashed for not having fought Tarver.

Again, Roy would have needed to have fought about 80 times to satisfy the critics.

Also, let's suppose that he did beat Eubank, Benn and Liles instead of Paz and Lucas etc, but still fought the guys who he fought?

Then what?

There'd probably be people who'd say that Benn and Eubank were decent fighters but nothing more.

Simply put, who did Roy miss, who would have moved further up the ATG list?

I've read all of your posts, and you're not really impressed with Roy's victories over Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill, Ruiz and Toney.

Which is fair enough.

But like me and BoxingGenius have asked, realistically, would you have been impressed if he'd beat Eubank, Benn and Collins etc?

Be honest.

If you don't rate Roy's domination of a top 5 HW, at 34, after having had 50 fights, then why would wins over Eubank and Collins have impressed you when he was in his 20's?

They wouldn't have would they?

Eubank was a good fighter. But he struggled with Close, Schommer and Benn. He should have lost all of those fights.

Collins's claim to fame was beating faded versions of Benn and Eubank. What else did he do, and I'm not disrespecting him.

Nunn was 35 when he was Roy's mandatory at 175, and he wasn't the same guy who Toney had beaten in 91. So how much credit would you have given Roy if he'd have beaten Nunn in 97?

I don't think Roy would have impressed you, if he'd have beaten all of the guys he missed.

I think Roy was always in a no win situation.

If he'd have beaten DM, would he have got credit?

Why does Toney get huge credit for the Jirov win, yet Roy gets none for the Ruiz win?

Because Toney's fight was exciting, and Roy's wasn't?

You strike me as a guy who'd never be satisfied.

Put Roy's resume up against any 168-175 fighter from the same era.

Put his resume up against Toney's, Hopkins', Benn's, Liles, Eubank's Collins', Calzaghe's, Nunn's, DM's, Hills, Johnson's, etc.

His resume will be near the top. It's quite a strong resume for his era. It just doesn't look that way, because of how dominant he was.

Hopkins was beaten with an injured hand at 24, and didn't lose for another 12 years.

Benn and Eubank struggled with Malinga, then Roy breezed through him easily. How much credit does he get for that win?

Thomas Tate was blown away in 5 mins, then nine years later, he was a credible opponent for Calzaghe until he had to withdraw.

Hill was shot to ****, but then knocked out Tiozzo in a round.

Gonzalez was a Mexican road sweeper, who went on to beat DM.

Hall was a nobody who gave DM problems.

Griffin got iced, but had given Toney problems.

Woods was toyed with, but gave Johnson three tough fights.

Ruiz was a nobody, but he'd beaten and knocked down Holyfield, who was robbed of another title 5 years later.


Can you see a pattern emerging?


Roy had a decent resume.

damn boy

[elgranluchadore]

his so called skill is relative, if he was so skilled why did he always fight bums?
i though valero was mighty skilled too but that doesnt mean he is a legend or something

[robertzimmerman]

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

I respect what you've written.

But I wouldn't say that he was better than Roy, and that his overall body of work was better.

But it's highly subjective, and everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[robertzimmerman]

Exactly my point.

How this is even debated is a mystery to me.

It's not debated. What me and BoxingGenius are asking, is whether or not Roy would have got credit for beating those guys, seeing as Sugar Adam Ali doesn't give him much credit for beating Ruiz etc.

If the Ruiz win didn't impress him, then how could a win over Collins have impressed him?

He's way too harsh on Roy.

[BoxingGenius27]

Griffin got iced, but had given Toney problems. .

Beat Toney twice actually