Comments Thread For: Should Roy Jones Be Penalized For Fighting Too Long?

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Andreas Hale - It's hard to believe that a 48-year-old Roy Jones Jr. is still boxing. The man who was once considered one of the greatest talents we have ever seen in the squared circle is 13 years removed from his glory days. Yet, here he is, in all of his mediocrity, boxing against relatively unknown opponents for little money and gaining very little in the public eye. If you split Jones' career in half, you'd have two very different stories...
[Click Here To Read More]

[OctoberRed]

Fighting fans and guys like Gunn are hurting his legacy

[Citizen Koba]

What? Like penalise him worse the being repeatedly beaten up and KTFO in public? What do you want to do to the man?

[Dr Rumack]

I don't think so. Legacy is all about what the fighter achieved, in black and white terms. No ifs and buts. Jones was an exceptional fighter in his peak and had two wins over hall of famers at the age of 25. That's the reality. People will remember the decline for sure, but I don't think it will hurt him in historical terms. Never having fought Michalczewski is a bigger deal than having fought the likes of Bobby Gunn.

Physically, it's a different matter. For sure he's getting penalized that way. But that's on the licensing boards and Roy himself.

[pacphobia]

Robinson lost 19 times and still considered the greatest so Jones can get battered and lose 10 more times and he's still be considered great.

[Dr Rumack]

Robinson lost 19 times and still considered the greatest so Jones can get battered and lose 10 more times and he's still be considered great.

Agree with the main point. Roy has more than doubled Robinson's 'bad years' at this point though. Five years from retirement Robinson was still competitive at the top level. Don't think we can say the same about Roy.

[-PBP-]

Penalize a natural born fighter for fighting? None of the fighters from the black and white days get penalized for fighting too long and accumulating Ls past their prime so Roy shouldn't either.

[iamboxing]

"Should Roy Jones’ career be penalized for his second half? Absolutely. But only because this has become a lengthy demise for the former champion. By comparison, Bernard Hopkins, who lost to Jones in 1993, managed to have a stellar career through his 40s. Obviously, Hopkins is an outlier. But a boxer’s career has to be taken in its totality and not in fragments"

Why? Where does it say that we have to overlook a man's accomplishments because he's become a shadow of his former self? De Niro is arguably on of the greatest actor to have ever lived, but let's forget Taxi Driver and rate him on Dirty Grandpa? That's ridiculous. Roy's boxing career has been sublime, I don't factor in his later fights and don't even consider them professionl fights. More of a hobby or retirement activity.

[LockardTheGOAT]

Robinson lost 19 times and still considered the greatest so Jones can get battered and lose 10 more times and he's still be considered great.

lol Sugar Ray Robinson also had nearly 200 fights overall and 173 of those are wins, which is more than any other boxer in history has obtained. More fights mean more losses, and his are also spread about over a much longer and more active career. The two aren't really comparable.

I get that we can always be perceptive and fair enough to judge them by the work they put out in their prime, but it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when you have a number of losses on your official record to go along with those.

[NEETzsche]

I think his latter-day losses are a factor in our perception of Roy as a fighter whether we like it or not. It's impossible to completely disregard them once you've seen them

If he had retired after beating Ruiz it unquestionably would have been much better for his legacy. He would have been seen as invincible. I guess you could argue that that would have been a less informed judgement than the one we are able to make now, though