Where would you rank Roy Jones on the all time list?

Roy Jones Junior Trainer's interview with fight hype

ALFY SMITH: "DON'T COUNT ROY JONES OUT JUST YET"

http://www.fighthype.com/pages/content9428.html

Obviously the guy is deluded if he thinks Roy Jones can go back to beating elite fighters at this stage of his career but Im wondering how would boxing fans view RJJ if he retired after the John Ruiz fight. Could he of been considered a top 10 ATG? Also I think people wouldn't say he had a glass chin. I would say talent wise he was a top 10 ATG but the defeats after the Ruiz fight means he is only top 20 for me. 4 weight world champion won world titles at middle, super middle, light heavy and heavyweight, held 7 belts at once at light heavyweight. Beat respected names such as Griffin, Virgil Hill, Woods, Tarver and Lacy. Held wins over future hall of famers in Bernard Hopkins, Felix Trinidad and a hall of famer Mike McCallum. Had career defining wins over James Toney and John Ruiz. I would say he has done enough in achievement wise to go with his immense talent to be considered a top 20 all time great.

I wouldn't have him in the top 20 Shantel, The problem is with Jones, people overate flashy athletic ability when it comes to rating fighters in this manner. Armstrong has huge talents as well, but very different - swarming, violent, punch resistance, inflicting his plan, generalship, deploying heart, threading punches in the pocket, all ability just as valid as Jones's. How to compare them? Chalk and cheese after all...that's where the level of the test comes into play...

Jones may be more talented than Armstrong and others. Superficially, that appears to be the case. But Armstrong was basically as talented as it is possible for a fighter to be in keeping with his own style. But he unquestionably proved his talents to a greater degree.

I actually agree to an extent. I might not make him top 20, due to there simply being so many quality fighters throughout history. I would personally have him about 30 but I certainly wouldn't argue with you too much if you place him top 20.

If he had retired after Ruiz, or even after beating Tarver, I think he would be looking at an almost nailed on top 20 spot, and possible top 10. He certainly could have achieved more with his ability, but I agree that what he did was still remarkable. I do think he could have been greater though...

I'd agree that in terms of freakish talent (totally uncoventional in boxing terms, mind you) he has as good a claim as anyone to a top ten spot. But in terms of his legacy, achievements and the extent to which he did / didn't maximize this talent, I can't find room for him in a top ten, or even a top twenty or thirty for that matter.

In many ways, I think Jones' career shares certain similarities to Mayweather's. Both had wonderful early years where they did the majority of their best work, but like Mayweather he then seemed happy to rest on his laurels once he'd achieved pound for pound stardom, instead of pushing onwards. Jones' championship career spanned from 1993 to 2004, but a huge majority of his best wins / performances (Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, McCallum etc) came well within the first half of that span.

His venture up to Heavyweight to claim a portion of the title was impressive, but at the same time it can't realistically be compared to Bob Fitzsimmons' achievement over one hundred years ago. While John Ruiz is a good fella and a game competitor, the fact remains that he was a poor Heavyweight belt holder, who has continually lost to the best fighters he has faced and whom we never would have heard of had it not been for Don King's influence. Fitzsimmons, on the other hand, knocked out 'the man' at Heavyweight, rather than an average belt holder. Now considering that I 'only' have Fitzsimmons at number seven personally, I can't put Jones level with him, or even in one of the remaining top ten spots behind him, as the disparity in the quality of their Middleweight to Heavyweight exploits is simply too great.

As far as I'm concerned, the losses to Tarver, Johnson, Calzaghe and the like don't devalue him too much; as with any fighter, they have to lose at some point and he has enough good wins on his record to balance the ledger nicely. But enough good (or great) wins to push for a top ten or twenty spot? Not in my eyes. He gets marked down for not fighting Michalczewski for me, which is a big blotch on his copy book, and while fights with the likes of Benn, Jackson and a 2001 / 2002 version of Hopkins maybe weren't an absolute necessity at the time, it still would have answered a couple of questions which still hang had they materialized.

Incredible talent and utterly dominant for a while, but he simply didn't test himself often enough for me to be pushing for a top ten or twenty spot. I think the highest place I can give Jones, all things considered, would be somewhere around the 35 mark, and even then I'm being generous.

Only my opinion, mind you.

Don't know if I would have him as top twenty because my head hurts if I try to get much beyond a top ten. A genuine talent and at his best he did things that were truly remarkable in the ring.

However even at his best there are question marks, whilst I think he beats Darius M with something to spare the fact that he didn't counts against him and there are not too many names at his best that get the pulse racing, there were times a Hopkins rematch would have been relevant and even a Calzaghe fight would have been valid. Should add that the fault for these not coming off is not all with Jones but for whatever reason the fights didn't happen when they should.

Could well be a top 20 guy but is no higher than that for me and is a guy whose talent was so great that such a conversation should not even be up for debate.

Jones would probably make my top 50 but has tarnished his legacy by fighting on too long

Great post Chris, think you pretty much summed it up

I don't think that any fighter in history has squandered more potential for legendary status by taking the wrong fights.

Based on his talent he should not have set a theoretical limit on where he could be ranked in the pantheon of poud for pound greats. If he had taken the most dangerous fights his standing could only have improved even if he did suffer an upset somewhere along the line. A man who could do that to James Toney should not set any limit on his ambition.

Perhaps the most baffling thing is that he never actually held a lineal title in any weight clas.

32.

Not top 20 ATG but perhaps the most talented of the last 20 years
I dont hold the not fighting Mich...... against him really.RJJ was the man at the time and it was up to the other guy to chase the fight
His incredible reflexes meant he was able to get away with basic flaws in technique.He was always dropping his hands.That was fine at his quickest but cost him later
The win against Toney is the stand out for me.Toney was a superb fighter and both were at their best. RJJ beat him by some way
Interesting were history will rate him in a few years .Possibly a bit higher than now.He is a guy who looks exceptional on highlight videos.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Great post Chris, think you pretty much summed it up

I don't think that any fighter in history has squandered more potential for legendary status by taking the wrong fights.

Based on his talent he should not have set a theoretical limit on where he could be ranked in the pantheon of poud for pound greats. If he had taken the most dangerous fights his standing could only have improved even if he did suffer an upset somewhere along the line. A man who could do that to James Toney should not set any limit on his ambition.

Perhaps the most baffling thing is that he never actually held a lineal title in any weight clas.

Cheers Jimmy, good to see that you've made it over to v2 now as well.

Like you alluded to, that win over Toney was almost scary. 'Lights Out' hadn't always looked great at Middleweight but had been looking imperious since he'd stepped up to 168 lb, and was a serious contender for the pound for pound top spot by 1994. And yet, at best, he won two rounds against Jones.

I think it bears comparison to the way that, as the underdog, Mayweather totally dominated the unbeaten Corrales in 2001 at Super-Featherweight. Jones only reached the same heights as he did against Toney once or twice afterwards, and likewise Mayweather has only rarely looked as great as he did against Corrales since.

88Chris05 wrote:

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Great post Chris, think you pretty much summed it up

I don't think that any fighter in history has squandered more potential for legendary status by taking the wrong fights.

Based on his talent he should not have set a theoretical limit on where he could be ranked in the pantheon of poud for pound greats. If he had taken the most dangerous fights his standing could only have improved even if he did suffer an upset somewhere along the line. A man who could do that to James Toney should not set any limit on his ambition.

Perhaps the most baffling thing is that he never actually held a lineal title in any weight clas.

Cheers Jimmy, good to see that you've made it over to v2 now as well.

Like you alluded to, that win over Toney was almost scary. 'Lights Out' hadn't always looked great at Middleweight but had been looking imperious since he'd stepped up to 168 lb, and was a serious contender for the pound for pound top spot by 1994. And yet, at best, he won two rounds against Jones.

I think it bears comparison to the way that, as the underdog, Mayweather totally dominated the unbeaten Corrales in 2001 at Super-Featherweight. Jones only reached the same heights as he did against Toney once or twice afterwards, and likewise Mayweather has only rarely looked as great as he did against Corrales since.

Thanks very much Chris, and likewise to you, nice to see a good portion of the excellent posters from BBC have found a new home.

skidd1 wrote:Not top 20 ATG but perhaps the most talented of the last 20 years
I dont hold the not fighting Mich...... against him really.RJJ was the man at the time and it was up to the other guy to chase the fight
His incredible reflexes meant he was able to get away with basic flaws in technique.He was always dropping his hands.That was fine at his quickest but cost him later
The win against Toney is the stand out for me.Toney was a superb fighter and both were at their best. RJJ beat him by some way
Interesting were history will rate him in a few years .Possibly a bit higher than now.He is a guy who looks exceptional on highlight videos.

Depends on your definition of being the man

Jones was the p4p number one but Michalewcski was the number one in the division and it's often forgotten that Jones benefitted from ridiculous boxing politics where the WBA and IBF both stripped DM for seemingly no reason and then Jones fights for the stripped titles straight away. Have always been of the believe that DM would have beaten Jones at 175lbs, it was clear that Jones didn't want the fight and if it had come of this mental fragility would have cost him dear against the big, strong and heavy handed DM.

Have never been too sold on RJJ personally has 3 great wins over Hopkins, Toney and Hill but beyond that it's very much average, as has been mentioned was never a lineal champion and benefitted from the era to be a belt holder rather than a world champion. I'm maybe being too harsh on the guy but always felt he was style over substance.

Jones is perhaps the most talented fighter I have seen with my own eyes, in my lifetime. Some of the things he did in the ring were simply unreal.

But he did not maximise his talent. WE should be talking about the best light heavyweight of all time here and a weight jumper comparable to Armstrong. Instead, there will always be doubts.

I think Jones suffers from the modern plague of too many weight divisions and belts. His demise also seems to count against him moreso than the likes of Holyfield for example.

He actually acheived alot in his career with respect to what was available. I suppose you could level Collins and Darius M as two guys he should have faced as they actually expresed interest in facing him. I think if he had retired after Tarver 1 then he would be held in far higher esteem. The susequent KO losses crippled his legacy as things stand I believe. Whether people are more forgiving when he actually retires will have to wait and see. I tend to think Tarver 1 was the start f the end for Jones but many others like to superimpose his post HW career losses onto the much better version that existed before that.

Alot depends on how you view his post HW career I guess. Id struggle to argue that he would have a good claim for a top 20 spot if retired after Tarver 1 when he recaptured the LH title. But the subsequent defeats have left plenty of ammunition against him.

I think Roy Jones gets a hard time on most of the P4P lists. I think his best days were behind him before he fought Woods. The names on his record between Toney and Ruiz are nowhere close to what his talent should merit. If you look at what other peoples records there are plenty better but watching what Roy was capable of then I think he really does border the top 10 P4P.

From what I've seen he would make any super middle weight look a bit silly in his prime and although Calzaghe did more in the division if they had fought anywhere close to Roy's prime he would have won. I think the same goes for Light Heavyweight that he would beat many of the best there ever were in that division but if you were to base people purely on their records he falls short.

not sure where to rank him p4p all time but i'd have hime 2nd of the last 20 years behind pacquiao

peopel give him a hard time for his lack of names, but if you look at his record although he only has 3 or 4 standout names he has many very godo wins on his resume

at th etime people wanted him to fight the likes of telesco, johnson etc but he is now criticised for fighting them

also divisional rankings: no2 behind calzaghe at supermiddle and around 8 at light heavy

Talent alone isn't even and whilst I concede at his best he looked spectacular, RJJ simply didn't do enough to cement his place in history amongst the greats.

imperialghosty wrote:Talent alone isn't even and whilst I concede at his best he looked spectacular, RJJ simply didn't do enough to cement his place in history amongst the greats.

Surely you must rate Jones as a great? The question is just how high.

I think his LH reign is underrated. He was fighting most of the top ranked guys.

You could make a case for Michelsewscki but other than that Im not sure who hes meant to have fought or who he missed. As always the argument that Michelsewscki failure to leave Germany counts against him.

He unified 3 of the titles in a 2 years period against good fighters like Griffen, Hill and Johnson and largely defended against top 10 ring ranked guys in between who had decent records at the time. One of the main reasons behind giving the HW division a shot was there was nobody else really at LH.

When you also look at the impressive manner of his wins against his opponents it also adds to his claims he was more than just a flashy operator. He was stopping or shutting out guys that were well ranked in the divisions he was in and were giving the other guys in the division real problems.

When you consider guys he won shutouts against the likes of Gonzales and Johnson (who beat Michelsewscki and Collins respectively), blasted out a guy like Malinga in 6 rounds who gave Eubank and Benn fits, Stopped Griffen in 1 and Hill in under 6 and won comfortable decisions over guys like Toney and Hopkins I think its a strong reflection of the class he was operating at during his peak years.

He was a phenomenal fighter; but he should have achieved much more. I genuinely believe he had the talent to have been the GOAT,

I ignore his unification because he never beat the champion for them rather had them stolen so he didn't have to face him, when you show such a clear reluctance to fight 'the' best in the division and you can talk about talent all you want but DM was the divisional number one.

People talk up his talent far too much sometimes, he looked good against average opponents by and large

Knowhere near the top 20 for me when you think of the ATGs you'd rank ahead of him.

Probably around the 50-60 mark for me. And that's not being harsh, it's just me being objective about his record. People can blabber about having all that wonderous talent, but wonderous talent doesn't make up for a thin resume with not even a handful of what you'd say "outstanding" victories on it.

Doesn't make the top 10 LHWs either Manos, and for you to imply otherwise is something i'd disagree with strongly.

Depending on the day of the week and the mood I'm in I could swing between the views of Manos and coxy for ever and a day.

On the one hand we have the sheer, raw talent that is there for all to see. Not a scrap of good comparing him to more conventional fighters since, like Hamed and Ali, Jones did things his way. The text book goes out the window when we watch him. Phenomenally gifted, athletically ; wonderful reflexes, balance and blistering speed.

On the other hand we have the unanswered questions. Was his chin always a wee bit frail, but remained undented because of relatively weak opposition, and would someone such as Bob Foster have kayoed him ? Could a master craftsman such as Archie Moore have unlocked Jones' unorthodox technique ( I believe that he could have, by the way, ) or a truly great pressure fighter, such as Hagler, have eventually ground him down ?

Ali, for all his technical faults, proved beyond doubt that HIS way was good enough to prevail. Hamed, ultimately, disappointed us by not doing so and I reckon Roy Jones comes somewhere 'twixt the two.

Top ten lightheavy, for me, but probably just outside a top twenty p4p.

Today.

Coxy, while Jones may miss out on my top ten Light-Heavyweights depending on my mood (he's one of those 'on the cusp' types) I don't think it's outrageous for him to be included at the low end.

I have a group of eight (Charles, Moore, Tunney, Loughran, Spinks, Foster, Greb and Rosenbloom) that I'd have ahead of him for sure, but after that he has more or less as strong a claim as guys such as O'Brien, Johnson, Conn, Maxim, Dillon and so on.

He wouldn't have beaten Tunney in a head to head match up though, mind you!

88Chris05 wrote:
He wouldn't have beaten Tunney in a head to head match up though, mind you!

Nobody needs that meltdown again mate, id keep comments like that to yourself

Can't agree Chris for me Jones batters Tunney at 175, to be honest struggle to see Gene winning a round, you'd have to be an idiot to have it any other way IMO.

Chris, don't start on RJJ v Tunney... I've only just recovered from losing the plot over that one!

Thing for me is i don't see how he gets the nod ahead of: (Random order)

Greb
Conn
Rosenbloom
Foster
Loughran
Bivins
Tunney
Spinks
Moore
Charles
Langford

Think that's 11 names i'd comfortably have ahead of him, probably lump him in with the likes of Delaney, Dillon etc

For me the top 10 is a shut out of the who's who, only my opinion as i don't hold RJJ as high as other i guess

Is that because of the modern training methods and faster muscle twitching fibres that today's fighters have, Jeff?

Chris, don't forget the new found techniques boxers have found to throw a punch!

Personally I think protein shakes have made all the difference but is hard to overlook the factors you have put forward Chris

Nutrition and diet are also important.

And he fought in colour and not black and white.

He moves up 1 spot before you even start because as we all know, Greb didnt actually exist

I would rate Greb more highly as a Middleweight, but it is a minor quibble.

Sam, I'd rate Greb higher as a Middleweight, too, but his exploits at Light-Heavyweight mean that he deserves serious consideration for a top ten spot in that weight class, too. For me, he's a certainty. Anyone who beats Gene Tunney, goes 4-1-1 with Tommy Loughran and also beats other top 175 lb champions (even if it is by Newspaper Decision) such as Rosenbloom, Dillon, Levinsky and McTigue is a great, great Light-Heavyweight.

Between 20 and 30 ATG, probably nearer to 30 than 20. If he had retired after the Ruiz fight I believe he would have been a definite top 20, maybe even top 10 as many thought he was virtually unbeatable.

Test your Boxing Skills

There is no myth about Roy Jones.

The likes of Hill, Griffen, Hopkins, Toney, Tarver, Reggie Johnson were all amongst the top operators when Jones was active.

The manner in which beat them (Tarver aside) was very impressive.

Then when you look at the next tier of guys he faced such as Harding, McCallum (who was old), Gonzales, Ruiz, Malinga again its impressive - These guys were not getting beaten easily at the time.

Whether he deserves a spot in the 20 or whatever is debateable but I dont there can be any doubt he was top class and I dont see when you look at the names on his list and the way he beat them that its a question of looking good against weak opponents. Most of the guys he faced were well ranked at the time and his main rival Michelsewski was not inclined to leave Germany to force the issue.

Avoided too many punchers until the money began to run out. We then saw what could have maybe would have happened earlier in his career

Michaels, Sean wrote:Avoided too many punchers until the money began to run out. We then saw what could have maybe would have happened earlier in his career

Like who?

He moved up to heavy for a fight for God sake.

Most of his top opposition at light heavyweight had already been beaten by DM, i'm going to stop debating this now because I really don't rate the guy

imperialghosty wrote:Most of his top opposition at light heavyweight had already been beaten by DM, i'm going to stop debating this now because I really don't rate the guy

Like who?

Hill is probably the only one. And he didnt last half as long with Jones. For everyone else its the other way around actually.

You are painting Michelsewski out to be some kind of machine when his record and performances is nowhere near as good as Jones.

You might not rate the guy but you are doing so against the overwhelming weight of evidence and using Michelsewski as an escape route.

manos de piedra wrote:

Michaels, Sean wrote:Avoided too many punchers until the money began to run out. We then saw what could have maybe would have happened earlier in his career

Like who?

He moved up to heavy for a fight for God sake.

Julian Jackson, Gerald McMannaman, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank etc. Then he picked the lightest punching, most immobile heavy in Ruiz

The evidence of what?

That your making out his opponents with the exception of Toney and Hopkins to be better than they actually were

I'm not making DM out to be a machine, just pointing out the obvious that he wanted the Jones fight but Jones wanted nothing to do with DM

Michaels, Sean wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Michaels, Sean wrote:Avoided too many punchers until the money began to run out. We then saw what could have maybe would have happened earlier in his career

Like who?

He moved up to heavy for a fight for God sake.

Julian Jackson, Gerald McMannaman, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank etc. Then he picked the lightest punching, most immobile heavy in Ruiz

These guys were all but finished when Jones was the up. Eubank said in his autobiogrphy he had no interest in fighting him.

By the time Jones had moved to SMW - beating the number 1 rated Toney - Benn, Eubank, McClelland were basically done.

None of them were bigger punching than Ruiz anyhow. There would be no cause for him to go to heavy if wanted to avoid big hitters. He could have just as easily moved down a weight.

Michael Nunn

Jones certainly didn't take on all comers as some did, but then again some of the allegations of 'avoiding' certain fighters on here are a little fanciful, to say the least. It's a mix of the two, really.

As I said in my original post, fights with Jackson, Benn and a better version of Hopkins would have been nice, but weren't really seen as necessity. Regardless of whose fault it was, not fighting Michalczewski counts against him in my eyes. To have two fighters in the same weight division, both holding world titles and both being utterly dominant, but then never facing off, is a joke to be honest. There was a window of at least four years for that fight to happen.

At this rate he will have avoided Curry and Hearns aswell.

And Hagler

Avoided Leonard at a catchweight in Germany

He did actually avoid Charley Burley, every fighter did it is as Tysonking would tell you a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Burley wasn't a draw, Jeff. He brought nothing to the table.

I'm pulling your leg a bit but if Mayweather doesn't fight Pacquiao, Haye doesn't fight a Klitschko, both will be look ed back on with far less regard.

I think there are 3 or 4 fights that he HAD to make for a LEGACY worthy of all time greatness. He didn't even though I believe he promoted managed himself for a large majority of his career?