Roy Jones Jr: More Than an Athlete

[soul_survivor]

While I agree with you that he wasn't elite skilled and that he relied mainly on his athleticism, He was great in his prime. Not sure how many 168-175 guys all time could beat a prime Roy Jones.

I'm not debating that at all.

[soul_survivor]

That's your opinion.

I think he had the skill, but his ego prevented him from changing his style when he aged.

Yes, he doesn't have the resume that some of those guys had, but that was due to circumstances. He never had a Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler type rival to fight. His Tommy Hearns or Joe Frazier type rival was James Toney in 1994. And that's why I said that I rate him on a P4P basis.

Toney was nowhere near as good at any weight than a heavyweight Frazier or a welter Hearns. Just no. It was a very good win though BUT 2 wins of that nature across a 20+ year career is sad.

He had the chance to fight Eubank (who he said would have been in toughest opponent), to face Benn, to face Collins (who called him a duck to his face on a round table discussion lol) etc. He never did. Whatever the reasons and/or excuses, Jones feasted on some pretty average or rubbish names.

Finally, as his prime physical gifts faded, he looked for the big fights and lost. He looked to travel and often lost. He should have done that during his best years.

[2fast2strong]

My favorite fighter of all time in any combat sport.

The only man I ever saw "play" boxing

He was Superman in his prime.

I laugh at those people saying he only relied on his physical gifts, yeah no ****, show me an athlete who doesn't.

He is the reason I am a fan of the sport of boxing

[Madison Boxing]

I've honestly tried my best to reason with you, but you're just not interested.

If you're a big fan of Joe's, why are you arguing against what Joe himself said?

Seriously, when will in sink it that Roy was finished as a top level fighter at that point?

Just answer me an honest question: Was there anything special regarding Glen Johnson? Please be honest.

Glen Johnson bullied Roy for 9 rounds, before knocking him out cold. That was 4 years before Joe fought him. And then Johnson couldnt even comfortably beat Clinton Woods.

Fast forward 4 years, and you had Roy at almost 40, coming off of decision wins against Prince Badi Ajamu, Anthony Hanshaw, and a faded, inactive Tito, who couldn't even make the agreed upon C-W of a 170 pounds.

Joe fought the ghost of the guy you see in Roy's highlight reels. Seriously, Roy literally wasn't even half the fighter he'd been against the likes of Griffin and Hill. He had his hand speed, but his timing was out (as evidenced by his forearm knockdown against Joe) and he was gun shy, with badly faded reflexes. His legs had gone.

Before you start dreaming up a scenario where Joe would always have won handily, you need to go and watch Roy back at SMW. I keep telling you, a guy who struggled with Reid and who was dropped by Salem and Mitchell etc, could not have beaten the phenom that Roy was in his 20's. Roy was faster, more powerful, harder to hit, and he was more accurate, with better timing, with a wider variety of shots in his arsenal.

If you had a time machine, you could take any version of Joe you wanted. The version who fought Eubank, the version who fought Veit, Woodhall, Lacy, Kessler or Hopkins. It wouldn't matter. He would not have beaten the versions of Roy who fought Toney, Griffin or Hill. He was just too easy to hit, especially with right hands. And if he'd have gone at Roy throwing 100's of punches per round, he'd have found himself in a shootout where he'd have been taken out.

Joe was a GREAT fighter. I watched his entire career unfold. But he didn't possess the skills or the confidence to have beaten Roy at his best.

This is what Joe would have been facing if he'd have fought Roy at anywhere near his best:

https://vk.com/doc166931963_26191080...d5ff0bdd475988

appreciate the detailed post, but im just saying all i can go on is that when they fought and they were both old, joe beat him easily. roy was more shot than joe admittedly. my hunch is if they fought in primes, joe would have found a way to win- he always did. just think he was too smart for roy, and unlike the other fighters roy fought, joe was also lightening quick. roy wouldnt have beaten him to the punch.

[Madison Boxing]

Toney was nowhere near as good at any weight than a heavyweight Frazier or a welter Hearns. Just no. It was a very good win though BUT 2 wins of that nature across a 20+ year career is sad.

He had the chance to fight Eubank (who he said would have been in toughest opponent), to face Benn, to face Collins (who called him a duck to his face on a round table discussion lol) etc. He never did. Whatever the reasons and/or excuses, Jones feasted on some pretty average or rubbish names.

Finally, as his prime physical gifts faded, he looked for the big fights and lost. He looked to travel and often lost. He should have done that during his best years.

good post ^

[robertzimmerman]

I recall neither one of them being willing to cross the pond to fight the other for fear of getting robbed by hometown judges. Too bad they couldn't meet in neutral territory to make the fight.

It was nothing to do with a fear of being robbed.

1. Joe wasn't at all relevant to Roy back in the day. As great as he was, he was a relatively unknown WBO champ, fighting on a different continent and in the division below, which Roy had left years earlier. He was insignificant. His biggest wins back then had been against Eubank, Reid and Woodhall. He was unknown in the U.S. until the Lacy fight. That's because he wouldn't market himself in the U.S. and he wouldn't move up to LHW to gain more recognition.

2. He never wanted to fight Roy. In 1999, he said: "I'm not chasing Roy, I don't want tough fights" and in 2003, he said: "I think I could give Roy a great fight. But I'd need the 'Crown ***els' due to the risk involved." He was more than happy to fight the Salem's and Mkrtchyan's of the world, even when he was in his 30's. Seriously, read his comments and look at his career path. He defended a lightly regarded WBO 21 times. He fought in a weak division for 14 years, killing himself to do so. The guy did not want to fight the best guys out there. Him fighting a peak version of Roy is just a fantasy.

[robertzimmerman]

No, I'm talking about his entire career. Through his best years, he had his physical gifts to rely on to get out of trouble but once his speed and reflexes dimmed, he had very litle technical proficienty in numerous areas.

That is in stark contrast to the upper tier greats. The finest example is Ali. He had more fights as a fighter who had lost his speed and reflexes but had boxing smarts and technical skillset to rely upon. He competed with Frazier, beat him twice, beat Norton twice, beat Foreman etc all while his natural gifts were all but gone.

Jones could never do that because he did not know how.

Roy could have adapted.

Like I said earlier: he was too arrogant, clutching onto past glories, and feeling mentally that he was still a young man in order to change. It's a real shame.

[TonyGe]

RJJ is totally underestimated and it's a total disrespect. He clearly, wide open, SCHOOLED Hopkins and JAmes Toney, don't get me wrong these two are Godfather, LOTR, Snatch or Django level skilled fighters if they call that Loma Matrix.
He had the power, the speed, the ****iness and flashy stuff. Watching his tapes I realize that HBO commentators from time to time hated on him or degraded him idk for what reason (I don't blv theyr racists, I don't mean that).

I don't think the guys who minimize Roy's greatness are necessarily racist they are just deluded. Roy was incredible in his prime.

[GhostofDempsey]

It was nothing to do with a fear of being robbed.

1. Joe wasn't at all relevant to Roy back in the day. As great as he was, he was a relatively unknown WBO champ, fighting on a different continent and in the division below, which Roy had left years earlier. He was insignificant. His biggest wins back then had been against Eubank, Reid and Woodhall. He was unknown in the U.S. until the Lacy fight. That's because he wouldn't market himself in the U.S. and he wouldn't move up to LHW to gain more recognition.

2. He never wanted to fight Roy. In 1999, he said: "I'm not chasing Roy, I don't want tough fights" and in 2003, he said: "I think I could give Roy a great fight. But I'd need the 'Crown ***els' due to the risk involved." He was more than happy to fight the Salem's and Mkrtchyan's of the world, even when he was in his 30's. Seriously, read his comments and look at his career path. He defended a lightly regarded WBO 21 times. He fought in a weak division for 14 years, killing himself to do so. The guy did not want to fight the best guys out there. Him fighting a peak version of Roy is just a fantasy.

That's all well and good, but the fight would have been competitive had they fought at any point in their careers. Jones had trouble with Lou DeValle who was also a southpaw and not nearly as talented as Calzaghe. Jone's didn't like soutpaws.

Jones himself said of Calzaghe, "It was unfair when people tried to run him down. Most of the names he fought in Europe were real names. He didn't just beat Jeff Lacy, he knocked the you-know-what out of him."

[robertzimmerman]

soul_survivor,

Toney was nowhere near as good at any weight than a heavyweight Frazier or a welter Hearns. Just no. It was a very good win though BUT 2 wins of that nature across a 20+ year career is sad.

Toney was a great fighter but a lack of discipline ruined his chances of him being classed as a genuine ATG. My point was: Toney was an elite fighter, around the same age as Roy. He was Roy's biggest rival at the time. I wasn't comparing him to those guys, I'm just saying: Ali had Frazier, Ray was part of the Fab Four, and the nearest thing that Roy had to those, was Toney.

He had the chance to fight Eubank (who he said would have been in toughest opponent), to face Benn, to face Collins (who called him a duck to his face on a round table discussion lol) etc. He never did. Whatever the reasons and/or excuses, Jones feasted on some pretty average or rubbish names.

I'm sure we've discussed this numerous times in the History section.

Roy did not have the opportunity to fight Eubank. Eubank did not want to fight Roy, Toney, Nunn or any of the other big U.S. names. He's on record as saying that. He signed a big contract in the U.K. with Sky and ITV, and his objective was to just defend his WBO belt. He said it would have been career suicide to have fought Roy in his prime. He said he would have fought him though, but only if he'd have been declared his WBO mandatory. But of course there was more chance of seeing the Loch Ness monster, as Roy wouldn't even have been listed in the WBO's rankings.

Yes, Roy did fight weak opponents. But the majority of them were mandatories. And after he'd unified with Johnson, he had mandatory obligations from all 3 of the main organisations.

A Benn fight was extremely hard to make, as King held promotional rights with Warren. But King and Roy's handlers, the Levin's, didn't like each other, and King wanted future options on Roy.

When Collins challenged Roy, he'd been inactive for 2 years, and HBO wanted Roy to unify the titles against Reggie Johnson instead.

Finally, as his prime physical gifts faded, he looked for the big fights and lost. He looked to travel and often lost. He should have done that during his best years.

What does that tell you?

He didn't travel when he was younger, because he was "The Man"

When he was older, he had to make concessions that he didn't have to when he was the best fighter in the world.