Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[Barn]

100 posts of basically everyone agreeing how good Jones was.

[JAB5239]

100 posts of basically everyone agreeing how good Jones was.

Like almost every fighter his comp can be criticized. After that there is much to say other than the guy was a phenom. Anyone who can't see that is blind, ****** or both. He the most naturally gifted fighter I have ever seen. Does he win all h2h fights at 175 and below? Not in my opinion. But he's top 25-30 all-time for sure.

[Barn]

Like almost every fighter his comp can be criticized. After that there is much to say other than the guy was a phenom. Anyone who can't see that is blind, ****** or both. He the most naturally gifted fighter I have ever seen. Does he win all h2h fights at 175 and below? Not in my opinion. But he's top 25-30 all-time for sure.

I don't count that as bad as I doubt anyone wins all the fights in a particular division. Especially over a series.

[bojangles1987]

Not suddenly shot in 2011. I meant suddenly percieved as shot when he started his losing streak. Yes, he was considerably older in Hopkins 2. But, then what the hell was Bernard?? Let's not give B-Hop any credit for the win because they hadn't had their re-match earlier before he was "shot." It's just simply unfair to Hopkins. Besides, I think he wanted the fight to happen in years prior, as well. But, I'm not sure Roy did.

You know, Tarver 2 may have just have been a lucky punch. The Glen Johnson fight, also. Roy also lost to a much lesser known Danny Green. But, then B-Hop also had a bad night earlier in his career against a relative unknown who's name escapes me. Was B-Hop shot?? Oh, Roy KO's Montell Griffin in the first round. Umm, maybe cause Griffin was shot at that time. Let's discredit Jones. It's kinda like a double standard, here. RJJ may not have been in his prime several years ago but he was still a decent fighter.

No offense, but you sound like you don't know what you are talking about at all. There was very little luck involved in the Tarver KO, NO luck at all in the Glen Johnson KO, he was completely washed up and embarrassed against Calzaghe, had one brief moment in the third Tarver fight but lost a lopsided fight, and was knocked out in one by a decent fighter in Danny Green, if Green is even that.

Did you seriously just compare Jones knocking out Montell Griffin to Danny Green knocking out Roy? Do you give Denis Lebedev tons of credit for beating Roy and James Toney, because they are unfairly perceived as shot in your mind?

Roy was not "still a decent fighter" when the Hopkins rematch happened. He was flat out done, in every way. Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are trolling.

[bojangles1987]

100 posts of basically everyone agreeing how good Jones was.

What else would we do?

[Barn]

What else would we do?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing.

[GoogleMe]

Where is Reed when we need him?

Absolutely Jones is an ATG ffs. He may not be "The GOAT" but he sure is hell is an elite ATG.....any Top-20 All-Time P4P that doesn't have Jones on it is just plain wrong.

Poet

You really believe RJJ is in the top 20? Not saying he is not, but I wouldn't have expected you'd have him that high

[res]

No, for me there are other indicators that he was greenish outside of his losing to Roy.

First of all, Hopkins is a fighter who became GREAT based almost entirely upon attributes that improve with experience. He is great because he learned how to feint, how to make angles, how to perfect footwork, how to set traps and with the dark arts he uses to get by now. These are not things that come overnight. They are not things that most modern fighters learn at all because they call for more top-line experience against top-line opposition. You just don't learn how to fight like that in 24, or whatever it was, fights against limited opposition.

"It took two years to teach him to trick an opponent to the ropes and counter them."

That's Freddie Roach talking about Pacquiao. The two years he's talking about encompassed fights with Barrera, Morales and Marquez.

No, Hopkins - and for that matter Jones - visibly improved after their fight.

Well, i'd say there is a difference between improving and being green. Personally I define being green relative to the character of your competition rather than relative to an abstract model of the "ultimate Boxer". I don't think being a number 1 contender that would have likely beaten anyone around at that time in his weight class (except Roy) makes him green in the sense in which I mean. Successful boxers always learn from experience before they go down hill. Infact even after they go down hill I believe they continue to learn, it's just that the decline in their other attributes becomes so marked that they can't successfully apply that knowledge. This is the perfect time for them to retire and become trainers.

[res]

Oh, Roy KO's Montell Griffin in the first round. Umm, maybe cause Griffin was shot at that time.

What the heck are you talking about? Montel Griffin lost to Roy 4 years into his own career, and he started fighting 3 years after Roy did.

Yes, he was considerably older in Hopkins 2. But, then what the hell was Bernard??

The key question here is whether or not all fighters should be expected to perform well late into their careers. It's a pretty established fact in Boxing that late 30's and early 40's is long in the tooth for a Boxer. No one takes Ray Leonard's knock out at the hand of Hector Camacho seriously at 40. They don't take Ali's losses in his late 30's to Berbick and Holmes seriously. Yet there have been other great fighters that have successfully fought into their late 30's and 40's, Hopkins being the most exceptional example. They aren't making a big deal of Bernard's accomplishments at his age for no reason. But being able to fight when your old does not in itself make some one a superior fighter.

[Toney616]

No, for me there are other indicators that he was greenish outside of his losing to Roy.

First of all, Hopkins is a fighter who became GREAT based almost entirely upon attributes that improve with experience. He is great because he learned how to feint, how to make angles, how to perfect footwork, how to set traps and with the dark arts he uses to get by now. These are not things that come overnight. They are not things that most modern fighters learn at all because they call for more top-line experience against top-line opposition. You just don't learn how to fight like that in 24, or whatever it was, fights against limited opposition.

"It took two years to teach him to trick an opponent to the ropes and counter them."

That's Freddie Roach talking about Pacquiao. The two years he's talking about encompassed fights with Barrera, Morales and Marquez.

No, Hopkins - and for that matter Jones - visibly improved after their fight.