Thread: where do you place roy jones jr...

among light heavyweight greats in history?

billy conn, archie moore, bob forster

heres how i put them in order

1. archie moore
2. bob foster
3. roy jones
4. billy conn

archie moores record speaks for itself. not too many were able to fight at a top notch quality even at the advancing age of 37

bob foster. hes one heck of a puncher. he would not only knock you down. he would practically decapitate you.

It's probably just me, but I don't rate Roy Jones so highly. However I do think he could have survived in any era,

I recently posted a poll on the greatest lightheavys in history and Jones is winning. I must say I have to agree.

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...-all-time.html

Originally Posted by Chris Nagel

It's probably just me, but I don't rate Roy Jones so highly. However I do think he could have survived in any era,

That's how I would put it also.. As certain levels it's hard to pick a clear number one.. But there a number of guys there you would give a certain fighting chance no matter who they were in with... Roy is up there..

To sort our number 1 vs 2 like that, you need the 2 guys to meet in the ring... And In those cases, sometimes it doesn't work out how you would predict either..

Roy Jones Junior is an all time Great. The man had unbelievable skills.

RJJ is the best LHW ever, but he didn't stay there as long as some, and it wasn't his natural weightclass. I think that he would have beaten any LHW in history though Ezzard Charles and Billy Conn would have been his stiffest competition stylewise.

Originally Posted by Taeth

RJJ is the best LHW ever, but he didn't stay there as long as some, and it wasn't his natural weightclass. I think that he would have beaten any LHW in history though Ezzard Charles and Billy Conn would have been his stiffest competition stylewise.

I think that Bob Foster would have caused him most trouble personally. I'm not saying that Roy wouldn't have beaten him but thats who I'd go for plus he never got beat as a LHW.

I think Roy may be the best fighter of all time. I say "may be" because i wasnt around to see a lot of the best like Ray Robinson.

Hes definately the best fighter i have ever seen, and its not even close imo.

Roy at super middleweight was unreal, almost superhuman. He hit you and you didnt hit him.

Bob Foster would have beat him and dont even go there with Archie Moore.

Moore gets totally under-rated because he fought 15yrs too long but in his peak with his work-rate would have stopped Jones mid fight. Jones could not fight 3mins of a round and when ever he fought a guy with skill and work-rate (which was rare) he either lost or had a real tough fight.

For skills its Jones but no work-rate, no-jab and no-chin.

3rd or 4th.

Athletecism a lot of the time is judged as skill and to a degree it is. But theres an uderlying Form Jones didnt have or the competition in depth. Never the less I enjoyed Roy. I remember the first Griffith Fight Montell gave him problems. Old school was Griffith, but not in the League of Charles and Co. I dont think Moore improved with age The competition got easier, Moore sort off admitted it.

Originally Posted by Scrap

Athletecism a lot of the time is judged as skill and to a degree it is. But theres an uderlying Form Jones didnt have or the competition in depth. Never the less I enjoyed Roy. I remember the first Griffith Fight Montell gave him problems. Old school was Griffith, but not in the League of Charles and Co. I dont think Moore improved with age The competition got easier, Moore sort off admitted it.

Moore in his mid 20s-mid 30s would make Jones his bitch.

The way he put his shots together is a joy to watch a Joe Louis clone with footwork.

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Bob Foster would have beat him and dont even go there with Archie Moore.

Moore gets totally under-rated because he fought 15yrs too long but in his peak with his work-rate would have stopped Jones mid fight. Jones could not fight 3mins of a round and when ever he fought a guy with skill and work-rate (which was rare) he either lost or had a real tough fight.

For skills its Jones but no work-rate, no-jab and no-chin.

3rd or 4th.

Right well Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Pazienza, McCallum and Reggie Johnson all had skill and workrate but I don't remember Roy having too much trouble with them.

Originally Posted by Scrap

Athletecism a lot of the time is judged as skill and to a degree it is. But theres an uderlying Form Jones didnt have or the competition in depth. Never the less I enjoyed Roy. I remember the first Griffith Fight Montell gave him problems. Old school was Griffith, but not in the League of Charles and Co. I dont think Moore improved with age The competition got easier, Moore sort off admitted it.

Griffith gave him problems cuz Roy let him by laying on the ropes. As the fight went on Giffith was clearly on his way to being KO'd.

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Originally Posted by Markusdarkus

Bob Foster would have beat him and dont even go there with Archie Moore.

Moore gets totally under-rated because he fought 15yrs too long but in his peak with his work-rate would have stopped Jones mid fight. Jones could not fight 3mins of a round and when ever he fought a guy with skill and work-rate (which was rare) he either lost or had a real tough fight.

For skills its Jones but no work-rate, no-jab and no-chin.

3rd or 4th.

Right well Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Pazienza, McCallum and Reggie Johnson all had skill and workrate but I don't remember Roy having too much trouble with them.

Hopkins never had work-rate, Toney was a counter puncher/boxer McCallum was 40yo Hill, Pazienza, Johnson would hold Moores jock strap. Or anyone decents strap sorry those are Roys best wins? i think you need a history lesson son.