Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?

[JonesJrMayweather]

One of the friends from my gym who boxes internationally for Jamaica was recently over sparring in Miami after the Pan-Am qualifiers and as a result of the JA connection got to spend a lot of time in the Thump gym with Glen Johnson, who he didn't get to spar with due to preparation for the Froch fight (my boy is a lefty). Anyway he says that when there he got talking to Johnson & Orlando about Roy & their take was that they believed that Roy Jones was the greatest athlete to ever play the sport, but that he never really learned the fundamentals to fall back on and that they believed they could have beaten him at any point because he just didn't know what to do when things weren't going his way. Now I don't know if they're right, but they probably have a better understanding of it than anyone on here does. I don't know how Roy would have done, but he was blessed athletically in a way few fighters are, so I think he could have worked in many an era, but there would always be a question mark over that chin.

*Regarding that Kellerman article, that's why I'm not a fan of placing people in the context of history until they've retired & you have a chance to have a sober look at their resume, whether positively or negatively.

Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?

Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"

[JazMerkin]

Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?

Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"

I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.

The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.

One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!

I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.

[marbleheadmaui]

Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?

Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"

I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.

The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.

One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!

I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.

Yup. We are going to miss JMM, Toney, BHOP and Floyd's technical prowess when they are gone. I'm just not sure among the younger guys have that same level of skill and craft. Ward maybe? Maybe. I fear we are losing some art permenently. Please tell me I'm just not thinking about some obvious guys in their 20's.

[JazMerkin]

Yup. We are going to miss JMM, Toney, BHOP and Floyd's technical prowess when they are gone. I'm just not sure among the younger guys have that same level of skill and craft. Ward maybe? Maybe. I fear we are losing some art permenently. Please tell me I'm just not thinking about some obvious guys in their 20's.

Ward, maybe Chad Dawson, but I'd be sceptical even there. The only hope would be that the future great might be under the radar in the way Hopkins & Toney were. I was having a similar discussion with my trainer just yesterday as he was lamenting the quality of fighters these days with a few notable exceptions.

[JonesJrMayweather]

Mike Macallum who is in the hall of fame was quoted saying after their fight "He's the greatest ever".... And Glen Johnson is just another tarver yapping away after oh wow he beat 35 year old jones who had just been knocked out. What else is going to say? And those that think the weight thing didn't have a impact watch jones take flush punches from Toney before the weight, a solid heavyweight punch in the first round from John Ruiz who dropped Evander. Then all of sudden Johnson who isn't a kayo puncher drops jones?

Even on the air merchant said "there was a time when Roy Jones never got hit by long looping punches like the one he was hit with with" in reference to Johnson kayoing him. Then sat next to Tarver and said "what happened to Roy, was what happened to all the greats, they stay around and eventually lose to fighters who are well below their level"

I think the point is that with the exception of Hopkins is that Johnson is about as much a 'throwback' as there is in modern boxing. Also this is not Johnson talking shit in the media etc, this is him having a serious conversation with a fellow boxer. His opinion is to be at least considered.

The fact is that if Jones was THAT great, he wouldn't have got flat KO'd by a guy who is apparently so below his level. Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Ali & both Benny & Ray Leonard were getting beat up at the end of their careers, but they had more than enough ring savvy to ensure they didn't get rendered unconscious. Roy didn't & hasn't even against guys considerably less skilled than Tarver or Johnson.

One last thing. I wonder about the current view that Roy's chin was his weakness. I'm not so sure. I suspect anyone who is never taught and never practices how to take/roll with a punch could be one punched by a good fighter. Might it not be true that Roy's chin was adequate and his KO's were another example of a technical failing? If that's true and we want to play imaginary games? Think about Roy having been taught that!

I agree with this completely. I suspect he never really had to learn how to take punches because he was always able to dodge them. He never really had to learn how to handle himself when hurt so when he does get hurt bad, he either gets flattened or goes into a desperate shell on the ropes. Compare this with Hopkins when hurt against Pascal or Mayweather against Mosley. Both very defensively sound guys who are rarely hit clean, but when hurt immediately they tie up & then find spots to come back with something for the opponent.

That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.

The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?

I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.

[JonesJrMayweather]

It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.

[Mr140]

Wait are you saying Jones was a better fighter then Leonard was Jonesjrmayweather.

[JonesJrMayweather]

Wait are you saying Jones was a better fighter then Leonard was Jonesjrmayweather.

Yep. Without a doubt.

[marbleheadmaui]

Wait are you saying Jones was a better fighter then Leonard was Jonesjrmayweather.

Yep. Without a doubt.

Yeah? And where exactly are Jones' Hagler, Duran, Benitez and Hearns?

[marbleheadmaui]

It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.

BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.

[Mr140]

I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.

[JonesJrMayweather]

I don't think Jones was a top 10 but he is in my top 25 he was a hell of a fighter but just to many fights he didn't get to have at the time.

Like what fights?

[JonesJrMayweather]

It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.

BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.

You can skip to 29 seconds....

[marbleheadmaui]

It's also funny that some talk about BHOP's technical skills, yet roy clearly out pointed him. But I guess BHOP was too green, even though he had more fights than roy, and he was ranked #1 MW and Roy #2. Roy is discredited as if he was prime and BHOP wasn't. The best version of Roy would have beaten the best version bhop 9 out 10 times.

BHOP was ranked #9 at the time.

You can skip to 29 seconds....

Um those are th IBF rankings and therefore meaningless. Ring had BHOP ninth.

[marbleheadmaui]

That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.

The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?

I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.

Let's be really clear. It is really hard to argue Roy fought in anything but a crummy era. But it is impossible to not stand in awe of what he did to James Toney, a boxing textbook, Virgil Hill, a fine fighter and Montell Griffin, the only time Roy was terrifying. Those are startling performances.

There is pretty close to indisputable evidence Roy was technically unsound. I don't care how he talked, I care what he did! Here is the evidence. Roy went from seeimingly unbeatable to being unable to compete with good fighters almost overnight (in boxing terms). He simply lost it. Now skill doesn't fade that fast, and craft, knowing what you're doing, never really fades. It is native talent that dissappears like that. Once it goes? One must fall back on skill and craft. But if those aren't sound? Look out below. That is what happened to Roy.

Compare him to his peers in time. At 37 Evander Holyfield could still compete with a guy many here think was great in Lennox Lewis. At 40 he could still compete with ranked heavies. Why? He was slower and his reflexes were faded but his skills and craft remained what they had always been, sound. James Toney, who given the way he abused himself should have had a short career? At 35 he defeated a top ranked cruiser in Jirov and at 38 he was competitive with top heavy. Same reasons. Juan Manuel Marquez at 35 became the lightweight champ and has beaten ranked guys three times since, yet he is clearly slowing. BHOP? Well, do we need to spend the time?

What was different between Roy's decline and these other guys? Roy was technically unsound. He frequently crossed his feet, he frequently stepped with the wrong foot and his defense was all reflexes, not developed skill.

Now in my view what happened in and after the Tarver fight doesn't mean much in placing him historically, he clearly was no longer the same guy. But when I imagine him competing with the very best over time? I'm comfortable his technical flaws would be recognized and exploited. Now does that mean he'd always lose to those guys? Not in my mind. What it means is one just can't wish it away.

As regards Floyd? he HAS to be slowing, right? I mean he's what 34 now? But wouldn't you be shocked, and I mean shocked, if Manny just walked through him? I'd be stunned. Why? Because Floyd is technically excellent and Manny is technically inconsistent. Floyd has, and I suspect will, age gracefully because his skill and craft are excellent away from his native talent.

Had Roy retired at 32-33? By what possible criteria, other than a vivid imagination, put him anywhere close to the top five ? I mean look at my Ezzard summary. 21 wins over HOFers and he beat 40 ranked guys while going from 160-heavy. And at heavy he didn't beat one guy, he beat a passell of them. And NOBODY puts Ezzard in the top five.

When we look back at the guys we are comparing Roy to? Remember we also know how they finished and faded. There are no rose colored glasses freezing, for example, Billy Conn in place. By the time he was 28 he was DONE, and I mean done the way Roy is done. Why? Well four years in the Navy without touching a glove will do that to you.

Lastly, please understand that my views on Roy are limited to comparing him to other great fighters. The starting point with Roy is he accomplished more than 99.99999% of all fighters who ever walked.