Did Roy Jones fight anyone as good as Tarver/Johnson at his peak?

[-Antonio-]

My question is, how do we know Bernard was green? He had 20 something pro fights by then, and he didnt lose after that fight untill he lost to Taylor many years later.

[Super_Lightweight]

I don't HATE Jones, in fact I love his style of boxing. I've just gone off him due to the following three things:


1. I realised that his level of competition was nowhere NEAR that of my other favourite boxers.

2. He's a bit of a ****.

3. The way he gets talked about on websites like he's an all-time great is ridiculous. I once saw a poster at the BBC Forum in a P4P thread say: "The best boxer of all time was Roy Jones... why in the Hell would someone have Muhammad Ali in their top ten?" They were being serious, too.

If you let the statements of crazies affect you, that's your problem taking it out on Roy.

Roy is a nice gentleman, and I'd know as I've met him as have many of my friends. Talking oneself up is to be expected of any star athlete though. It goes with the times. As a person and one-on-one, Roy is not yammering. On TV, of course he is.

To the subject: Clearly Tarver was only as good as Eric Harding, and lesser-skilled in fact but had the power to redeem himself. Since I've seen every single fight of Roy's, I'd say Tarver is not clearly better than any of the following: Clinton Woods, Merq Sosa, James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Montell Griffin, and possibly Jorge Castro.

Same would apply to Glen obviously, as him and Tarver are fairly close together based on their performances against each other.

[Guest]

roy jones is great, everyone he fought and beat he dominated, even if u think his comp wasnt good he is a great he disposed of them so easly he would beaten better people to, im looking at all his UD wins on boxrec and i see domiantion, roy jones jr just had plain mad skillz bro dont hate

See, this is what people say... he would have beaten them anyway. Yeah, great, I don't doubt it. But I want a career I can SEE, not imagine. What will they do for him on ESPN Classic? Have Bert Sugar whacking off in a chair telling us what it might have been like? It's unsatisfying and saying he would have won anyway doesn't cut it.

[Guest]

roy jones hater huh? hopkins didnt lose a match after the roy jones fight until he fought taylor..roy jones was GREEN if hopkins was green..who did he beat that could beat glen johnson and tarver? JOHN RUIZ REGGIE JOHNSON DERRICK HARMON MIKE MCCLAUM VIRGIL HILL (THE MOST UNDERRATED FIGHTER OF ALL TIME)

"Hater"? I admit I'm pissing about a little, but FFS, let's drop names like "hater" back in the kindergarten sandpit where they belong and discuss it seriously. FFS.

[Guest]

If you let the statements of crazies affect you, that's your problem taking it out on Roy.

I don't like to hear you describing yourself as a "crazy", S_L. Don't put yourself down.

Anyway, I've got a pm off you saying that you secretly wish Roy had fought better competition so I'm happy.

[K-DOGG]

I'm just asking, I don't know.

Toney was weight-drained, Hopkins was still getting experienced and far from the boxer he became.

So I look back at the list of fighters Roy fought and I'm not familar with the Telescos and the Antoine Byrds on his mightily competitive ledger.

I became aware of Clinton Woods afterwards, and he was a decent enough pro, still green then and not as good as he is now, a couple of notches behind Glen Johnson at the time.

The question is, did Roy ever face anyone as good as the two men who sparked him while he was in his prime?

Anorak...shame on you. You built in the excuses for Toney and Hopkins, effectively excluding them from the answer.

First off, it's not Roy's fault that Toney was weight-drained. At the time, Toney was favored to win and was considered second only to Pernell Whitaker on the Pound-4-Pound Rankings. You can't exclude the man because he was THE BEST opponent that Jones faced. That fight, and Roy's dominance of such a complete figher made me a Roy Jones fan. To reiterated, it is not fair to Jones to exclude Toney because he didn't get himself in proper shape.

Secondly, Roy was just as green as Hopkins was when they faced off, so to exclude Hopkins, who could have beaten every other middleweight in the world at that time, is also unfair to Jones.

Thirdly, Tarver and Johnson's reputations as "great" or "very good" are built on what? That's right, their wins over an old Jones. Tarver beat more credible competition than Johnson, yet Johnson beat Tarver. And while it may be true that Johnson lost many "hometown" decisions, he still has many losses on his resume and I submit that had he not beaten an effectively "shot" Jones, we wouldn't be talking about him to this day as any fighter of significance. Same with Tarver. If Jones were not considered as great as he was going into the Tarver rematch (2nd fight); and Tarver not opened up during the pre-fight instructions and followed up with a perfect punch and stopped Jones, Tarver would be considerd merely a good Light-Heavyweight with great sound-bite potential....and we'd be asking why he wasn't facing the other champions. Jones reputation made Tarver and Johnson as well-renown as they are, not their other accomplishments combined.

Now, all of that said, Montell Griffin was a quality opponent as was Virgil Hill as was Clinton Woods, Eric Harding (he beat Tarver) as was Reggie Johnson as was Merqui Sosa as was Thomas Tate and Julio Gonzalez...who's still in the title hunt.

Don't diminish Jones' legacy just because he didn't take the time out to defeat Eubank, Benn, and Darius Michelwhatshisname.

You know better.

[Super_Lightweight]

I don't like to hear you describing yourself as a "crazy", S_L. Don't put yourself down.

Anyway, I've got a pm off you saying that you secretly wish Roy had fought better competition so I'm happy.

What'd I tell you about divulging that ****?

****.

[scap]

Anorak...shame on you. You built in the excuses for Toney and Hopkins, effectively excluding them from the answer.

First off, it's not Roy's fault that Toney was weight-drained. At the time, Toney was favored to win and was considered second only to Pernell Whitaker on the Pound-4-Pound Rankings. You can't exclude the man because he was THE BEST opponent that Jones faced. That fight, and Roy's dominance of such a complete figher made me a Roy Jones fan. To reiterated, it is not fair to Jones to exclude Toney because he didn't get himself in proper shape.

Secondly, Roy was just as green as Hopkins was when they faced off, so to exclude Hopkins, who could have beaten every other middleweight in the world at that time, is also unfair to Jones.

Thirdly, Tarver and Johnson's reputations as "great" or "very good" are built on what? That's right, their wins over an old Jones. Tarver beat more credible competition than Johnson, yet Johnson beat Tarver. And while it may be true that Johnson lost many "hometown" decisions, he still has many losses on his resume and I submit that had he not beaten an effectively "shot" Jones, we wouldn't be talking about him to this day as any fighter of significance. Same with Tarver. If Jones were not considered as great as he was going into the Tarver rematch (2nd fight); and Tarver not opened up during the pre-fight instructions and followed up with a perfect punch and stopped Jones, Tarver would be considerd merely a good Light-Heavyweight with great sound-bite potential....and we'd be asking why he wasn't facing the other champions. Jones reputation made Tarver and Johnson as well-renown as they are, not their other accomplishments combined.

Now, all of that said, Montell Griffin was a quality opponent as was Virgil Hill as was Clinton Woods, Eric Harding (he beat Tarver) as was Reggie Johnson as was Merqui Sosa as was Thomas Tate and Julio Gonzalez...who's still in the title hunt.

Don't diminish Jones' legacy just because he didn't take the time out to defeat Eubank, Benn, and Darius Michelwhatshisname.

You know better.

Excellent post K-Dogg!

There were many insiders who felt the weight drained James Toney that Roy fought was in fact thee #1 p4p fighter in the world.

[BK Saddizzle]

Roy Jones fought Vinnie Pazienza, who was tough competition until Jones str8 crushed him. RJJ got mad skillz & I still won't take anything away from him but his ****iness when he started to move up in weight proved to be his down fall. Roy wasn't KOin anybody anymore after he moved up. fight after fight in Lt Heavy as well as Heavy were the same, Roy "Shuckin & Jivin'" to a decision over everybody until he went back down & got his chin checked by Tarver, then Johnson, then Tarver again. I don't question Roy's skillz, but his Heart is suspect. Now Can u Dig dat!!!

[mECHsLAVE]

Anorak...shame on you. You built in the excuses for Toney and Hopkins, effectively excluding them from the answer.

First off, it's not Roy's fault that Toney was weight-drained. At the time, Toney was favored to win and was considered second only to Pernell Whitaker on the Pound-4-Pound Rankings. You can't exclude the man because he was THE BEST opponent that Jones faced. That fight, and Roy's dominance of such a complete figher made me a Roy Jones fan. To reiterated, it is not fair to Jones to exclude Toney because he didn't get himself in proper shape.

Secondly, Roy was just as green as Hopkins was when they faced off, so to exclude Hopkins, who could have beaten every other middleweight in the world at that time, is also unfair to Jones.

Thirdly, Tarver and Johnson's reputations as "great" or "very good" are built on what? That's right, their wins over an old Jones. Tarver beat more credible competition than Johnson, yet Johnson beat Tarver. And while it may be true that Johnson lost many "hometown" decisions, he still has many losses on his resume and I submit that had he not beaten an effectively "shot" Jones, we wouldn't be talking about him to this day as any fighter of significance. Same with Tarver. If Jones were not considered as great as he was going into the Tarver rematch (2nd fight); and Tarver not opened up during the pre-fight instructions and followed up with a perfect punch and stopped Jones, Tarver would be considerd merely a good Light-Heavyweight with great sound-bite potential....and we'd be asking why he wasn't facing the other champions. Jones reputation made Tarver and Johnson as well-renown as they are, not their other accomplishments combined.

Now, all of that said, Montell Griffin was a quality opponent as was Virgil Hill as was Clinton Woods, Eric Harding (he beat Tarver) as was Reggie Johnson as was Merqui Sosa as was Thomas Tate and Julio Gonzalez...who's still in the title hunt.

Don't diminish Jones' legacy just because he didn't take the time out to defeat Eubank, Benn, and Darius Michelwhatshisname.

You know better.

Everything you said was perfectly on point until the last two words.

Roy not "taking time out" to fight Michalczewski is the biggest hit to his legacy. Roy never became the LHW champ after spending all that time at LHW. For a fighter of his level and legacy to spend years and years at a weight and never defeat the linear champ is something that absolutely hurts his legacy. I'm a huge Roy fan, but let's face it. That was a dodge. HBO, boxing writers, journalists, fans, everyone wanted that fight. Journalists were writing articles about it, Roy was coming up with excuse after excuse, until finally I think he worked an agreement with HBO to just drop the subject, because the talk just magically stopped one day and he wasn't asked about it anymore. Michalczewski took out a full page ad in Ring begging Roy for a fight. HBO offered up some serious money for the fight. Roy never wanted it and so it didn't happen and he never was the true champ at 175. I think the onus was on Roy, the challenger, to make the fight with Dariusz, so that's really the main complaint about his career.

But yes, the rest of the criticism of Roy is largely unwarranted. In his prime, he consistently had the best performances against good to very good to great fighters, more than anybody else I can think of in modern boxing.

I think the 2nd Griffin fight was amazing. The same Griffin that beat Toney (not a weight-drained Toney) twice, who outboxed Roy for much of the first fight until the DQ, and Roy came out like gangbusters and just ran over him like he had something to prove. That was Roy at his best.

The Roy that night would have spanked Hopkins eight ways till Sunday and embarrassed Toney even worse than he did the first time, and probably beaten Michalczewski as well. Toney and Hopkins messed up their rematch chances themselves and have nobody but themselves to blame for it. It's really only the Michalczewski fight that we have to guess about. Yes, I think Roy would have won. Yes, I think Roy earned criticism and hurt his legacy by not fighting him.