Where does Roy Jones rank?

[Alpha]

I think you have to take opposition into account otherwise a guy like Ricardo Lopez comes out in top every time.

[mikeeod]

Jones is a bit like Tyson to me in the sense that, p4p, speaking purely from a skill perspective, they are both top 5 in my opinion. I think they beat someone like Mayweather. Resume wise, however, things get tricky. Personally, just because im a fighter, I judge fighters by how well they can fight and not statistics, I'll leave that to analyst.

So that being said, he is top 5.

That isnt to say his resume isnt impressive. He did beat Hopkins, he did beat Toney, fairly easy. He beat a lot of top contenders and champions.

ALSO, please let's not forget the man went from 154 to heavyweight in his career and WON the heavyweight belt. I don't care how subpar of a heavyweight you think Ruiz was, he was the champ.

So even as an analyst, i'd rate him top 10, i think he tops guys like Chavez and JMM for sure. Guys like Robinson, Floyd, Ali, topple him but his career was impeccable until he got old, and i don't think any fighter should be judged on old age performance, thats a rule in boxing.

As far as who he didn't fight, he would've sparked those guys just the same and then we would've listed them under the "they were nobodies" just as we do with his other solid, but not great opponents.

Couple of points of clarification:
1. Roy won A heavyweight strap, not THE heavyweight Championship. Had Roy beaten Lewis (or Evander when he was undisputed champ), I think everyone agrees that Roy would deserve to be top 5. A fat James Toney beat Ruiz shortly after Roy, so that highlights how limited Ruiz was.
2. As for the Hop victory, that was a pre-prime Hop, not the complete fighter who destroyed Tito. The same way Hop gets less credit for beating an old Roy, Roy loses credit for beating a green Hop.
3. Just because you are POSITIVE Roy would beat people he never fought, that doesn't mean he would have definitely beaten them. Everyone was equally positive that Roy would beat Tarver, Tyson would beat Douglas/Evander...etc.

[Master]

Jones is a bit like Tyson to me in the sense that, p4p, speaking purely from a skill perspective, they are both top 5 in my opinion. I think they beat someone like Mayweather. Resume wise, however, things get tricky. Personally, just because im a fighter, I judge fighters by how well they can fight and not statistics, I'll leave that to analyst.

So that being said, he is top 5.

That isnt to say his resume isnt impressive. He did beat Hopkins, he did beat Toney, fairly easy. He beat a lot of top contenders and champions.

ALSO, please let's not forget the man went from 154 to heavyweight in his career and WON the heavyweight belt. I don't care how subpar of a heavyweight you think Ruiz was, he was the champ.

So even as an analyst, i'd rate him top 10, i think he tops guys like Chavez and JMM for sure. Guys like Robinson, Floyd, Ali, topple him but his career was impeccable until he got old, and i don't think any fighter should be judged on old age performance, thats a rule in boxing.

As far as who he didn't fight, he would've sparked those guys just the same and then we would've listed them under the "they were nobodies" just as we do with his other solid, but not great opponents.

Couple of points of clarification:
1. Roy won A heavyweight strap, not THE heavyweight Championship. Had Roy beaten Lewis (or Evander when he was undisputed champ), I think everyone agrees that Roy would deserve to be top 5. A fat James Toney beat Ruiz shortly after Roy, so that highlights how limited Ruiz was.
2. As for the Hop victory, that was a pre-prime Hop, not the complete fighter who destroyed Tito. The same way Hop gets less credit for beating an old Roy, Roy loses credit for beating a green Hop.
3. Just because you are POSITIVE Roy would beat people he never fought, that doesn't mean he would have definitely beaten them. Everyone was equally positive that Roy would beat Tarver, Tyson would beat Douglas/Evander...etc.

Just to clarify your clarification. No prime version of Bernard Hopkins beats a prime Roy Jones Junior even the one that beat Tito.

[mikeeod]

I think you have to take opposition into account otherwise a guy like Ricardo Lopez comes out in top every time.

Great point. How can you rank Roy over someone like Ray Leonard who beat Duran, Hearns, Benitez, Hagler (I thought Ray lost this one)? Roy beat 1 fighter who was ranked p4p at the time they fought. Compare that to Hop who fought Tito, Tarver, Winky, and Pavilik while they were ranked p4p. Or Oscar who fought Quartey, Whitaker, Tito, Hopkins, Mayweather, and Manny while they were ranked. Floyd fought Corralles, Hatton, Manny, JMM, Canelo...etc., while they were all ranked.

Roy was a phenom, and unbelievably talented. I'm not sure it is solely his fault that he missed many bug fights during his prime, but he is the one big name who pretty much missed every other prime big name at or around his weight during his prime years.

[mikeeod]

Jones is a bit like Tyson to me in the sense that, p4p, speaking purely from a skill perspective, they are both top 5 in my opinion. I think they beat someone like Mayweather. Resume wise, however, things get tricky. Personally, just because im a fighter, I judge fighters by how well they can fight and not statistics, I'll leave that to analyst.

So that being said, he is top 5.

That isnt to say his resume isnt impressive. He did beat Hopkins, he did beat Toney, fairly easy. He beat a lot of top contenders and champions.

ALSO, please let's not forget the man went from 154 to heavyweight in his career and WON the heavyweight belt. I don't care how subpar of a heavyweight you think Ruiz was, he was the champ.

So even as an analyst, i'd rate him top 10, i think he tops guys like Chavez and JMM for sure. Guys like Robinson, Floyd, Ali, topple him but his career was impeccable until he got old, and i don't think any fighter should be judged on old age performance, thats a rule in boxing.

As far as who he didn't fight, he would've sparked those guys just the same and then we would've listed them under the "they were nobodies" just as we do with his other solid, but not great opponents.

Couple of points of clarification:
1. Roy won A heavyweight strap, not THE heavyweight Championship. Had Roy beaten Lewis (or Evander when he was undisputed champ), I think everyone agrees that Roy would deserve to be top 5. A fat James Toney beat Ruiz shortly after Roy, so that highlights how limited Ruiz was.
2. As for the Hop victory, that was a pre-prime Hop, not the complete fighter who destroyed Tito. The same way Hop gets less credit for beating an old Roy, Roy loses credit for beating a green Hop.
3. Just because you are POSITIVE Roy would beat people he never fought, that doesn't mean he would have definitely beaten them. Everyone was equally positive that Roy would beat Tarver, Tyson would beat Douglas/Evander...etc.

Just to clarify your clarification. No prime version of Bernard Hopkins beats a prime Roy Jones Junior even the one that beat Tito.

Ah, I disagree with that clarification, if we are being honest, Hop greatly improved between Roy and Tito. One was an aggressive, right hand crazy pressure fighter while the other was a cerebral, complete, master boxer-puncher. Roy was Roy throughout his career, and since he relied on superhuman athleticism never improved all that much. The false narrative that has been created is that Roy dominated that early version of Hop because Roy won a unanimous decision. The reality is that Roy was pushed and barely won the rounds he did over a limited and inexperienced Hop. I think the Hop of 2002 wins an ugly decision over Roy. I'm sure you will disagree, and I can see where you will be right. That being said, neither of us really know and so neither can get the credit.

[imp]

Jones is a bit like Tyson to me in the sense that, p4p, speaking purely from a skill perspective, they are both top 5 in my opinion. I think they beat someone like Mayweather. Resume wise, however, things get tricky. Personally, just because im a fighter, I judge fighters by how well they can fight and not statistics, I'll leave that to analyst.

So that being said, he is top 5.

That isnt to say his resume isnt impressive. He did beat Hopkins, he did beat Toney, fairly easy. He beat a lot of top contenders and champions.

ALSO, please let's not forget the man went from 154 to heavyweight in his career and WON the heavyweight belt. I don't care how subpar of a heavyweight you think Ruiz was, he was the champ.

So even as an analyst, i'd rate him top 10, i think he tops guys like Chavez and JMM for sure. Guys like Robinson, Floyd, Ali, topple him but his career was impeccable until he got old, and i don't think any fighter should be judged on old age performance, thats a rule in boxing.

As far as who he didn't fight, he would've sparked those guys just the same and then we would've listed them under the "they were nobodies" just as we do with his other solid, but not great opponents.

Couple of points of clarification:
1. Roy won A heavyweight strap, not THE heavyweight Championship. Had Roy beaten Lewis (or Evander when he was undisputed champ), I think everyone agrees that Roy would deserve to be top 5. A fat James Toney beat Ruiz shortly after Roy, so that highlights how limited Ruiz was.
2. As for the Hop victory, that was a pre-prime Hop, not the complete fighter who destroyed Tito. The same way Hop gets less credit for beating an old Roy, Roy loses credit for beating a green Hop.
3. Just because you are POSITIVE Roy would beat people he never fought, that doesn't mean he would have definitely beaten them. Everyone was equally positive that Roy would beat Tarver, Tyson would beat Douglas/Evander...etc.

Let's not forget that he did beat Tarver.

[imp]

I had RJ and Floyd as my favourite fighters of all time...as time has passed and RJ continued his career post Tarver 1 there didn't seem to be a plan B in his defence skillset.

I consider Floyds post prime career as money mayweather..he still had a plan B and tools to deal with loosing his prime and still getting the win.

Roy is great at many things but Floyd is good at everything and great in defence and that seems to be the difference.

[Spicoli]

As with any current fighter having the 'great' tag thrown at them Jones understandably benefits by having majority live most or all of his career as it unfolded. Not recorded or point of research but for some the beginning to the very end. That is a special pretty cool feeling and I think always plays a part when comparing to greats gone by. Me personally I don't rank Jones in top all times great tier. It may be as simple as he can never say he cleaned house, swept out a division or adapted style once he lost a step. He was superb athleticism and reflex with not a lot of down to basic fundamentals to fall back on or retool off of. Might be a bit slighted but it's glaring that he had active threats at 168 and 175 and depending on what rose colored glasses you choose to wear, they never met. On paper woulda coulda shoulda does not equate to achieving the feat and beating fellow champs. That's not to say he didn't face top dogs..Toney and Hopkins namely. His all star wins ran the span of a year and a half really. Now to get the elephant out of the room, there is just no way that you can fairly say that Hopkins was in his peak or prime. Fact is he was 3 yrs in with so so amateur (?) career and fresh off of fighting on USA network and BET in some obscure ballroom. He simply had not even been to a big stage and more importantly he was a completely different style and approach than what he became so many years later. Seek and destroy..that was the name of the game. That aside Roy beat that version and did it impressively. But to think it was some peak vs peak face off is a bit skewed. Now Toney? I've changed my thought on that over the years. At the time I was on the "Toney was a fat heffer" bandwagon because frankly Toney was my fav. But truth be told I think Jones was the first..and probably the only..fighter to get into the head of Toney. I thing he was psyched out on top of the weight he came to camp with. But you know what, all credit to Jones for that. He did exactly what he needed to do regardless of the short comings of Toney. No excuses. Speed and reflex with a heavy dose of swagger ruled the ring. Mix in there Malinga and Hill destructions in what I think were two of his more impressive career wins. Tate had just come off a war with Julian Jackson in a fight that was much closer than scores indicated. He revenged Griffin but I've never bought 'he was jobbed' being dq'd in first fight. He was having a good competitive fight there. And again as a fighter he put himself in that position to be dq'd. That's on him. After Toney though it got a bit 168 silly. Paz did not belong in the ring and he and HBO were more interested in cycling up 'mandatory' defenses to satisfy the alphabet boys. Jones was a tremendous talent who I grew to respect in a way..except on the microphone ..but there will always be that what if for me. I had him 0-3 vs Tarver also in a case where just like Toney on the flip side, I think Tarver got into his head a bit. I'll never fault him and yell about him being afraid or the easily thrown around 'glass jaw'. I don't buy that. Again..defensive fundamentals rose to the top once he lost a step and some reflex. Roy was a very very comfortable fighter with HBO.

[Fenster]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

[Spicoli]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

Very true, just to think that in another ten years after that he was running with top level or smacking around a couple fellow trinket holders. Whatever we think of him Hopkins knew adaptation.

[Master]

I had RJ and Floyd as my favourite fighters of all time...as time has passed and RJ continued his career post Tarver 1 there didn't seem to be a plan B in his defence skillset.

I consider Floyds post prime career as money mayweather..he still had a plan B and tools to deal with loosing his prime and still getting the win.

Roy is great at many things but Floyd is good at everything and great in defence and that seems to be the difference.

That was a sickening attempt to derail a Jones thread to suck up to Floyd. You should be ashamed.

PS Spicoli us paragraphs when you post.

[mikeeod]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

Every article I've read has stated that Hop didn't have anywhere close to 100 amateur fights. If I remember correctly, he had a little experience earlier in life, but walked away from the sport and didn't take up boxing again until in prison. I remember reading somewhere that the bulk of his amateur experience was from his time in prison.

As for Hop's "prime", I feel like Hop is a great example to highlight a fighter's journey through prime years. He was an aggressive, volume fighter vs Roy and Segundo Mercado, a complete boxer-puncher with great defense and superhuman stamina vs Tito, and a wily old boxing genius with diminished stamina vs Taylor and everyone after. I feel the more hypocritical "prime" argument centers around Roy, who went from being "the greatest fighter ever" to glass Joe after one punch and everyone said he got old overnight.

[Fenster]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

Every article I've read has stated that Hop didn't have anywhere close to 100 amateur fights. If I remember correctly, he had a little experience earlier in life, but walked away from the sport and didn't take up boxing again until in prison. I remember reading somewhere that the bulk of his amateur experience was from his time in prison.

As for Hop's "prime", I feel like Hop is a great example to highlight a fighter's journey through prime years. He was an aggressive, volume fighter vs Roy and Segundo Mercado, a complete boxer-puncher with great defense and superhuman stamina vs Tito, and a wily old boxing genius with diminished stamina vs Taylor and everyone after. I feel the more hypocritical "prime" argument centers around Roy, who went from being "the greatest fighter ever" to glass Joe after one punch and everyone said he got old overnight.

Hopkins amateur record is 95-4, he was boxing from age 9. The prison myth makes for a better story though when you're doing TV (how do you think he became penitentiary champ?)

[mikeeod]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

Every article I've read has stated that Hop didn't have anywhere close to 100 amateur fights. If I remember correctly, he had a little experience earlier in life, but walked away from the sport and didn't take up boxing again until in prison. I remember reading somewhere that the bulk of his amateur experience was from his time in prison.

As for Hop's "prime", I feel like Hop is a great example to highlight a fighter's journey through prime years. He was an aggressive, volume fighter vs Roy and Segundo Mercado, a complete boxer-puncher with great defense and superhuman stamina vs Tito, and a wily old boxing genius with diminished stamina vs Taylor and everyone after. I feel the more hypocritical "prime" argument centers around Roy, who went from being "the greatest fighter ever" to glass Joe after one punch and everyone said he got old overnight.

Hopkins amateur record is 95-4, he was boxing from age 9. The prison myth makes for a better story though when you're doing TV (how do you think he became penitentiary champ?)

I saw that 95-4 record on a boxing thread, but I’ve never seen that officially. Do you have a link or place where you saw that? Not calling you a liar, just would like to read the article and see how he did as an amateur.

[Fenster]

Hopkins did have an amateur career, 100 fights as a junior before he went to prison, won trophies and what not. When trying to sell an unknown fighter, the badass prison stuff makes for a much better tale though, especially for TV.

Notions like "prime" are used in a very hypocritical way in boxing. Guys like Hopkins show prime should never be based on age, however, ten years later when he lost he was called "old."

Very inconsistent cherry picking.

Every article I've read has stated that Hop didn't have anywhere close to 100 amateur fights. If I remember correctly, he had a little experience earlier in life, but walked away from the sport and didn't take up boxing again until in prison. I remember reading somewhere that the bulk of his amateur experience was from his time in prison.

As for Hop's "prime", I feel like Hop is a great example to highlight a fighter's journey through prime years. He was an aggressive, volume fighter vs Roy and Segundo Mercado, a complete boxer-puncher with great defense and superhuman stamina vs Tito, and a wily old boxing genius with diminished stamina vs Taylor and everyone after. I feel the more hypocritical "prime" argument centers around Roy, who went from being "the greatest fighter ever" to glass Joe after one punch and everyone said he got old overnight.

Hopkins amateur record is 95-4, he was boxing from age 9. The prison myth makes for a better story though when you're doing TV (how do you think he became penitentiary champ?)

I saw that 95-4 record on a boxing thread, but I’ve never seen that officially. Do you have a link or place where you saw that? Not calling you a liar, just would like to read the article and see how he did as an amateur.

The interview is from way back, not sure if it's still here, Hopkins talks about growing up in Philly gyms with other champions from that area and winning junior titles. Should be easy to find on google.