Comments Thread For: Where Does Roy Jones Belong On The List Of Greatest Boxers?

[KillaMane26]

It depends how you look at how to define a fighter - do you define a fighter on his whole career or the period of when he was a champion. To me The All Time Great are those when they reach the top they maintain it not those who fall from Grace then blame it on age and did not know when to quit for reasons of money or thinking they still have it. Therefore Roy Jones Jr can't go down as one of the all time Great.

This is dumb...by your logic you would be disqualifying half of atgs.

[soul_survivor]

The lists mentioned had him around 30 sometimes to 40 something, which for me, is about right.

I think if ESPN were to do that list again, they would def have Mayweather higher, Morales and Tyson should be higher too and Pac should obviously be on there very high. Taking into account Jones entire career, he should be 49/50.

[robertzimmerman]

Apart from 8 pounds. That means he is not MW.
And name a good fighter RJJ fought at MW except Hopkins.
Just one that could be considered to be equal to even Daniel Jacobs' top 5 fights.

Again, you can take the version of Roy who fought Thomas Tate to rank him on a H2H basis alongside the other greats.

He doesn't have to possess a stellar record at the weight.

Roy only had about 6 fights at SMW. But on a H2H basis, he was clearly a better SMW than Joe Calzaghe, who ranks at no.1 on most people's lists, taking into account accomplishments and longevity etc.

It really doesn't matter that Roy only really fought Castro, Hopkins and Tate at MW. Because if you can appreciate what you're watching, you'd realise that Roy was one of the greatest MW's of all time. As in: He was one of the most gifted fighters who ever fought there. Resume is only one factor to consider. Roy would definitely have to feature in the top 20-30 MW's of all time based on talent.

[robertzimmerman]

The lists mentioned had him around 30 sometimes to 40 something, which for me, is about right.

I think if ESPN were to do that list again, they would def have Mayweather higher, Morales and Tyson should be higher too and Pac should obviously be on there very high. Taking into account Jones entire career, he should be 49/50.

I wouldn't have Tyson higher.

[stealthradon]

Again, you can take the version of Roy who fought Thomas Tate to rank him on a H2H basis alongside the other greats.

He doesn't have to possess a stellar record at the weight.

Roy only had about 6 fights at SMW. But on a H2H basis, he was clearly a better SMW than Joe Calzaghe, who ranks at no.1 on most people's lists, taking into account accomplishments and longevity etc.

It really doesn't matter that Roy only really fought Castro, Hopkins and Tate at MW. Because if you can appreciate what you're watching, you'd realise that Roy was one of the greatest MW's of all time. As in: He was one of the most gifted fighters who ever fought there. Resume is only one factor to consider. Roy would definitely have to feature in the top 20-30 MW's of all time based on talent.

So you want to judge him based on him beating up some of the worst MW has to offer?

[Tonyu]

Roy stayed at the top for 10 years, across 4 divisions, barely losing rounds.

He only lost after 50 fights, at 35, after dropping back from HW.

I realise alot of guys admired RJJ and rightly so he was good in his Prime therefore he goes down as a hall of famer. To be considered a ATG your whole career has got to be taken into account. Losing to the poor calibre late on in his career does not make him a ATG especially with a KO loss to Maccrinelli who was a shot fighter himself. Sadly RJJ will go down as one of the best of his era but also a champion that did not know when to quit fighting out of Russia. Therefore a HOF but not ATG.

[robertzimmerman]

So you want to judge him based on him beating up some of the worst MW has to offer?

Are you even reading these posts?

Do you know what H2H means?

He easily beat Toney etc at SMW.

At MW, he possessed the exact same attributes.

The versions of Roy who fought Tate and Toney were the same fighter, just 5-6 months apart.

You can rank Roy on what he did at MW and beyond that.

You're ranking him on ability.

I could say to you that I think that Roy would have beaten Jake La Motta. My opinion wouldn't be based on him specifically beating Castro, it would be based on everything that I saw of his prime.

You shouldn't have an issue with this.

We only saw Roy fight once at HW. But I would pick that version of Roy who beat Ruiz, to beat a fair few of today's top 20 guys.

[future hendrixx]

But how do we judge greatness? Do we judge a fighter over the entirety of their career or do we take snapshots of their prime years and use that to gauge where they rank among the greats.

if we judge jones on the entirety of his career then hes not even top 100. he spent a good 14 years being a BUM. but we all know boxers are ranked based on their primes and everything else outside of that gets erased. when jordan came back with the wizards to be a shell of his former self it did damage to his overall career stats but it did absolutely nothing to his standing as the GOAT in that sport.

but if you accomplish something noteworthy when being past your prime then that is taken into consideration with your overall legacy. simply put we just ignore the bad and ugly things. when foreman knocked out moore he was decades past his best but that win enhanced his legacy. had he lost to moore it wouldn't hurt his legacy one bit.

in terms of "prime" jones and where does he rank. its all subjective theres nothing concrete or scientific about all time lists. IMO prime jones is top 20. not top 10. the wins people always allude to are hopkins (1993), toney (1994) and ruiz (2003).

IMO hopkins was not "prime" in 1993. beating hopkins around 2002-03 would've meant much more but they never agreed on a split. james toney throughout his career has had numerous issues with weight, so its not roys fault but it must be mentioned toney came into camp for the roy fight at 215 lbs with six weeks to go. after the weigh in he was hooked to an IV until the next day. thats why his body resembled a deflated ball during the fight. again not roys fault but it must be mentioned because people give tarver and johnson zero credit for beating roy citing his massive weight loss from HW.

roy weighed in 193 for ruiz (march 2003) then dropped to 175 for tarver (november 2003). meaning in eight MONTHS he dropped 18 lbs. Toney dropped 46 lbs in SIX WEEKS.

IMO roys best wins are
1. RUIZ .. this win is ripped apart by some that say ruiz was the sorriest HW ever. but roy made history that night. period. and ruiz did beat holyfield prior so..

2. TARVER 1.. this is one of my favorites in roys career because it showed him respond to adversity in the ring like a true great. he swept the championship rounds while being obviously gassed.

3. GRIFFIN 2.. many people felt griffin had exposed holes in roys game in their first fight. and he somewhat did because roy was clueless on the ropes and going backwards. this is something tarver applied in their fights. but roy ended it short and sweet.. and griffin did have TWO wins over james toney going in.

4. HOPKINS.. like i said i wouldn't consider hopkins "prime" in 1993 but it was still a significant win. in terms of how memorable it was. not so much. its a good fight to cure insomnia.

5. TONEY.. on paper this is jones best victory. i put it top five because it was significant. but in context its not that impressive. toney lost 46 lbs in six weeks. was hooked to an IV for a whole day before the fight. not blaming roy but hey it wasnt tarver and glen johnsons fault that jones suffered from losing weight either so..

and had his knockdown blow on calzaghe been full glove instead of full wrist then we're talking top 10 fighter (cuz joe would've been KO'd).. of course i dont give calzaghe credit for that win either because by his own admission jones was washed up at that point. and again we only factor post prime success not post prime failures. right or wrong thats how boxers are always analyzed.

[robertzimmerman]

I realise alot of guys admired RJJ and rightly so he was good in his Prime therefore he goes down as a hall of famer. To be considered a ATG your whole career has got to be taken into account. Losing to the poor calibre late on in his career does not make him a ATG especially with a KO loss to Maccrinelli who was a shot fighter himself. Sadly RJJ will go down as one of the best of his era but also a champion that did not know when to quit fighting out of Russia. Therefore a HOF but not ATG.

Whilst the losses can't be ignored, they have to be put into context.

Roy losing to Enzo means absolutely nothing.

It doesn't make a dent in his legacy.

The boxing world knows that Enzo would never have gotten near him in his prime.

Plenty of ATG's lost after they were prime.

Plenty of other ATG's lost to fighters of the calibre of Tarver and Johnson, even before they got to Roy's decline at the age of 35.

Roy is clearly an ATG.

[IronDanHamza]

What a joke.

Are you telling me that his reflexes didn't diminish?

Roy was on a physical decline for a while.

From about 2000.