Sticking up for Roy - someone's got to do it!

Ayup fellas, how do?

You'll all have to forgive me for abandoning my usual 'old fogey' tact and discussing, in detail, a fighter whose peak was reached within the past two decades, but I've decided that if even Rowley can do it (his thread on Lennox Lewis did, after all, garner several million replies), then so can I.

I've spent quite a while recently revisiting some of boxing's more modern masters, which means that I've inevitably had to consider the career of Roy Jones Jr. Praised and derided in equal measure, and a fighter who splits opinion like few others, Jones' career must rank as a supremely strange one in many ways; despite dominating a string of opponents through the Middleweight, Super-Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight divisions over the nineties and early tweny-first century, he never quite captured the public's imaginations and affections the way some of his contemporaries (Oscar De la Hoya, Evander Holyfield etc) or his forerunners (Ray Leonard, Julio Cesar Chavez etc) did and, despite first mentioning the thought of retirement as a twenty-eight year old way back in 1997, he continues to fight on as of 2012, now a shadow of his former self.

I imagine if you'd offered such a prediction of Jones' 2012 predicament at the time, few would have taken it seriously - his thoughts on boxing when he expressed them, as well as his sometimes aloof, no-risk attitude to his own career path, suggested a man who would calculate in a cool manner exactly the right time to bow out, with enough wins on his ledger to secure a spot in the history of the sport, enough money in the bank to live like an Emperor forever and a day and all his faculties intact, a tribute to his apparent shrewdness and abilities to weigh up the old risk:reward ratio.

As it happens, that's not what transpired at all.

The general jist amongst a lot of people I speak to is that Jones has either ruined his legacy and forfeited his right to rank amongst the pound for pound elite thanks to carrying on too long and losing a succession of fights - often in brutal fashion - against men who wouldn't have troubled him during his peak years. Another theory is that he just wasn't that great to begin with, that he only flourished and became the greatest fighter, pound for pound, in the world because his opposition wasn't good enough to challenge this.

Neither theory stands up, for me, and I think many people are doing Jones a great disservice. Looking back at 2011's 606v2 all-time rankings, pound for pound, it seems that Jones wasn't one of the twenty-five or so fighters put forward by anyone as a top fifteen candidate. The more I think about it, the more this seems plainly wrong, to me.

A world champion at Middleweight by 1993, Jones first became a serious candidate for the title of pound for pound number one a year later, when he dazzled the hitherto unbeaten James Toney (himself a legitimate contender for the crown at the time, and the betting favourite beforehand) to a wide, wide points defeat for the IBF Super-Middleweight belt. It wasn't until a whole ten years later, in 2004, that Antonio Tarver brought Jones crashing back down to earth, with a shock second round stoppage of Jones in their Light-Heavyweight title fight.

A simple question o Jones' naysayers - how many other fighters across the whole of boxing history have had a full decade-long run as a (and in most people's eyes, THE) tip top pound for pound fighter, without suffering a legimitate defeat in that time and seldom losing more than a round or two in any fight? Ray Robinson was being touted as the 'uncrowned Lightweight champion as early as 1942, and remained a giant of the sport until retiring temporarily in 1952, but did have the odd blotch in his copy book here and there; defeats to La Motta and Turpin, a fortunate draw (as acknowledged by Robinson himself) against the journeyman Henry Brimm etc. Julio Cesar Chavez didn't lose a world title fight until a decade after his first, either, but during that stretch there was a fortunate decision against Whitaker and a life and death struggle against Meldrick Taylor.

I'm nitpicking there, of course; what I wrote above isn't designed to attempt the almost impossible task of degrading the achievements of either Robinson or Chavez, and the pair of them can, of course, be pardoned for such small blemishes considering the quality of the fighters who caused them. But the point I'm trying to emphasise is this; for a fighter to be as utterly dominant, as ultra-consistent and so successful for a whole decade, at such a high level of operating, is an incredibly rare thing, almost completely unmatched.

Forgive me for posing direct questions over and over, lads, but I imagine it's he only way I'll be able to draw some clear picture of all this - why is that Jones' decline can be so heavily held against him, whereas the tepid final years of the careers of Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, Ray Robinson etc seem not to harm their legacies at all? The more comical Jones detractors can argue all they like that his defeats to the Calzaghes, Hopkins' and Lebedevs of this world are a reflection of his abilities, but if they do so, then I'd be genuinely interested to know how Robinson can keep his place at the top of their pound for pound rankings, given his nigh-on embarrassing career from 1960 onwards.

And that seems to be the thing with Jones - double standards.

His opposition during his peak years is routinely derided without any good reason. More weight classes and belts, naturally' have made world titlists a far more common commodity in recent tims, but even so, Jones' feat of beating eighteen of them during his career - a record - spanning from Welterweight all the way up to Heavyweight deserves serious commendation. Jones' opposition and list of victims, of course, doesn't compare to a Robinson, a Greb, a Benny Leonard and so on, but nor did it consist of a string of hapless non-entities as some would have us believe.

Hopkins, a modern great who went unbeaten in a decade of Middleweight title fights and has continued to wow us all until very recently. "He was green!" I hear you all shout. And I accept that Hopkins was not yet the fighter who himself became a fixture in pound for pound lists. But look at it this way; even with no amateur career, Hopkins was still more than twenty-odd fights in to his professional tenure and had earned his spot as a ranked contender. If he wasn't ready by that stage in 1993, then when would he have been? Any claims that Hopkins was a routine affair for Jones should be dispelled by his admirable (if unspectacular) performance in the fight; he was the only man, up until that point, to give Jones any problems and also the only man to have managed to negate some of Jones' attacking, something no other 160 lb fighter at the time could have done. Moreover, Hopkins wouldn't lose again for a whole twelve years after this bout. Hardly a patsy then, I think we can agree?

Toney, one of the most lavishly gifted fighters I've ever seen, was given a boxing lesson by Jones so emphatic that it smashed the intimidating aura he once had around him, and there can be no excuses made by Roy's detractors here. Toney had been in sensational form beforehand, looking brilliant at 168 lb when outclassing Iran Barkley, Tim Littles and 'Prince' Charles Williams through 1993 and 1994. "We're looking at a great fighter" was Larry Merchant's take on matters as Toney closed the show against Williams, his last fight before taking on Jones. And Toney certainly did seem to be on the road to greatness, making Jones' feat of shutting him out all the more incredible.

Virgil Hill? A fine operator who was never beaten as decisively by anyone else as he was by Jones. A name which wouldn't look out of place on the ledger of any 175 b champion. Mike McCallum certainly past his best, and going some to compete at Light-Heavyweight, but he performed with honour and intensity in that fight. Julio Cesar Gonzalez was good enough to beat the 'other' Light-Heavyweight of Jones' era, Dariusz Michalczewski, and yet Jones is seldom given any great credit for dominating all twelve rounds against him. The likes of Reggie Johnson, Thulani Malinga and Montel Griffin are routinely branded as 'bums' by the more idiotic boxing 'fans'. Evidently, they were anything but and, I imagine, had they appeared on the ledger of a less notorious fighters they would be received much more warmly as wins.

I regularly see the likes of Jimmy Wilde and Eder Jofre ranked streets ahead of Roy. That's subjective, of course, but as far as I'm concerned he beat better opposition than both of them, and was more dominant within his own era, too. To those who rank Wilde and Jofre within their top tens or twenties, and neglect Jones completely, I'd like to simply ask why and how; how can that pair justifiably be so far in front? Why are their wins over the likes of Tancy Lee and Pal Moore (for Wilde) and Johnny Caldwell and Jose Legra (Jofre) singled out as excellent victories while Jones' against the likes of Hill, Ruiz (there's been plenty of average Heavyweight champions before, but I don't recall too many other former Middleweights going after them and beating them at a canter while being outweighed by 33 lb), Tarver and Hopkins are discarded as irrelevant?

I'm not suggesting that men such as Wilde and Jofre aren't great - I'm arguing that Jones is. So great, in fact, that his achievements would certainly be enough to make him Britain's greatest boxer had he emerged from these shores, for instance (Fitzsimmons, for obvious reasons, being excluded).

It seems that it's become fashionable to say that Jones was overrated. Well, I'm going to have to take a different direction, chaps, because if things keep going the way they are, then I truly believe that Jones is in danger of becoming severely underrated amongst some of the 'high brow' fans of the sport.

Sorry for banging on about it, but if we're going to settle this once and for all, let's not to it by halves!

Roy Jones - a phenomenon, a once-in-a-generation talent and a man who simply must command a place amongst the very, very best in the history of the sport. Prove me wrong if you think you can!

Cheers, everyone.

Agree 100% with everything written. I'll add that the main reason why he wasn't as big as his talent deserved is because he was not alligned to a single promoter.

Leonard and RJJ are by far the best boxers I have ever seen. RJJ probably the most unique talent there ever was.

Think I might stay out of this one...

Nice one, Chris.

Anyone that uses the Roy Jones that we see today to mark him down is being unduly harsh and may as well mark down Ali, Ray Robinson, Duran and Ray Leonard for the same reasons.

I can't find a place for him in my top 15 but probably have him ahead of Wilde (he's behind Jofre who makes it into my top 10 but you've given me a little bit of food for thought about how highly I rate Jofre).

The niggling feeling with Roy is that, post Toney (which I agree was a phenomenal performance and a complete stripping of a very, very good fighter) and all the way up to and including the Ruiz fight, he didn't really have the level of opposition to properly test him and was able to coast through much of his career. That may be harsh and he may be a victim of the sheer scale of his talent but I do feel that Roy would be judged much higher if he had come through a couple of wars or fought through and overcome some degree of adversity.

I rate him as the 6th best light-heavy of all time (I think probably 5th on a head to head basis) and given the historical strength of that division, it's no mean feat.

Chris do not have the time to read the whole article (but rest assured I will) but get the general thrust and tend to agree with it wholeheartedly. There does appear to have been something of a trend to run Roy down of late, some of this is self inflicted in him continuing to fight and lose to guys he would not have hired as sparring partners in his day, but this should not diminish quite how fine a fighter he was in his day.

You can say what you want about the strength of weakness of his division but with the unfortunate exception of Dariuzs M, he cleared out the division in as convincing a fashion as you could hope and rarely dropped a round in the process. What I also find instructive is of the guys who made occasional noises about fighting Roy such as Calzaghe or Hopkins in the rematch neither made a move up to light heavy until Roy was clearly a work in regression, this despite them both operating in divisions that frequently had a dearth of decent opposition.

Also think there has been something of a trend to run the Ruiz win down, easy to say Ruiz is a weak champ but if all it requires for a middleweight champion to win a heavyweight championship is to wait until there is a weak incumbent it does pose the question why there are currently only two fighters in the history of the sport who have managed the feat. I can assure you it is not because there have not been weak heavyweight champions in the past.

Light heavyweight is perhaps the strongest division ever in the sport I can think of no greater tribute to Roy than to say whilst there are perhaps guys I would back to beat him there are not any I would back with my own money to do so.

That may be harsh and he may be a victim of the sheer scale of his talent

In a nutshell. He made good fighters look ordinary. Lewis gets marked up yet compared to RJJ he fought nobodies and the great guys he fought were past their sell by date. For Tyson read McCallum. But Toney was the recognised P4P number 1 when RJJ schooled him. Still no credit. For me he beats any LHW in history with the same ease he beat everyone else.

azania wrote:

That may be harsh and he may be a victim of the sheer scale of his talent

In a nutshell. He made good fighters look ordinary. Lewis gets marked up yet compared to RJJ he fought nobodies and the great guys he fought were past their sell by date. For Tyson read McCallum. But Toney was the recognised P4P number 1 when RJJ schooled him. Still no credit. For me he beats any LHW in history with the same ease he beat everyone else.

Great fighter no doubt and at middle and super middle an ATG, but you really dont know your Light Heavyweights if you think RJJ is going to beat big punching greats like Moore, Charles, Foster and Spinks because they would all ruin him within a few rounds.

Cheers, Superfly.

I actually agree that Jones did suffer from a lack of great, available fights once he'd dazzled Toney to that defeat, one hundred percent. Many people speculated that the great challenge and / or gut check he needed would come when he tried his hand against Ruiz, given the size difference, but even that proved to be fairly straightforward in the end.

But as you also alluded to, it's a bit of a balancing act. Plenty of other greats (and I mean greats in the proper sense, too) have slipped up or had hellish struggles against fighters of a similar, sometimes lesser calibre than the ones Jones was beating, which begs the question - was he just too good for his own good? Would history be kinder to him had he needed a desperate late rally / comeback to get past a couple of his 175 lb opponents, ala Moore against Durelle? Interesting stuff.

I'd certainly put Roy above Wilde, though would concede that Jofre has a sound claim to be ahead. But my general point is basically that it's impossible to justify having those two a mile ahead of Roy, which seems to be a common thing. Well, for me, anyway!

Oddly enough, hogey, the only Light-Heavyweight I'd make a big, big favourite over Jones would be Foster, with Charles a warmish favourite behind him. Outside of those two, it's difficult to make Jones anything less than evens in a single, head to head match up, for me.

Given the sheer amount of top class Light-Heavies and different styles Charles continually won against in his 175 lb days, you'd have to favour him over Jones. Foster didn't hammer his way through as strong a division, but I've long thought that he's an absolute nightmare style for Jones for two or three big reasons, which I won't go in to just yet unless the thread heads that way.

But I find it interesting you'd hang your hat so heavily on the likes of Moore and Spinks to take him out within a few rounds. Both were slow starters and often showed their best form at key moments when in the home stretch; Moore pulled out those remarkable wins over Durelle (I) and Johnson (their fifth fight) late on, while Spinks needed a late push against Qawi to unify the titles. I can imagine Jones banking a fair few rounds against them before they've even got a foothold in the fight.

I just dont see him taking the shots of any of them men, all had the power to knock out heavyweights in one swipe and all were blessed with great skills. RJJ would not in my opinion stand up to clean shots from any of the 4 i mentioned and rest assured they would land them on him. People get too carried away by fighters moving up the weights and cherry picking titles from poor champions but thats a world of difference from beating atgs at the weight.

Problem with Jones @ 175lbs was his chin. You can argue against his reflexes slowing down and so forth which was the reason he got tagged, but he didn't face anyone as good as a Charles etc prior to this - and those guys would get to him more often than not over a whole fight in my books.

And he doesn't have a record @ 175lbs to be considered a top 10 ATG at the weight. A completely shot LMW Mike McCallum doesn't do much for me and his record there is just a bit thin.

Rankings go on achievement, not how supposedly good they were against average opposition.

Glen Kelly followed by Clinton Woods (or was it the other way round, or with a fight or two inbetween? Pff who cares) doesn't really change my mind either.

Fair enough Hogey, mate.

I'll stress that it's not the idea of Moore, Spinks et al beating Jones which I'm querying, far from it. More so, just the idea that they do away with him early doors.

I think much of it depends on what view you take with regards to Roy's chin. Did it deteriorate in latter years, leading to the crushing losses to Tarver and Johnson, or was it always fragile? Personally, I think it's more the former than the latter. I don't think his chin was carved from marble by any means, but I don't think he'd be easy prey once tagged (unless it's by a truly sickening hitter such as Foster), either.

Besides, if his chin was always as bad as is often claimed, then it just further demonstrates how difficult it was to catch him cleanly during his pomp; the first Tarver defeat was fifteen years and more than fifty fights after his professional debut.

Roy not an inside pressure fighter, which Spinks didn't like, so I would perhaps make Michael the narrow favourite, but a Jones win there isn't out of the question for me, and I might be tempted to make him the favourite against Moore.

Great article. Spot on. I think perhaps that because RJJ is currently in the tail end of his embarrassing career-end slide that he gets a bit of an extra hard time. But, maybe, once he's retired properly for a good few years, people will be more inclined to judge his greatness over the main part of his career, as they do with Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, Ray Robinson, etc. Some very high quality wins on the ledger when you look at it objectively Although, there could, and perhaps should, have been more big names on there. From a UK perspective it would've been nice to see him fight Benn, Eubank, or Collins at 168 around 1993-95. But, he's pretty much got the premier win at anywhere around that weight at that time in his defeat of James Toney. A nailed on all-time top SMW/LHW as far as I'm concerned.

Personally I'm not one of those that says that Jones harms his legacy for carrying on and never have done. The problem for Jones is that he's added nothing to it since 2003.

Despite the names he's beaten there are a few really obvious omissions from his CV, namely Darisuz Michalczewski at Light Heavyweight but also the British/Irish super middles he might have taken care of as well.

I still can't help but think that his Heavweight title win was something of a gimmick despite it being a heck of an achievement to go from Middle champ to Heavy champ. I always found it funny that Roy wanted Tyson afterwards rather than Lewis - enough said!

Then there's the defeats. I get the impression that someone as fearless as Glen Johnson and equally as arrogant as him in Antonio Tarver would have always caused RJJ problems whenever they fought. Bear it in mind that these two were dealt with easily enough by BHop and I kind of agree with the likes of Coxy that these losses may have in some way expoloded the myth about Roy Jones.

I just think Jones needed to seal the deal on at least one of the divisions he became champion in. He was only really undisputed in one division and that was on the basis the belts were effectively stolen from another fighter.

Still, there are some great wins and some spectacular performances and years after he finally retires he'll be remembered for those performances not the dross showings of 2004 - 2012.

Some boxers lose their durability when they get old. That's what happened to RJJ. He has taken some big punches from Toney and Hop without flinching.

As for the greats? I' pick RJJ to beat Spinks, Moore and Foster. Charles would start as warm favourite but it wouldn't surprise me if RJJ won a few. If that French bloke can bounce Moore several times, then RJJ keeps him there. Foster with his jab and straight right will pose some problems, but RJJ's feints and blurring speed would put him away.

Its interesting how people ignore the Toney result. Toney is often compared to the old timers and look what RJJ did to him. Also intersting that his win over McCallum i being put down as Mike was old and past it, yet another who fed on 4 past it greats gets huge credit for it. Strange contradiction.

McCallum stated after the fight that RJJ was the best boxer he had ever seen let alone fought. I'd take his word over internet posters anyday.

hogey wrote:I just dont see him taking the shots of any of them men, all had the power to knock out heavyweights in one swipe and all were blessed with great skills. RJJ would not in my opinion stand up to clean shots from any of the 4 i mentioned and rest assured they would land them on him. People get too carried away by fighters moving up the weights and cherry picking titles from poor champions but thats a world of difference from beating atgs at the weight.

He wouldn't take those shots. If Moore can be outboxed by a Welter, god knows what RJJ would do to him. Lets not forget that RJJ was a superb boxer when he decided to fight behind a jab.

The weight fluctuations after RJJs HW run seemed to play havoc with him, so I'm never entirely sure what to make of the Tarver and Johnson fights. Imagine he'd retired after winning the HW crown? I'm thinking that his legacy would be a lot more favourable looking. Can't imagine anyone discussing Johnson to KO him if that had been the case.

Thanks for the replies, lads.

Boon, I see your point to an extent with regards to the defeats against Tarver (the first one at least) and, at a stretch, Johnson as well. Jones was the betting favourite to beat both and those losses came only fourteen and eighteen months after his win over Ruiz respectively. As I've said before, they should be counted as meritorious wins (or at least Tarver's should).

But I also have to say that there's no way either of them beat a Jones anywhere near his best, and that something had clearly vanished all of a sudden as he came back down to 175 lb. The first fight with Tarver was telling, I think; he looked soft in the body, was off balance, had a much lower punch output etc. And none of this was down to Tarver's own performance. The 'Magic Man' actually fought pretty tentatively for the most part.

Either way, it's fascinating to think where we'd be ranking him had he retired after beating Ruiz, or after that first fight with Tarver in which he reclaimed his old Light-Heavyweight title. At the time of those fights, in 2003, Jones had plenty of backing amongst moderns as being the best since Robinson. When he claimed, after beating Ruiz, that "only Ali could shock the world like I can", there were plenty who'd agree with him. My best guess is that, had he called it a day after either one of those fights, he'd be in just about everyone's top ten, and certainly not outside anyone's top bakers dozen at the very, very least.

I tend to think that some of the gaps on his record get a wee bit overblown now and then, too. Jones may have been a bit too careful for some, but there were still some gambles to his name; Toney at the time, Ruiz (again, anyone claiming that beating him was seen as a formality in 2003 should take a look at what was being written beforehand), the Tarver rematch which he could have easily swerved had he wanted to etc.

Michalczewski's name gets bandied about, but I'd have preferred to see him in with someone like Jackson / McClellan at Middleweight around 1993, or Benn at Super-Middleweight around 1995, if only to answer the questions about his so-called 'aversion' to facing big hitters. Truth be told, Michalczewski was no more keen to force that fight than Jones was, and anyway, had Jones taken Dariusz on and beaten him with something to spare - as he surely would have done - would anyone be talking that win up? If they're unwilling to give Jones his due credit for Hopkins and Toney, then I can only imagine Michalczewski suddenly becoming another protected European fighter, another 'bum' for Jones to line his record with once he'd beaten him.

Perhaps Jones' match-making wasn't of the elite rank, but I still think there's more than enough there to blow away any question marks regarding his greatness, particularly when you compare it to that of some other men regularly granted 'all time great' status with far less fuss than Jones is.

Perhaps Jones' match-making wasn't of the elite rank

Sums it up for me Christ. If he'd gone through with W's and having wanted to face the best of these:

a) Benn/Eubank/Collins - or 2/3 for arguments sake
b) Prime Bhop post Trinidad
c) DM
d) Jackson/GMan at an admittedly early time

Then even I'd be crowing about him.

For me too many soft defences, too many average oppo are his undoing in my eyes. I appreciate how 'good' he was, but good against shoddy oppo (Wlad anyone) only gets you so far - and that ain't very from yours truly.

IF he'd had the drive/ambition of DLH (who single-handedly saved boxing from what I purely blame on the #1 P4P almost destroying) and fought the best constantly then I'd have no quibbles either..

Say what you want about Jones but Hopkins, Toney and Hill are all top class wins while beyond that Gonzalez, Harding, Woods, Johnson, Tate, McCallum, Griffin and Castro are all better wins than he gets credit for. His overall record isn't overly impressive but there's enough there combined with his unique talent to suggest he could pose problems to most between middleweight and Light Heavyweight. There's only really Monzon, Charles, Tunney and Foster who I make comfortable favourites over him.

I like Eubank and Benn but the addition of their names on Jones record isn't going to make a great deal of difference, when we look past the fact they're british they aren't any better than Gonzalez, Griffin or Tate.

Calzaghe, Hopkins rematch and Dariusz M would have made a sizeable difference, ultimately we remember fighters for beating fellow greats or major divisional rivals but not a trio like Benn, Eubank or Collins.

But Coxy, don't you think that the large majority of Jones' "soft defences" came at a time when there weren't that many viable, legitimate challenges about? McClellan was out of the picture by early 1995, after which point Benn became a shell of his former self. Jackson had been more or less finished at the top level by McClellan himself in 1993. After he beat Toney in late 1994, 'Lights Out' totally drifted away from boxing and didn't show any signs of a real revival until beating Jirov in 2002. By 1996, he was campaigning two weight divisions above Hopkins.

So basically, from 1995 onwards, there really weren't that many notable names who could have possibly filled in for these "soft defences." Michalczewski was there, yes, but was quite content to defend over in Germany against the division's second string (his excellent win over Hill aside). He never expressed a desire to fight Jones or go to America, Jones was reluctant to travel due to the blatant larceny which had robbed him of his Olympic gold in 1988 and, alas, the fight was never likely to be made.

From my point of view, Jones did most of what anybody could reasonably expect of him from his days at Super-Middleweight onwards. As shown above, there weren't many big names around for him at the time, but he took on everyone else who was there near enough, and dominated practically all of them.

Oh, and it's not as if he ran from a 'prime' Hopkins either, is it? Hopkins' ego just wouldn't let him accept the 40:60 end.

Thanks for dropping in too, Ghosty. Good points there, although as I said above, I'd have liked to have seen Jones-Benn myself. Eubank and Collins I agree with completely, though; neither of them could have even pushed Jones, I imagine, and I doubt a fight between Jones and either of those two would have been much of a spectacle.

I see you're not a million miles off my line of thinking with regards to who you could possibly make a favourite over him anywhere between 160 and 175 lb as well, mate. Would have been nice to see him stick around at Middleweight for a bit longer, because he was a phenomenal puncher at that weight, and carried the fight to absolutely everyone. I think he lost just a shade of his power and killer instinct when he was at 175 lb, although he did of course say that some of this was down to the demise of his friend McClellan, which seemed to effect him a bit.

The only one who showed any desire to fight him was Benn when he spoke of it. Eubank ran miles and Collins was not really a threat seeing as McCallum had already schooled him.

BHop priced himself out of a rematch so you have to wonder if he really wanted another beating from RJJ.

DM again decided to stay at home instead of coming to USA for the fight. Plus RJJ had beaten easily all those who gave DM issues.

The supposed best ran from him. Moreover he beat th previous No 1 P4P in Toney.

Ghosty, when did you go to Damascus to get converted?

I'd have preferred to see him fight Eubank out of the trio if i'm honest Chris, think he stops Benn fairly early but wouldn't find it that easy against Eubank. Either way it's not adding much to legacy. I do agree with the train of thought that suggests Jones is vulnerable but doubt that vulnerability would be there at middleweight. 168lbs was probably the best balance of speed and power he had during his career.

azania wrote:The only one who showed any desire to fight him was Benn when he spoke of it. Eubank ran miles and Collins was not really a threat seeing as McCallum had already schooled him.

BHop priced himself out of a rematch so you have to wonder if he really wanted another beating from RJJ.

DM again decided to stay at home instead of coming to USA for the fight. Plus RJJ had beaten easily all those who gave DM issues.

The supposed best ran from him. Moreover he beat th previous No 1 P4P in Toney.

Bit of a one sided argument that, don't think you can apportion the blame on any of Hopkins, Jones or DM, the fights didn't happen because they couldn't come to satisfactory agreement which is the blame of all 3 really.

Beat me to it Az Eubank has openly admitted he did not want any part of Roy and would have only fought him if he Roy was his mandatory and as such he had no choice but there is no way you can use Chris as a stick to beat Roy with.

Am also not too happy with the Hopkins one, I am always of the view in such a case it is down to the guy in the lower weight to make the running as Roy was never going to be able to make middle again so Hopkins would need to move up to make it happen, that he didn't for me says where the blame lies in that one. Also more emphasis on Hopkins given Roy has the W against him already.

There are undoubtedly gaps in his record but do feel they are overstated. Wish he had jumped on a plane and smacked Dariusz about though because to see a guy like that held against him is annoying because the reality is Dairiusz loses six ways to Sunday against Jones.

Hop didn't want to move up and asked for 50/50 which is ridiculous given that Jones was the established P4P number 1, the bigger draw and had already beaten Hop.

DM should have gone to USA. He reminds me of Bute in that he was touted and as soon as he stepped up he got busted. Jones was the draw and he had no reason to leave USA and fight in Germany.

azania wrote:DM should have gone to USA. He reminds me of Bute in that he was touted and as soon as he stepped up he got busted. Jones was the draw and he had no reason to leave USA and fight in Germany.

Woah, woah, woah Az! I can never imagine Dariusz beating Roy, but let's not be unreasonable. He was a cut above Buté for sure and I think you'd be doing him a disservice to say he got busted as soon as he stepped up. His win over Hill was excellent and Griffin was no patsy, either.

Dariusz was a good fighter, it's just that Jones was an absolutely exceptional one.

My point is that we didn't know how good or bad Bute was. Moreover its not a question of how bad Bute was. He just ran into a better guy in Froch and got busted. Take nothing away from Froch by calling Bute bad. Cark was exceptional that night. Ditto DM had he fought RJJ

Of the various criticisms levelled at Jones the one that I disagree with most is the view that Tarver and Johnson in some way exposed him. It isnt always easy to map a fighters decline and it can vary in how quickly it happens but I think Jones is one of the examples out there where it is actually fairly easy to see a sharp, steep decline. He goes from looking near untouchable at LH to beating Ruiz quite impressively. Then he comes back down and wins a close fight with Tarver (not a robbery) but looks less convincing than probably at any other time in his career. After that his next three fights are KO losses to Tarver and Johnson plus a fairly wide decision loss to Tarver. I see these fights from Ruiz onwards as a fairly straightforward case of a fighter sliding. His fights against Tarver alone he goes from winning a competitive fight to being knocked out and the outboxed. Add to this he was a fighter that relied heavily on reflexes and speed and he was getting to an age when these start to go, plus the possible effects of going from LH to HW and then back down to LH and I think its just a case of a fighter who had used up his shelf life as an elite boxer and had fallen far from his peak.

I'm not saying Buté was bad, Az. But comparing him to Dariusz, as Buté's career stands to date, does Michalczewski a bit of a disservice. He had done what Buté did in Canada over in Germany, but had done it against better opposition, for a longer period of time and, in the shape of Hill, scored a win which made him the closest thing to a lineal Light-Heavyweight champion since Michael Spinks.

I'm comparing the situations. Hadn't Bute stopped Johnson or beaten his more convincingly that Froch? Anyway, its irrelevant to the thread.

I own a Roy Jones Jr career boxset that goes up to the Calzaghe fight, when watching it through in order it is clear to me that Roy was in decline as early as the Gonzalez fight in 2001. It's a big credit to him to get wins over good fighters like Woods and Gonzalez as well as beating Ruiz at heavyweight then grinding out a win against Tarver while past his best, also that spectacular KO of a very poor opponent in Glen Kelly.

There's no denying that Roy doesn't have a list of wins to match some of the greats from previous eras but I do feel he would have made a lot of the great Middleweights and Light Heavyweights that are generally ranked above him look silly. That win over Toney is an absolutely ridiculous achievement, moving up in weight and shutting out the P4P number 1, it just doesn't happen. The ease with which Jones won that fight makes it easy for people to slate Toney when they should be looking at the man who beat him at a canter, if Jones had struggled to a narrow win he would be given more credit which isn't right to me.

bellchees wrote:I own a Roy Jones Jr career boxset that goes up to the Calzaghe fight, when watching it through in order it is clear to me that Roy was in decline as early as the Gonzalez fight in 2001. It's a big credit to him to get wins over good fighters like Woods and Gonzalez as well as beating Ruiz at heavyweight then grinding out a win against Tarver while past his best, also that spectacular KO of a very poor opponent in Glen Kelly.

There's no denying that Roy doesn't have a list of wins to match some of the greats from previous eras but I do feel he would have made a lot of the great Middleweights and Light Heavyweights that are generally ranked above him look silly. That win over Toney is an absolutely ridiculous achievement, moving up in weight and shutting out the P4P number 1, it just doesn't happen. The ease with which Jones won that fight makes it easy for people to slate Toney when they should be looking at the man who beat him at a canter, if Jones had struggled to a narrow win he would be given more credit which isn't right to me.

Absolutely true. Had he ben decked twice and got up to win everyone would be purring as to how good and brave he was. That he won going away detracts from how brilliant he was and how effortless he made boxing look. Sheer poetry.

The genius of PBF wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Think I might stay out of this one...

Nothing wrong with coxy's input on this thread, PBF. People can agree or disagree with what he's said but all he's done is debate the OP in a civilized manner, which I reckon is what the author hoped would happen when he spent his free time coming up with another well written piece for us.

Speaking of which Chris, I fully agree with what Tina said on your 10 Flyweight Fights thread...

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Great stuff, Chris as usual. Said it before but you should give some serious consideration to writing professionally, the standard really is that good.

And not just because this latest one started with an ayup and an how do.

I have a theory that there is the odd poster on here who is actually someone well known. Not sure who though!

I'm Ian Botham.

I'm Spartacus.

I'm Delia Smith

azania wrote:I'm Spartacus.

No way Az. You'd never get so many people saying the same thing as you.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

azania wrote:I'm Spartacus.

No way Az. You'd never get so many people saying the same thing as you.

Don't spoil it for us, if he is Spartacus at some point we'll get to the bit where he is crucified

Ouch. Cheers rowley! That was windyesque.

coxy0001 wrote:And he doesn't have a record @ 175lbs to be considered a top 10 ATG at the weight. A completely shot LMW Mike McCallum doesn't do much for me and his record there is just a bit thin.

Rankings go on achievement, not how supposedly good they were against average opposition.

Glen Kelly followed by Clinton Woods (or was it the other way round, or with a fight or two inbetween? Pff who cares) doesn't really change my mind either.

Out of interest, Coxy, don't you think the same criticism could be thrown at Foster, in that case? If you wanted to cast an overly harsh eye on his Light-Heavyweight reign, there were very few names of the 175 lb elite in there; Tiger was going some to even compete at Light-Heavy (great Middleweight, mind you) and was pretty long in the tooth, as well. Finnegan a damn good fighter, but not a great one and, his fantastic losing effort first time out against Conteh aside, didn't do much after losing to Foster. Rondon, likewise, a nice technician, but not the sort who'd trouble someone like Roy. Then you have the gatekeepers who seemed to be there at 175 lb for an eternity, such as Fourie, Quarry, Rouse etc.

Of those fighters above, which of them could have troubled Jones? Foster's competition at the weight was sound, but not outstanding for the most part - but like Jones, the sheer dominance he had over his peers adds points to his tally. Good fighters were crumbling in Foster's wake, just as good fighters were being made to look silly by Jones.

Foster got out just before he lost his title in the ring, of course, whereas Jones had his title days ended emphatically more than once, and on the basis that Foster was a natural, in fact a very big Light-Heavyweight (a contrast to Roy, who stated as late as 2008 that he could still make Super-Middleweight if he wanted to) and also because I feel he's a safe bet to beat Jones, I'd agree that Foster should be a spot or two ahead of Roy in the all-time Light-Heavyweight standings. But if Foster makes it in to your ten than Jones simply has to as well, surely?

When you go back to the days of the original 8 weight classes it doesnt really translate across too well. Pretty much anything in between 160-180lb can get counted as light heavyweight wins for for those fighters whereas once the additional weight classes get added in it becomes much more rigid for fighters. The Toney win for argument sake would have been classified as a light heavyweight win back in the original days whereas many of fights of guys like Moore could be classified as MW/SMW/LH/CW but tend to all get bracketed as LH.

Its going to be alot harder for fighters that exist in the 17 weight class era to forge legacies to rival the old timers in individual weight classes simply because weight hopping now is far more common and neccessary.

88Chris05 wrote:Thanks for the replies, lads.

Boon, I see your point to an extent with regards to the defeats against Tarver (the first one at least) and, at a stretch, Johnson as well. Jones was the betting favourite to beat both and those losses came only fourteen and eighteen months after his win over Ruiz respectively. As I've said before, they should be counted as meritorious wins (or at least Tarver's should).

But I also have to say that there's no way either of them beat a Jones anywhere near his best, and that something had clearly vanished all of a sudden as he came back down to 175 lb. The first fight with Tarver was telling, I think; he looked soft in the body, was off balance, had a much lower punch output etc. And none of this was down to Tarver's own performance. The 'Magic Man' actually fought pretty tentatively for the most part.

Either way, it's fascinating to think where we'd be ranking him had he retired after beating Ruiz, or after that first fight with Tarver in which he reclaimed his old Light-Heavyweight title. At the time of those fights, in 2003, Jones had plenty of backing amongst moderns as being the best since Robinson. When he claimed, after beating Ruiz, that "only Ali could shock the world like I can", there were plenty who'd agree with him. My best guess is that, had he called it a day after either one of those fights, he'd be in just about everyone's top ten, and certainly not outside anyone's top bakers dozen at the very, very least.

I tend to think that some of the gaps on his record get a wee bit overblown now and then, too. Jones may have been a bit too careful for some, but there were still some gambles to his name; Toney at the time, Ruiz (again, anyone claiming that beating him was seen as a formality in 2003 should take a look at what was being written beforehand), the Tarver rematch which he could have easily swerved had he wanted to etc.

Michalczewski's name gets bandied about, but I'd have preferred to see him in with someone like Jackson / McClellan at Middleweight around 1993, or Benn at Super-Middleweight around 1995, if only to answer the questions about his so-called 'aversion' to facing big hitters. Truth be told, Michalczewski was no more keen to force that fight than Jones was, and anyway, had Jones taken Dariusz on and beaten him with something to spare - as he surely would have done - would anyone be talking that win up? If they're unwilling to give Jones his due credit for Hopkins and Toney, then I can only imagine Michalczewski suddenly becoming another protected European fighter, another 'bum' for Jones to line his record with once he'd beaten him.

Perhaps Jones' match-making wasn't of the elite rank, but I still think there's more than enough there to blow away any question marks regarding his greatness, particularly when you compare it to that of some other men regularly granted 'all time great' status with far less fuss than Jones is.

Yeah I wasn't saying with relation to Tarver and Johnson that they WOULD have beaten him in his prime, more that I think they had the kind of template to cause him trouble at any point. RJJ was known not to like southpaws too much and the fact hardly anyone other than Hopkins could discourage Johnson is another reason why I think a pressure fighter with a decent dig could do some damage as well.

As for DM I think Jones Junior would have won handily but it's the politics of the situation that harms RJJ without it really being his fault. There's a strong argument to say that Jones Junior was never the undisputed champion at LHW because he never took down the man who was as when Michalczewski beat Hill he was the champion and he lost those belts not to Jones but to petty politics. However, agree that DM didn't overly fancy the fight either and given the favourable weight of reputation being with RJJ then Michalczewski should have travelled to US not Jones to Germany.

The main problem with Jones is that he didn't own any division in the way Hopkins did or Calzaghe or even Ward now. I'd still place him above Hopkins on the ATG scale though because his overall accomplishments and dazzling performances make him higher.

I tend to think jones and DM were both happy enough avoiding each other, it should have happened but both were making good money without the risk of losing. Neither was going to bow to the others demands.

Jones pretty much owned the LH division up until his loss to Tarver for me. Darius is to Jones what Ottke is to Calzaghe.

Hardly fair to compare dariusz to ottke, he was a damn fine boxer who has a proven record of beating good fighters.