Jones Ranking 03

Ok guys, if Roy had of retired 03 were would he rank among the greats?

At that stage I would of put money on him to win a head to head against any great, however he doesn't have the deepest resume. Though he still has some great fighters on his list.

4 weight world champion means little in the lower weights but to from Middle to Heavy was special. Granted he wasn't lineal, it is still a mean feat.

Anyway how did you rate Jones at his best?

I rate Jones in 2003 the same place I rate him now...........

When Ray Robbo got trashed past his best it didn't affect his standing as the consensus p4p number 1......

Why should it ??????..........Woods will still probably be the best golfer of alltime..

Whilst he didn't stay at middle long enough to be number 1 there........

For me he's best fighter that ever campaigned there........

Beat everybody in history bar the Nunn that fought Tate..........Who for me would have beaten anybody that night..

Why should Jones be rated lower because he carried on (foolishly)? I ignore anything past his heavyweight escapade.

When you go back down in weight you lose something, it always seems to happen

Roy jones in his prime was a beast, I don't think anyone could beat him, not Calzaghe, not Benn or Eubank

Jones was only 34 when Tarver did a number on him three times. Although I like Jones and rate him extremely highly I always find it fanciful for people to dismiss the Tarver fights.

Was he really carrying on foolishly after beating Ruiz? The first Tarver fight was huge. Jones got his nose broken, eye swollen shut and booed after getting the decision. Obviously he wanted the rematch to put the record straight. Then he gets Knocked Out and things spiral out of control. No Tyson fight, no invincible reputation, opponents coming in with higher belief.

Only 34 ???????????

He was a guy who relied heavily on athleticism, speed and reactions. Based on that, changing so much in weight is not insignificant and it's not only 34.

Jones would undoubtedly have been rated higher without the defeats to Tarver and Johnson. The PED fiasco still rankles (especially in light of the way he leapt to heavyweight quick smart without gaining an ounce of fat) but it was largely swept under the carpet.

It is fanciful to write those losses off, though. Jones may well have slipped but he also lost to the best light heavyweights he faced.

You seem to do a good enough job with fighters you like..

"Duran was partying before Leonard 2"...... "Liston threw both Ali fights"

I can see the point, Jones was past his best at 34. But is it too much to expect one of the greatest boxers ever to work out Antonio Tarver, given three attempts at 34 years old?

I think the fights showed his limitations with regards confidence and versatility at least.

Would he really have done that much better against Tarver a year earlier when he achieved his most notable feat?

Jones was amazing, but more went wrong than simply not retiring

Look at some of the trash Robinson lost to past his best and tell me exactly why it's such a crime he lost to Tarver.

To count the Calzaghe fight and say he lost to the best Light Heavyweights he faced is a joke.

Shouldn't a 31 year old Ali have worked out Norton.....

Shouldn't a 33 year old Leonard worked out Norris...

Shouldn't a 35 year old Holmes done better against Spinks ....

Shouldn't a 34 year old Duran worked out the average Robbie Sims .....

Doesn't wash mate..

Jones beats every middle or super middle ever.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You seem to do a good enough job with fighters you like..

"Duran was partying before Leonard 2"...... "Liston threw both Ali fights"

Duran was partying before the Leonard rematch - even Leonard admits that's why he forced the fight through quickly. Duran was popping diuretics just to make weight. That doesn't excuse Duran, though. Not preparing is on him.

Liston gave up in both Ali fights (regardless of whether he threw both fights). Those fights affect his legacy.

Jones was coming off a career high and a close, contentious win over Tarver when he was knocked sparko twice by the best 175 pounders he faced. That, too, affects his legacy.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You seem to do a good enough job with fighters you like..

"Duran was partying before Leonard 2"...... "Liston threw both Ali fights"

Duran was partying before the Leonard rematch - even Leonard admits that's why he forced the fight through quickly. Duran was popping diuretics just to make weight. That doesn't excuse Duran, though. Not preparing is on him.

Liston gave up in both Ali fights (regardless of whether he threw both fights). Those fights affect his legacy.

Jones was coming off a career high and a close, contentious win over Tarver when he was knocked sparko twice by the best 175 pounders he faced. That, too, affects his legacy.

Career highs were Toney and Hopkins..................They are great fighters.........

hazharrison wrote:Duran was partying before the Leonard rematch - even Leonard admits that's why he forced the fight through quickly. Duran was popping diuretics just to make weight. That doesn't excuse Duran, though. Not preparing is on him.

Liston gave up in both Ali fights (regardless of whether he threw both fights). Those fights affect his legacy.

Jones was coming off a career high and a close, contentious win over Tarver when he was knocked sparko twice by the best 175 pounders he faced. That, too, affects his legacy.

Johnson above Hill? Seriously?

Brilliant fighter Jones, moving up to Heavyweight then coming back down in weight is what done him, and carrying on far too long.

At 34 Jones was past it, Benitez was past it at 25, some fighters don't age as good as others.

At middle and super middle not saying prime Jones is unbeatable, but its a 50/50 fight against any of the all time great middleweights, and he stands all the super middles on their heads, far superior boxer.

Tarver caught him at the right time, IMO Jones was well past it.

No it's not serious......It's bollox to try to boost a flagging argument.....

Although a Mongolian journalist will probably be quoted.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You seem to do a good enough job with fighters you like..

"Duran was partying before Leonard 2"...... "Liston threw both Ali fights"

Duran was partying before the Leonard rematch - even Leonard admits that's why he forced the fight through quickly. Duran was popping diuretics just to make weight. That doesn't excuse Duran, though. Not preparing is on him.

Liston gave up in both Ali fights (regardless of whether he threw both fights). Those fights affect his legacy.

Jones was coming off a career high and a close, contentious win over Tarver when he was knocked sparko twice by the best 175 pounders he faced. That, too, affects his legacy.

Career highs were Toney and Hopkins..................They are great fighters.........

His career high-point was arguably Ruiz. His stock was as high then as it was after the Toney win.

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Duran was partying before the Leonard rematch - even Leonard admits that's why he forced the fight through quickly. Duran was popping diuretics just to make weight. That doesn't excuse Duran, though. Not preparing is on him.

Liston gave up in both Ali fights (regardless of whether he threw both fights). Those fights affect his legacy.

Jones was coming off a career high and a close, contentious win over Tarver when he was knocked sparko twice by the best 175 pounders he faced. That, too, affects his legacy.

Johnson above Hill? Seriously?

Hill would possibly get the nod in an all-time sense but Johnson was the better light heavyweight when they opposed Jones. Hill was slightly faded and coming off a loss to Michalczewski. Johnson went on to dethrone Tarver to become the 175 champion (not titlist) after beating up Jones.

Jones was a great fighter - Tris Dixon rated him the best fighter in the last 30 years recently. I rate him very highly - he was the most talented fighter in my lifetime. The defeats post-Ruiz hurt his legacy, though (as does the PED use).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No it's not serious......It's bollox to try to boost a flagging argument.....

Although a Mongolian journalist will probably be quoted.....

There is no serious argument that the trio of defeats to Tarver and Johnson hurt Roy's legacy. Had he walked away post-Ruiz he would have remained Superman with only the Griffin aberration on his record.

34 post Ruiz...............

Funnily enough a younger 33 year old Hagler losing to a blown up three years out welter in Leonard doesn't seem to hurt his legacy....

You're worse than d4...........Fighters you dislike were always in peak form when they were beat......Fighters you like were always inconvenienced..

Free rides because "I like him"..

Can we also take in to account of how good he may not have been if he wasn't on drugs? Plenty, including the yank, delete Peterson off Khan's record as he was on the old 'roids, same should apply here.

Now where do I rank him?

Don't think I need to answer that for fear of sounding like a broken record.

Coxy001 wrote:Can we also take in to account of how good he may not have been if he wasn't on drugs? Plenty, including the yank, delete Peterson off Khan's record as he was on the old 'roids, same should apply here.

Now where do I rank him?

Don't think I need to answer that for fear of sounding like a broken record.

Tested positive for Toney and Hopkins did he ??...Or are we sticking to the fights we can prove like Petersen v Khan...

Am I right in saying RJJ would box Marvin and GGG's heads off?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Can we also take in to account of how good he may not have been if he wasn't on drugs? Plenty, including the yank, delete Peterson off Khan's record as he was on the old 'roids, same should apply here.

Now where do I rank him?

Don't think I need to answer that for fear of sounding like a broken record.

Tested positive for Toney and Hopkins did he ??...Or are we sticking to the fights we can prove like Petersen v Khan...

Drugs cheats don't just take it as a one off. Look at the US postal service (or other TDF guys) as an example that it's all through their careers.

Coxy001 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:Can we also take in to account of how good he may not have been if he wasn't on drugs? Plenty, including the yank, delete Peterson off Khan's record as he was on the old 'roids, same should apply here.

Now where do I rank him?

Don't think I need to answer that for fear of sounding like a broken record.

Tested positive for Toney and Hopkins did he ??...Or are we sticking to the fights we can prove like Petersen v Khan...

Drugs cheats don't just take it as a one off. Look at the US postal service (or other TDF guys) as an example that it's all through their careers.

Well that's it then..

If you see Jones as being totally finished after he beats Ruiz then fair enough. Personally I think Tarver was to Jones what Forrest was to Mosley or Marquez to Pac. I rate Jones in the top four fighters I have seen since I started watching boxing. I just dont see him as unbeatable

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:34 post Ruiz...............

Funnily enough a younger 33 year old Hagler losing to a blown up three years out welter in Leonard doesn't seem to hurt his legacy....

You're worse than d4...........Fighters you dislike were always in peak form when they were beat......Fighters you like were always inconvenienced..

Free rides because "I like him"..

I was a big fan of Jones - so that's that one out of the window.

A fighter's age isn't necessarily indicative of their physical state. Before he fought Tarver, Jones had fought 305 rounds and rarely been hit; prior to facing Leonard, Hagler had fought 386 rounds and been involved in numerous, attritional wars against tougher men (on the whole). There isn't anything biased about cold hard facts.

Hagler lost a highly contentious decision to one of the greatest ever fighters. There are many excellent judges who scored the fight for Hagler - could have gone either way.

Jones lost to a duo who don't even merit discussion in the top 20 all-time light heavies. He was knocked cold both times.

I think Jones is a good example of a fighter who just can't give it up. In his pomp he was fantastic and simply the best fighter on the planet. However, coming down from heavy to fight Tarver, he got lucky in the first fight, then in my opinion got careless in the second. Father time caught up with RJJ quicker than most because of his reliance on his lightning reactions and speed. Since the Tarver fights it's been a rollercoaster ride for him, but mostly downs rather than ups. Add in the PED fiasco and his brilliance is easily tarnished.

You could argue until you're blue in the face about how he would've beaten fighter A easily or struggled with fighter B, but if they never fought then it's all conjecture. For me, Jones was a fighter whose star burned extremely brightly for a relatively short time. Sadly, fighters seldom know when it is best to get out of the business be it down to trying to put bread on the table because all the money's gone or simply trying to relive past glories because it's all they know.

Jones has the appearance that he doesn't know how to do anything else. I don't know what his financial status is but I hope he's only fighting on for his love of the sport and not "doing a Holyfield".

At his peak, he was untouchable. But with most great fighters, someone (or more than one) had his number.

Mr Bounce wrote:I think Jones is a good example of a fighter who just can't give it up. In his pomp he was fantastic and simply the best fighter on the planet. However, coming down from heavy to fight Tarver, he got lucky in the first fight, then in my opinion got careless in the second. Father time caught up with RJJ quicker than most because of his reliance on his lightning reactions and speed. Since the Tarver fights it's been a rollercoaster ride for him, but mostly downs rather than ups. Add in the PED fiasco and his brilliance is easily tarnished.

You could argue until you're blue in the face about how he would've beaten fighter A easily or struggled with fighter B, but if they never fought then it's all conjecture. For me, Jones was a fighter whose star burned extremely brightly for a relatively short time. Sadly, fighters seldom know when it is best to get out of the business be it down to trying to put bread on the table because all the money's gone or simply trying to relive past glories because it's all they know.

Jones has the appearance that he doesn't know how to do anything else. I don't know what his financial status is but I hope he's only fighting on for his love of the sport and not "doing a Holyfield".

At his peak, he was untouchable. But with most great fighters, someone (or more than one) had his number.

It's even sadder that during his prime Jones appeared not to be in love with the business. He was bored, distracted and deeply affected by the McClellan tragedy. He was once something of "a Garbo" in that he didn't want to do media work, interviews etc. Contrast that with now and it just shows you don't know what you've got until it's gone (sure that's a song).

Lance wrote:If you see Jones as being totally finished after he beats Ruiz then fair enough. Personally I think Tarver was to Jones what Forrest was to Mosley or Marquez to Pac. I rate Jones in the top four fighters I have seen since I started watching boxing. I just dont see him as unbeatable

15 pounds above his best victory at 160.................and 7 pounds above his second best at 168........

Not easy going from midd to light heavy...Hagler didn't fancy it..

Jones had his naysayers and critics even before the wheels fell off (did y'all forget 'Y'all Musta Forgot' or something?); a lot of the negatives levelled at him now after his fall from grace (lacked a historically significant rival to give an accurate gauge on just how great he really was, was a shade too cautious in his matchmaking, dragged out fights and made them uninteresting spectacles when he could have put an opponent to the sword quicker and more emphatically etc) were being thrown at him in 2003. So I don't think retiring then after Ruiz, or even later that year after reclaiming his Light-Heavy title from Tarver, would have seen him unanimously put in the same kind of bracket as Ali, the Leonards, Duran, Greb etc by the fans and historians as some do in retrospect.

My guess is that he'll never quite get put in that kind of echelon, as some of the aforementioned negatives I listed about him do carry weight (to varying degrees, mind you, and generally not as much as his harshest critics like to make out) but I think in time he'll be remembered in the class just below those guys. If he'd rapped it in back in 2003 / 2004, I think he'd have reached that level of esteem now. As it happens, in the end I think him carrying on and subsequently getting flattened a few times over will just delay that happening, rather than prevent it from happening.

In the years immediately after the Tarver, Johnson and Calzaghe fights there was a lot of soft ideas being floated around claiming that he'd been 'exposed' as some kind of con man who was all style and no substance. From my experience those kind of claims have largely died out now, and I'd expect his reputation to be repaired in the coming years when people have had a proper chance to look at his career objectively and in context. It's a relatively solid and reliable trend for fighters of more recent decades, as others have said plenty of times.

Just a couple of tiny things to nitpick; Bounce, I like a lot of your post above, but I'm not sure where this idea that Jones can't boast longevity amongst his selling points comes from (referring to you saying he was a great fighter whose star shone brightly for a short time, or something along those lines). Eleven years almost totally uninterrupted (the gap between Griffin I and II the sole exception) as a world title holder between 1993 and 2004 isn't a short time at all - that's great longevity, particularly when you consider the high level of performance and utter dominance he maintained right throughout that time frame.

Next, a couple of things Haz said. Arguing that Jones 'lost to the best Light-Heavies he faced', even if you take Glen Johnson above Hill which is debatable, is a bit of a red herring. Give Tarver the knockout win, sure, because nobody was calling Jones finished beforehand and regardless of if they were or not, exposing the new chinks in his armour in such a devastating manner when nobody had ever done so before still took some doing. But Jones had clearly become a washed up shadow of his former self by the time he fought Glencoffe. Yes, it was an unusually, almost impossibly quick and drastic decline, but a legitimate decline it was, and all you have to do is take a look at how abysmal Jones looked in those fights to verify that. Sure, Antonio and Glencoffe fought well, but there were things very wrong with Jones which visibly had nowt to do with what they were doing.

He spends a decade totally routing and embarrassing fighters of that calibre, and then suddenly gets flattened twice in a row by them. Either Jones went on the luckiest, most flukey and coincidental run in history between 1993 and 2003, or something when very wrong with him, very quickly.

Saying he lost to the best Light-Heavies he faced and using it as a way of degrading him, while totally ignoring the time and context of those fights, is akin to doing the same to Louis because he lost to the best Heavyweights he faced in Charles and Marciano, or to Ali because the greatest Heavy he faced in Holmes beat him.

88Chris05 wrote:Jones had his naysayers and critics even before the wheels fell off (did y'all forget 'Y'all Musta Forgot' or something?); a lot of the negatives levelled at him now after his fall from grace (lacked a historically significant rival to give an accurate gauge on just how great he really was, was a shade too cautious in his matchmaking, dragged out fights and made them uninteresting spectacles when he could have put an opponent to the sword quicker and more emphatically etc) were being thrown at him in 2003. So I don't think retiring then after Ruiz, or even later that year after reclaiming his Light-Heavy title from Tarver, would have seen him unanimously put in the same kind of bracket as Ali, the Leonards, Duran, Greb etc by the fans and historians as some do in retrospect.

My guess is that he'll never quite get put in that kind of echelon, as some of the aforementioned negatives I listed about him do carry weight (to varying degrees, mind you, and generally not as much as his harshest critics like to make out) but I think in time he'll be remembered in the class just below those guys. If he'd rapped it in back in 2003 / 2004, I think he'd have reached that level of esteem now. As it happens, in the end I think him carrying on and subsequently getting flattened a few times over will just delay that happening, rather than prevent it from happening.

In the years immediately after the Tarver, Johnson and Calzaghe fights there was a lot of soft ideas being floated around claiming that he'd been 'exposed' as some kind of con man who was all style and no substance. From my experience those kind of claims have largely died out now, and I'd expect his reputation to be repaired in the coming years when people have had a proper chance to look at his career objectively and in context. It's a relatively solid and reliable trend for fighters of more recent decades, as others have said plenty of times.

Just a couple of tiny things to nitpick; Bounce, I like a lot of your post above, but I'm not sure where this idea that Jones can't boast longevity amongst his selling points comes from (referring to you saying he was a great fighter whose star shone brightly for a short time, or something along those lines). Eleven years almost totally uninterrupted (the gap between Griffin I and II the sole exception) as a world title holder between 1993 and 2004 isn't a short time at all - that's great longevity, particularly when you consider the high level of performance and utter dominance he maintained right throughout that time frame.

Next, a couple of things Haz said. Arguing that Jones 'lost to the best Light-Heavies he faced', even if you take Glen Johnson above Hill which is debatable, is a bit of a red herring. Give Tarver the knockout win, sure, because nobody was calling Jones finished beforehand and regardless of if they were or not, exposing the new chinks in his armour in such a devastating manner when nobody had ever done so before still took some doing. But Jones had clearly become a washed up shadow of his former self by the time he fought Glencoffe. Yes, it was an unusually, almost impossibly quick and drastic decline, but a legitimate decline it was, and all you have to do is take a look at how abysmal Jones looked in those fights to verify that. Sure, Antonio and Glencoffe fought well, but there were things very wrong with Jones which visibly had nowt to do with what they were doing.

He spends a decade totally routing and embarrassing fighters of that calibre, and then suddenly gets flattened twice in a row by them. Either Jones went on the luckiest, most flukey and coincidental run in history between 1993 and 2003, or something when very wrong with him, very quickly.

Saying he lost to the best Light-Heavies he faced and using it as a way of degrading him, while totally ignoring the time and context of those fights, is akin to doing the same to Louis because he lost to the best Heavyweights he faced in Charles and Marciano, or to Ali because the greatest Heavy he faced in Holmes beat him.

I think the comparison between the Jones who faced Tarver and Johnson to the versions of Ali and Louis who faced Holmes and Marciano is way off beam. Jones may have struggled with the weight yet he was still good enough to defeat the number one light heavyweight in Tarver right after posting a masterful win over Ruiz.

Prior to the Holmes fight, Ali was an absolute mess. Already exhibiting signs of brain damage (slurred speech, poor balance etc.) he failed the rudimentary task of touching the end of his nose in the pre-fight medical. Louis, too, was terribly worn and faded and unable to 'get off' with punches.

While Jones was no longer at his peak - rumours persist he'd long since ceased to listen in the gym - he was in no way shot prior to the Tarver fights (first two). There's a case he was finished prior to the Johnson fight, however, I'm not convinced (I'd need to watch it back). He was definitely a step closer to it afterwards, due to the beating Glencoffe put on him. Was he shot? Would a shot fighter have dropped and then gone the distance with Joe Calzaghe?

He seemed to me to be somewhere similar to Leonard and Hearns when they fought their rematch - still handy but no longer what they were. Still, his demise was shocking when one considers the likes of Whitaker against Trinidad, Lewis against Klitschko, Barrera against Pacquiao (rematch) and Hopkins against Kovalev. Usually, the great fighters don't drop off a cliff like that.

As an aside (unrelated to your point): was Holmes the greatest heavyweight Ali faced? There's an argument Foreman and Frazier deserve that accolade.

I think getting his face pummeled and being booed by his own fans during the first Tarver fight took a lot out of Jones. This is what a lot of people choose to ignore.

A lot of fighters rely on supreme confidence and feeling superior to their opponents. And for all Jones other attributes I think he lost these over night. Look at the way he started the Tarver rematch compared to the first. It's between these two fights we see the biggest change in Jones. I know a lot of Jones biggest fans tend to ignore this patch of his career but its clear to see.

Pavlik was never the same after Hopkins and I don't think Cotto was ever the same after Margarito. Some guys who rely on bullying opponents, which Jones loved to do, are never the same after somebody stands up to them

Good post, Lance. I take on board what you're saying about confidence, and that those fighters used to dominating opponents for a sustained period of their career aren't likely to take to being pushed and answered back as well as others might. But I can't see Jones' confidence being so brittle that it would smash simply because someone had been able to extend him and run him close, or leave a mark on his face. Griffin gave him a shed load of problems in their first fight and more than held his own, but that didn't seem to leave a long-lasting dent on his confidence. Although you could argue that it had been so long since he'd been pushed in that kind of way that Jones might have become a bit complacent by 2003/2004, I guess.

The Pavlik and Cotto examples are interesting, but Pavlik lost almost every minute of every round to Hopkins, while Cotto absorbed a gradual beatdown in a brutal fight against Margarito. Jones beat Tarver in that first fight, regardless of having to take more shots than normal and looking way below his best. It wasn't a particularly gruelling fight. I think you're right that it would have come as a bit of a shock to the system for Jones, but I'd be surprised if it was enough to really take a huge amount of confidence from him. I'd like to think that someone with as much success and experience would at least be able to concentrate to a degree on the fact that he still won despite being way off his best, but that's just my take.

Also, Pavlik and Cotto were mid to late twenties for those fights. Jones was 34 when he first fought Tarver and 35 when he lost to him. Age isn't forced to be the reason, but it's notable here when you compare all three scenarios side by side. Mid-thirties isn't necessarily the death knell it used to be for a fighter, but it's still pretty long in the tooth by anyone's standards, particularly if you've been a pro for fifteen years beforehand and have relied largely on reflexes and speed, which don't preserve as well as other attributes.

I can't really argue too much with those who think that Tarver just had Jones' number or whatever, or that he'd done the same to him at any time, but when I think what would have happened if Tarver had beaten Harding in 2000 for the mandatory spot to fight Roy I just envisage Jones making Tarver look ordinary, as he did to so many fighters of a similar ilk. I don't think Jones was totally unbeatable at 175, but if we're talking a peak Jones then I just think it'd have taken a better class of fighter than Tarver to do the trick.