# Where do you rank Roy Jones Junior, in the ATG listings?



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

Simple question with a poll.

I'd like to hear why as well.

What have you got guys?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

*#29 Roy Jones (56-8)*

Roy Jones was a phenom, one of those one-in-a-lifetime talents that comes along and just dazzles. Of all fighters that appear on film, Jones is the one who appears most otherworldly. For all that the other phenoms in boxing history are extraordinary it is Jones who has the appearance of being plugged into a totally different matrix; he was a fighter upon whom gravity seemed not to work the magic that left the professionals with whom he shared the ring earthbound.

He fought his sixteenth professional fight against former strapholder Jorge Vaca, playing a seemingly crude fairground game against the fleetingly aggressive Mexican, winging in the kind of wide hooks a prospect must be cured of in order to progress. Such was Roy's speed that not only could Vaca not take advantage, but in fact he was stopped in the first round, a look of confusion betraying his uncertainty as to what had hit him as he struggled to regain control of his forearms, which gingerly controlled his swaying weight. Not a technician in the truest sense of the word, Jones punched all the way from his boots and had a supernatural grasp of positioning from his earliest days as a professional. He organized himself in ways that demonstrated natural feints against an opponent desperate for any opportunity to land on an opponent who was almost impossible to hit. If an opponent moved in the way Jones expected, his trap was sprung without providing an opportunity for the opponent to react-and if they didn't move in he had still positioned himself in such a way as to throw his punches with fractions of seconds shaved from them, fractions that mattered because he was a fighter already arguably peerless in terms of speed.

This brought him wins in twenty-two "world" title fights between 1993 and mid-2004 from middleweight up to heavyweight. His most notable victims include three men from this list, James Toney, Mike McCallum and Bernard Hopkins. All were completely outclassed, world-class talents who looked to all intents and purposes as though they did not belong in the ring with Jones.

Arguably his best win came up at heavyweight, when he became the first man since Bob Fitzsimmons to hold titles at both middle and heavy. Ruiz was a strapholder rather than a legitimate champion, but even so, like the greater but smaller men Jones dominated, he offered little in the way of resistance. Roy's one loss during these peak years was a questionable and brutally avenged disqualification.

Such was his domination and pound-for-pound standing in his own era that his crash was bound to be spectacular, and so it proved. Devastating knockouts rendered by fighters not of his standing brought into question a chin that was so rarely tested in his dizzying prime, but from late '94 to early '96, Jones appeared peerless-not just in his own time, but for all time.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

McGrain said:


> *#29 Roy Jones (56-8)*
> 
> Roy Jones was a phenom, one of those one-in-a-lifetime talents that comes along and just dazzles. Of all fighters that appear on film, Jones is the one who appears most otherworldly. For all that the other phenoms in boxing history are extraordinary it is Jones who has the appearance of being plugged into a totally different matrix; he was a fighter upon whom gravity seemed not to work the magic that left the professionals with whom he shared the ring earthbound.
> 
> ...


great write-up. Roy is #1 all time on the film-test, the eye-test.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

McGrain said:


> *#29 Roy Jones (56-8)*
> 
> Roy Jones was a phenom, one of those one-in-a-lifetime talents that comes along and just dazzles. Of all fighters that appear on film, Jones is the one who appears most otherworldly. For all that the other phenoms in boxing history are extraordinary it is Jones who has the appearance of being plugged into a totally different matrix; he was a fighter upon whom gravity seemed not to work the magic that left the professionals with whom he shared the ring earthbound.
> 
> ...


Great post.

You touched on something that I think is often overlooked when Jones is judged today. He had a very high ring IQ.

In my honest opinion (And it may well be a result of my growing up in that era), we've never had a greater pure talent.

Had he retired after Ruiz, what do you think the general consensus would be?


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

Anywhere between 20-30.

Growing up watching Roy was like seeing a video game, I doubt I'll ever see someone as physically gifted as Roy. 

Seems like a nice guy too, despite his horrible childhood & I hope he finally hangs up his gloves soon & sticks to commentary.


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

No such thing as general consensus on these forums bro...ranked just below Moore and Leonard, perhaps. Alongside the likes of McGovern, Dixon and Whitaker.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

anything higher than 30 is :nono


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

#1 easily.


----------



## LFC_Rambo (May 26, 2013)

With roids or without?

:franklin


----------



## Arran (Jun 21, 2012)

honestly, i find it hard to rank drugs cheats. and he slips due to being ko'd all over the planet at the end of his career, he had a good peak...but his career overall is littered with losses...coupled with being a cheat....maybe 70th. I mean...8 losses today....90's onwards is a hell of a lot of losses for a so called ATG. Back when fighters had like 150+ fighters it was acceptable, today? nah!


----------



## LFC_Rambo (May 26, 2013)

Arran said:


> honestly, i find it hard to rank drugs cheats. and he slips due to being ko'd all over the planet at the end of his career, he had a good peak...but his career overall is littered with losses...coupled with being a cheat....maybe 70th. I mean...8 losses today....90's onwards is a hell of a lot of losses for a so called ATG. Back when fighters had like 150+ fighters it was acceptable, today? nah!


This


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Roy Jones > Calzaghe deal with it United Kingdom :-(


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Arran said:


> honestly, i find it hard to rank drugs cheats. and he slips due to being ko'd all over the planet at the end of his career, he had a good peak...but his career overall is littered with losses...coupled with being a cheat....maybe 70th. I mean...8 losses today....90's onwards is a hell of a lot of losses for a so called ATG. Back when fighters had like 150+ fighters it was acceptable, today? nah!


He wasn't a drugs cheat....

As for his ranking, if I'm doing so based on resume, he isn't going to be very high. Despite Jones' obvious talents, he wasted too much of his prime fighting bums. Jones had the opportunity to beat a better standard of opposition but he often didn't take it.


----------



## LFC_Rambo (May 26, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy Jones > Calzaghe deal with it United Kingdom :-(




































:baz


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

As someone with his username consigned to RJJ, I'd have to put him within the top 11-20. If he had retired after the Ruiz fight, I'm sure the general public would have him within the top 10.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> anything higher than 30 is :nono


31


----------



## TBooze (Dec 9, 2012)

Last time I did a top 100 (January 2011), I had him at number 38.

Always a disappointment, he should of been up there with Robinson, but too often choose the easy options. Which was strange, because even if he fought in the UK and Germany against Benn, Eubank, Collins, Michalczewski et al, I think he would shown himself a class above them all. That would have given him more scope to show he deserved a higher rating, maybe much higher...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

#3


----------



## DobyZhee (May 19, 2013)

I remember when he got KO'd by Glen Johnson...

was waitin for that day to happen


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

I don't know how people can have him in their top 20??

He was arguably the most impressive on film. Sure. Dominated B class opponents like no other person can. Only Toney was a great fighter, and maybe Hopkins. The rest were past prime. The move up to heavyweight to fight Ruiz who still was a legit heavyweight with some top 10 wins, is underrated IMO. 

I have him around 29th too.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

1-10? I would not put him there at all, his quality of opposition and his willingness to fight the best does not warrant him that high a ranking. But his skill level and potential is 1-10. I put him more near 35-40.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

Depends on how you want to rank your all time list. Prime vs prime he is number 1 hands down. Since we we can't do that I have him at 9. First it's kind I hard to hold his past prime losses against him if you're not going to do it against all the other greats who stuck around past their primes losing to guys you know they would have dominated in their primes. Ali, Tyson, Leonard, and so many others. Jones also had a solid résumé if you really look at it and understand who those guys are and their status in the division at that time.

Sure he had a few bums but so did every other Atg and one of the reason he had a few bums is bc he was obsessed with his belts. He didnt want to fight his mandatory Frazier but he was going to be stripped of his title if he didnt. We tend to blame him for fights with Benn, Eubanks and a few others despite the fact that some of these guys have said at one time they weren't ready for him or didnt want him at the time it could have happened. Plus he was the man and I didn't see them coming over here to challenge him but we expect him to travel to see guys who where beneath him.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I just watch him fight and conclude he's amongst the top 3 fighters in history.


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

Top 25 ATG


----------



## Sweethome_Bama (Jul 29, 2012)

He is top 5.


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

Number 1 bc he beat an IN PRIME ATG of BHOP and TONEY and RUIZ!!!


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

DobyZhee said:


> I remember when he got KO'd by Glen Johnson...
> 
> was waitin for that day to happen


Did you miss the day he got KO'd by Tarver? Because that happened first.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Jones is probably the most difficult fighter of my lifetime for me to rank. He was phenomenal physically; able to do pretty much everything wrong and still dominate. Nobody belonged in the same ring as him. Unfortunately, many of the guys he fought didn't deserve to be in a lot of rings and there is the ever present likelihood that his physical traits were enhanced with PEDs.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Roy should put out an instructional dvd series on how to get knocked the fuck out


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Greatest of All Time P4P No1. If you want to know more, watch his fights in his prime.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Brnxhands said:


> Roy should put out an instructional dvd series on how to get knocked the fuck out


So should Pacquiao


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

yeah he should. thread says Roy Jones Jr though...


turbotime said:


> So should Pacquiao


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Roy is 25-30 all time. Ability and talent alone much higher


----------



## heavyweightcp (Jun 11, 2013)

Who ever put this dude 1-10 is a disgrace to boxing


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

11-25


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

heavyweightcp said:


> Who ever put this dude 1-10 is a disgrace to boxing


No, actually....

I don´t put him there though...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I put him number 3. I rank purely on the eye test.

Have others achieved more? Sure
Have others beat better fighters? Sure
Have others displayed as much talent? Not so sure.

People can compile rankings however they want, be a slave to the numbers if you desire but I'd rather watch a fighter in his best years and judge him from there.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

heavyweightcp said:


> Who ever put this dude 1-10 is a disgrace to boxing


:lol:


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Yeah he doesn't deserve to be close to top ten. The only great fighter he beat was Toney. It's not hard to look like Superman against the likes of Vinny Paz.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> Yeah he doesn't deserve to be close to top ten. The only great fighter he beat was Toney. It's not hard to look like Superman against the likes of Vinny Paz.


how many people looked like superman against Toney and Hopkins? How many even could?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> how many people looked like superman against Toney and Hopkins? How many even could?


1. Hopkins was clearly green and since when did Jones look like Superman? Hopkins took the last 4 rounds.

2. He looked good against Toney, but I'm not going to rank him one of the 10th best fighters of all time because one victory.

He had consistently fought poor opposition in a time when he should of been fighting legit challengers.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins was clearly green and since when did Jones look like Superman? Hopkins took the last 4 rounds.
> 
> 2. He looked good against Toney, but I'm not going to rank him one of the 10th best fighters of all time because one victory.
> 
> He had consistently fought poor opposition in a time when he should of been fighting legit challengers.


1) he beat Hopkins more clearly than anyone ever would do. You label Hopkins green, what did Hopkins improve most in your opinion over the next 5 or so years?

2) he did look great that's because he's a great talent.

I dont care about all these legit challengers he supposedly ducked. You can watch him fight against some of the greatest talents our sport has ever seen and win clear victories. As I said, I rank on the eye test. I defy anyone to find 10 better boxers than Jones Jr.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins was clearly green and since when did Jones look like Superman? Hopkins took the last 4 rounds.
> 
> 2. He looked good against Toney, but I'm not going to rank him one of the 10th best fighters of all time because one victory.
> 
> He had consistently fought poor opposition in a time when he should of been fighting legit challengers.


Why was Hopkins clearly green?


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins was clearly green and since when did Jones look like Superman? Hopkins took the last 4 rounds.
> 
> 2. He looked good against Toney, but I'm not going to rank him one of the 10th best fighters of all time because one victory.
> 
> He had consistently fought poor opposition in a time when he should of been fighting legit challengers.


If Hopkins was green then what was Jones? Face it he beat a great boxer in Hopkins and Hopkins didnt lose for like a decade after Jones beat him. Who is this consistently poor opponents? Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, Griffin, Gonzalez, Ruiz, and several others are damn good wins. Jones has a decent résumé and you can find a few bums on every Atg record.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) he beat Hopkins more clearly than anyone ever would do. You label Hopkins green, what did Hopkins improve most in your opinion over the next 5 or so years?
> 
> 2) he did look great that's because he's a great talent.
> 
> I dont care about all these legit challengers he supposedly ducked. You can watch him fight against some of the greatest talents our sport has ever seen and win clear victories. As I said, I rank on the eye test. I defy anyone to find 10 better boxers than Jones Jr.


1. Hopkins was clearly green, it isn't even a point that is usually argued. What you have to appreciate is that Hopkins success largely comes from his experience at the top level and the fashioning of his fighting style. Those two thing come from longevity and consistent, tough competition. When he fought RJJ he hadn't fought at the top level and he had fought anyone legit. It's a textbook example of a green fighter. Even after the RJJ fight he wasn't close to being as good as he eventually was. Mercado dropped him twice and earned a draw. As I said, Hopkins gradually improved over time and become an experience veteran. He simply wasn't as good in his younger days and definitely not as good when Roy fought him.

2. That's a bit of an inconclusive statement. He didn't look as good as you suggested against Hopkins, have you seen the fight? He used his speed well and to keep Hopkins away in the first half of the fight but he got wore down in the second half and lost the last 4 rounds. Since when does a fighter looks great when he loses the last 4 rounds to a green opponent who hadn't beaten anyone yet? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't apply that same standard to any other fighter who loses the last 4 to an up and coming guy.

3. None one has denied RJJ is a great talent, but by in large, he was a great _waste_ of talent. We only saw that talent against one great fighter (at the time) and that was always a good stylistic match for Roy. We never saw the 'eye test' against guys who had a chance to knock him out. Actually, the first time we did see that, he did get knocked out. The 'eye test' wasn't tested against a variation of styles, he never fought a great fighter who could close the distance and pin him down (And yes that could happen, if Griffin could do it for periods of their fight, then it stands to reason that a great pressure fighter could do the same). To put it simply, the 'eye test' doesn't work. Certain fighters look better against certain fighters, certain fighters styles are accelerated by inferior competition.

10 better boxers? I'm pretty sure I could find 20-30.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> If Hopkins was green then what was Jones? Face it he beat a great boxer in Hopkins and Hopkins didnt lose for like a decade after Jones beat him. Who is this consistently poor opponents? Virgil Hill, Reggie Johnson, Griffin, Gonzalez, Ruiz, and several others are damn good wins. Jones has a decent résumé and you can find a few bums on every Atg record.


Jones was also in-experienced at the top level, but unlike Hopkins, his skills and talents were amplified by his young age. Hopkins fighting game matured with him. He simply wasn't as good of a fighter back then. Do you think Hopkins was born with such a well rounded understanding of the fight game? That's not something that's inherent, you get it from experience and that is exactly what he did. All the tricks he picked up helped him become the fighter he is today. He didn't have that experience when he fought Roy.

How are they 'damn' good wins? We are meant to be talking about a guy who is getting ranked as one of the top ten fighters in the sport. You can pick up any ATG resume and I guarantee they will have a better showcase of wins, because they wouldn't be an ATG if they didn't. I don't deny his resume is decent/good, but I was replying to a guy who was ranking him top ten of all time.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins was clearly green, it isn't even a point that is usually argued. What you have to appreciate is that Hopkins success largely comes from his experience at the top level and the fashioning of his fighting style. Those two thing come from longevity and consistent, tough competition. When he fought RJJ he hadn't fought at the top level and he had fought anyone legit. It's a textbook example of a green fighter. Even after the RJJ fight he wasn't close to being as good as he eventually was. Mercado dropped him twice and earned a draw. As I said, Hopkins gradually improved over time and become an experience veteran. He simply wasn't as good in his younger days and definitely not as good when Roy fought him.
> 
> 2. That's a bit of an inconclusive statement. He didn't look as good as you suggested against Hopkins, have you seen the fight? He used his speed well and to keep Hopkins away in the first half of the fight but he got wore down in the second half and lost the last 4 rounds. Since when does a fighter looks great when he loses the last 4 rounds to a green opponent who hadn't beaten anyone yet? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't apply that same standard to any other fighter who loses the last 4 to an up and coming guy.
> 
> ...


 4 rounds get the hell out of here :lol: Roy won the 9th and 10th round too by the way


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> 4 rounds get the hell out of here :lol: Roy won the 9th and 10th round too by the way


All three judges gave Hopkins 4 rounds, along with a lot of people I've spoken to on this matter.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> 4 rounds get the hell out of here :lol: Roy won the 9th and 10th round too by the way


He is speaking only from opinion and he thinks guys like Virgil Hill are bums for some reason.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> All three judges gave Hopkins 4 rounds, along with a lot of people I've spoken to on this matter.


Yes but you're wearing your ass as a mouth when you say Hopkins won the last 4.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> All three judges gave Hopkins 4 rounds, along with a lot of people I've spoken to on this matter.


Which goes to show Hopkins wasn't too Green. He won more rounds than anyone else for years.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins was clearly green, it isn't even a point that is usually argued. What you have to appreciate is that Hopkins success largely comes from his experience at the top level and the fashioning of his fighting style. Those two thing come from longevity and consistent, tough competition. When he fought RJJ he hadn't fought at the top level and he had fought anyone legit. It's a textbook example of a green fighter. Even after the RJJ fight he wasn't close to being as good as he eventually was. Mercado dropped him twice and earned a draw. As I said, Hopkins gradually improved over time and become an experience veteran. He simply wasn't as good in his younger days and definitely not as good when Roy fought him.
> 
> 2. That's a bit of an inconclusive statement. He didn't look as good as you suggested against Hopkins, have you seen the fight? He used his speed well and to keep Hopkins away in the first half of the fight but he got wore down in the second half and lost the last 4 rounds. Since when does a fighter looks great when he loses the last 4 rounds to a green opponent who hadn't beaten anyone yet? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't apply that same standard to any other fighter who loses the last 4 to an up and coming guy.
> 
> ...


1) what do you mean by clearly green?

2) yes it is a great performance against a great fighter. I suggest you rewatch his fights with Hopkins and Toney.

3) nearly every opponent he fought tried to close the distance they just weren't able. and the first time someone had chance to knock him out was when he'd declined so much that his reflexes were no longer other worldly.

4) do it, name 30 boxers you feel have more talent than Jones.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> He is speaking only from opinion and he thinks guys like Virgil Hill are bums for some reason.


What else could I be speaking from? And actually the only factual information you could consider on the scoring of a fight is the judges final scoring. All three judges gave him four rounds. So yeah, if anyone's speaking entirely from opinion, it's not me.

I don't think they are bums, but they are fighters who pad his resume. He could have fought much better fighters at the time. I never said at any point Virgil Hill was a bum. He wouldn't be used to showcase Tommy Hearn's resume would he? But when RJJ is mentioned it has to be classed as one of his standout wins. That should tell you all you need to know.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) what do you mean by clearly green?
> 
> 2) yes it is a great performance against a great fighter. I suggest you rewatch his fights with Hopkins and Toney.
> 
> ...


1. He was't the same fighter that he become. He wasn't experienced at the top level. Pre-prime. As I've already said, Hopkins fight game matured with age, he picked up all the tricks in the book and refined his skills through experience. Unlike RJJ, he wasn't born with that kind of talent, he had to earn it. He hadn't picked up all that experience before the RJJ fight, I don't know how that can be argued.

2. I disagree.

3. And how many of those were great opponents? Toney tried to box with him and it didn't work. Who are the 'plenty' of fighters who really put pressure on him? We'll then see how many of them are great fighters.

4. Why the sudden change of the boundaries, you can't just change the terms willy nilly. You went from name 10 better boxers, to name 30 more talented boxers? That's not the same thing, obviously. Which one is it? ATG rankings aren't based on pure talent, they are based on amalgamation of criteria.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> What else could I be speaking from? And actually the only factual information you could consider on the scoring of a fight is the judges final scoring. All three judges gave him four rounds. So yeah, if anyone's speaking entirely from opinion, it's not me.
> 
> I don't think they are bums, but they are fighters who pad his resume. He could have fought much better fighters at the time. I never said at any point Virgil Hill was a bum. He wouldn't be used to showcase Tommy Hearn's resume would he? But when RJJ is mentioned it has to be classed as one of his standout wins. That should tell you all you need to know.


So who should Jones have fought and why is his fault that certain guys didnt fight him. It doesn't all fall on him alone. He was the man and if guys like Benn really wanted Jones they should have came to the states to get him and get whipped like the rest did. You say guys got used to pad his résumé but most of those guys were clear champs in the division when Roy faced them or ranked 1 or 2 behind him. Also tell me something. Prime for prime who beats Jones from 175 down?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> Which goes to show Hopkins wasn't too Green. He won more rounds than anyone else for years.


Erm no it doesn't, it shows he was a still a good fighter and it shows that RJJ struggled with his gas tank at the weight. It doesn't for one second how that he wasn't a green fighter, it just shows how interesting a fight it would of been if Hopkins was in his prime.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> 1. He was't the same fighter that he become. He wasn't experienced at the top level. Pre-prime. As I've already said, Hopkins fight game matured with age, he picked up all the tricks in the book and refined his skills through experience. Unlike RJJ, he wasn't born with that kind of talent, he had to earn it. He hadn't picked up all that experience before the RJJ fight, I don't know how that can be argued.
> 
> 2. I disagree.
> 
> ...


Sosa tried to pressure him along with a few others and they paid the price for that. What are we holding Roy accountable now for the game plans of his opponents? There was a price to pay to try and get close to Jones bc you could get hit with 3 or 4 shots in the head and body and he was gone before you could throw one shot.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Erm no it doesn't, it shows he was a still a good fighter and it shows that RJJ struggled with his gas tank at the weight. It doesn't for one second how that he wasn't a green fighter, it just shows how interesting a fight it would of been if Hopkins was in his prime.


Oh the same Prime Hopkins that lost to Taylor who was t close to the fighter Jones was when He beat Hopkins.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Erm no it doesn't, it shows he was a still a good fighter and* it shows that RJJ struggled with his gas tank *at the weight. It doesn't for one second how that he wasn't a green fighter, it just shows how interesting a fight it would of been if Hopkins was in his prime.


Admit you've never watched the fight.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Admit you've never watched the fight.


I don't get that struggling with his gas tank. The first time we seen Jones tired in a fight was against Tarver and he was tired after a few rounds.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> So who should Jones have fought and why is his fault that certain guys didnt fight him. It doesn't all fall on him alone. He was the man and if guys like Benn really wanted Jones they should have came to the states to get him and get whipped like the rest did. You say guys got used to pad his résumé but most of those guys were clear champs in the division when Roy faced them or ranked 1 or 2 behind him. Also tell me something. Prime for prime who beats Jones from 175 down?


How about the lineal light heavyweight champion (Not a paper champion likes Jones)Michaelczewski?

What has head to head got to with ATG rankings? It's a completely different thing. It's funny because every time his resume has been brought into question, you guys have flip flopped from the best to the most talented and now to the best head to head. At least be consistent.

And for the record, I'd firmly predict Carlos Monzon to beat him at Middleweight.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> I don't get that struggling with his gas tank. The first time we seen Jones tired in a fight was against Tarver and he was tired after a few rounds.


:conf


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> How about the lineal light heavyweight champion (Not a paper champion likes Jones)* Michaelczewski? *


What about him? The guy was Reggie Johnson level. How much credit you give Jones for that one?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Admit you've never watched the fight.


What are you talking about? Have you seen the fight? It's pretty well known that Jones struggled in the last four rounds and that was largely due to him cutting a shit load of weight to get down to Middleweight, he wasn't a strong 12 round fighter at that weight.

Why are you so adamant that Hopkins didn't do well in the last four rounds? Plenty of reports confirm what I am saying and so do the judges scorecards.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> What about him? The guy was Reggie Johnson level. How much credit you give Jones for that one?


A Reggie Johnson level fighter who was the lineal champion at the weight for a number of years? Yeah ok. I'd give credit to Jones for beating the number one guy at the weight and picking up legitimate world titles.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> A Reggie Johnson level fighter who was the lineal champion at the weight for a number of years? Yeah ok. I'd give credit to Jones for beating the number one guy at the weight and picking up legitimate world titles.


Jones was the #1 guy at the weight. Anyone with a set of eyes can see that.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. He was't the same fighter that he become. He wasn't experienced at the top level. Pre-prime. As I've already said, Hopkins fight game matured with age, he picked up all the tricks in the book and refined his skills through experience. Unlike RJJ, he wasn't born with that kind of talent, he had to earn it. He hadn't picked up all that experience before the RJJ fight, I don't know how that can be argued.
> 
> 2. I disagree.
> 
> ...


1) Hopkins fights through footwork and anticipation. Against Jones he was neutralised not through experience but through speed. Many times he could maneouvere himself but as soon as he was set Jones had moved again and fired off a shot. Many times he could set up the counter right but before he had chance to throw it Jones had landed and moved away. Hopkins didn't magically become a better fighter, his opposition got worse. Hopkins looked slightly ragged and wild because Jones was so elusive but also clowning. Very few could clown Hopkins. It wasn't the purest form of boxing but in schooling Hopkins he demonstrated he was a level above.

2) I would love to see anyone justify scoring the last 4 to Hopkins. I thought you were joking when you said that. There isn't a single round where Jones did not land the best shot. If you are trying to give Hopkins rounds you need to pick some of the closer ones early on. All he did down the stretch was increase his activity but decrease his defence leading to Jones landing some beautiful punches.

3) Hopkins tried to press him, even Tarver tried to press him. Everyone tried to press him because there was no way to beat him otherwise. Griffin performed the best with his frontfoot countering but he began to wilt also and had Jones waited 10 seconds he'd be a knockout victim. So to answer you question just read his resume because they all tried to close the distance from to Ruiz. Decided yourself which names are great.

4) because you said you could name 30. I challenge you to do so.

5) your list can be based on whatever you want. Mine is based on talent and the only 2 men sitting above Jones on my list are Robinson and Pea.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Yet he held paper titles that were stripped from Rochigiani and Michalczewski. It doesn't even matter that Jones is the better fighter, we are talking about guys he should of fought.

Why do you think Jones shouldn't of fought the Lineal WBA WBO IBF Ring Magazine champion at his weight class?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> How about the lineal light heavyweight champion (Not a paper champion likes Jones)Michaelczewski?
> 
> What has head to head got to with ATG rankings? It's a completely different thing. It's funny because every time his resume has been brought into question, you guys have flip flopped from the best to the most talented and now to the best head to head. At least be consistent.
> 
> And for the record, I'd firmly predict Carlos Monzon to beat him at Middleweight.


It's not a thread about resume. It's a thread about atg lists. You wanna rank on resume, fine. Doesn't mean everyone else has to.

Also noone in the real world considered DM the man of the division.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

@TFG Because titles stopped mattering more than a decade ago. Dariusz is just a name blowing in the wind for butthurt euros to bring up. Roy Jones beat guys that beat him anyways, as did Johnson.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> Yet he held paper titles that were stripped from Rochigiani and Michalczewski. It doesn't even matter that Jones is the better fighter, we are talking about guys he should of fought.
> 
> Why do you think Jones shouldn't of fought the Lineal WBA WBO IBF Ring Magazine champion at his weight class?


DM was never ring champ. The comment about Rocky genuinely made me :lol:


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) Hopkins fights through footwork and anticipation. Against Jones he was neutralised not through experience but through speed. Many times he could maneouvere himself but as soon as he was set Jones had moved again and fired off a shot. Many times he could set up the counter right but before he had chance to throw it Jones had landed and moved away. Hopkins didn't magically become a better fighter, his opposition got worse. Hopkins looked slightly ragged and wild because Jones was so elusive but also clowning. Very few could clown Hopkins. It wasn't the purest form of boxing but in schooling Hopkins he demonstrated he was a level above.
> 
> 2) I would love to see anyone justify scoring the last 4 to Hopkins. I thought you were joking when you said that. There isn't a single round where Jones did not land the best shot. If you are trying to give Hopkins rounds you need to pick some of the closer ones early on. All he did down the stretch was increase his activity but decrease his defence leading to Jones landing some beautiful punches.
> 
> ...





> Hopkins didn't magically become a better fighter, his opposition got worse.


This doesn't even make sense, of course he didn't 'magically' become a better fighter, he become a better fighter by you know...fighting. How can you say his opposition got worse? What are you even referring to here? If you're trying to say he got better by fighting worse people then you must be trolling. Hopkins went on to fight and beat the likes of Trinidad, DLH, Tarver, Wright etc.

You really think that despite not fighting any one of note and being largely inexperienced, Hopkins still knew all the tricks and understood the fight game like he did in the latter half of his career? Hopkins got better throughout his career, it's even debatable. Who was the better fighter, the BHOP who fought Jones are the Hop who fought Trinidad?

2. You are really off the mark here, all four judges gave Hopkins four rounds and the last three rounds were the ones that were unanimously scored for Hopkins. The 9th could of went either way. The only other round that you may of been able to score for Hop was the 6th.

3. We've already established Hopkins was green, so who are the other great fighters who put real pressure on him? Seeing as Tarver knocked him out. Why can't you tell me which names are great? I think I know why. None of them were great.

4. Erm no, I said I could name 20-30 _better _boxers, you then said name 20-30 more _talented _boxers.It isn't the same thing.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Also Jones should have defended against DM
Robinson should have defended against Burley
Armstrong should have defended against Burley
Whittaker should have defended against Tito/Quartey
Hearns should have defended against McCallum
Duran should have defended against McCallum
Leonard should have defended against Curry
Louis should have defended against Bivins

Very few fighters have defensive reigns were they missed noone. Lewis, Hagler, Monzon, Pep it's a great achievement.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> DM was never ring champ. The comment about Rocky genuinely made me :lol:


I can't remember if he was Ring Champ, but he held the legit titles in the weight division, why shouldn't of Jones fought him? He fought worse opposition than he could of, that is a fact and DM is a perfect example.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> This doesn't even make sense, of course he didn't 'magically' become a better fighter, he become a better fighter by you know...fighting. How can you say his opposition got worse? What are you even referring to here? If you're trying to say he got better by fighting worse people then you must be trolling. Hopkins went on to fight and beat the likes of Trinidad, DLH, Tarver, Wright etc.
> 
> You really think that despite not fighting any one of note and being largely inexperienced, Hopkins still knew all the tricks and understood the fight game like he did in the latter half of his career? Hopkins got better throughout his career, it's even debatable. Who was the better fighter, the BHOP who fought Jones are the Hop who fought Trinidad?
> 
> ...


1) if Jones stays at mw Hopkins is never mw champion. That's what I meant by opposition getting worse.

2) watch the fight yourself and tell me Hopkins clearly won 10&12. I appreciate you're too far in to retract now but watch it anyways just so we can both know the truth.

3) why should I sit here listing names when you can search boxrec just as well as me. We obviously have different opinions on great. You call Hopkins green, I call Hopkins great.

4) cba with semantics. My list is based on talent. Based on what I see when I watch a prime fighter in action. Jones is number 3 on that list.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> Also Jones should have defended against DM
> Robinson should have defended against Burley
> Armstrong should have defended against Burley
> Whittaker should have defended against Tito/Quartey
> ...


The difference is, every other fighter on that list has an extensive list of great victories. Do we need to compare their resumes one by one? It's acceptable to miss a fight occasionally if you are always fighting the best opposition, but Jones didn't do that. The evidence is all there.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> I can't remember if he was Ring Champ, but he held the legit titles in the weight division, why shouldn't of Jones fought him? He fought worse opposition than he could of, that is a fact and DM is a perfect example.


ah you must have misread the word "should" for "shouldn't".

Easy mistake to make, no harm done :good


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> The difference is, every other fighter on that list has an extensive list of great victories. Do we need to compare their resumes one by one? It's acceptable to miss a fight occasionally if you are always fighting the best opposition, but Jones didn't do that. The evidence is all there.


compare resume all you want. I find it boring.

Now compare film of them if you want and tell me why they should rank above Jones.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> I can't remember if he was Ring Champ, but he held the legit titles in the weight division, why shouldn't of Jones fought him? He fought worse opposition than he could of, that is a fact and DM is a perfect example.


Jones beat all top-ranked contenders from the period of '99 to when he lost his title to Tarver with the exception of Telesco.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) if Jones stays at mw Hopkins is never mw champion. That's what I meant by opposition getting worse.
> 
> 2) watch the fight yourself and tell me Hopkins clearly won 10&12. I appreciate you're too far in to retract now but watch it anyways just so we can both know the truth.
> 
> ...


1. Disagree, and I don't see how saying that is the same as saying "Hopkins didn't magically get better, he fought worse opposition". Why can't you understand that Hopkins was like fine wine? He got better with age and experience. Who would really dispute this?

2. I scored the last three for Hopkins last time I scored it which was sometime last year. Plenty of people agree with me, you're in no position to try and make it out to be an outlandish scorecard.

3. Because their obviously isn't any great names there who pressured Jones, I'd rather you just admitted that.

4. Fair enough, if you'd of said that at the beginning then it would of been completely different. Better and more talented are two different things.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm pretty sure Roy was the number 1 MW. The number 1 SMW. The number 1 LHW. Top 5 HW. The number 1 p4p. Not what I'd call a paper champ anyways.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> compare resume all you want. I find it boring.
> 
> Now compare film of them if you want and tell me why they should rank above Jones.


Because 99% of ATG lists aren't just based on pure talent.

Resume's are important, whether you find them boring or not.

I have no problem with you thinking Jones is one of the most talented, that's just completely subjective. I was just reminding you that it's a lot easier to look more talented against inferior opposition.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Luf said:


> I'm pretty sure Roy was the number 1 MW. The number 1 SMW. The number 1 LHW. Top 5 HW. The number 1 p4p. Not what I'd call a paper champ anyways.


Spot on, some people just like to criticize Roy...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Disagree, and I don't see how saying that is the same as saying "Hopkins didn't magically get better, he fought worse opposition". Why can't you understand that Hopkins was like fine wine? He got better with age and experience. Who would really dispute this?
> 
> 2. I scored the last three for Hopkins last time I scored it which was sometime last year. Plenty of people agree with me, you're in no position to try and make it out to be an outlandish scorecard.
> 
> ...


1) my dispute is with the word green. He wasn't peak but he wasn't green. Not only was he not green he was a great fighter and only Jones would have beaten him that night.

2) bollox mate. Noone could score them last 3 to Hopkins and justify it. It is outlandish.

3) I class Hopkins as great.

4) all through the thread I've made it clear I rank on eye test and talent. You wanna make an issue over the word better that's upto you. I cba with semantics.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> I'm pretty sure Roy was the number 1 MW. The number 1 SMW. The number 1 LHW. Top 5 HW. The number 1 p4p. Not what I'd call a paper champ anyways.


He was most certainly a paper champion at Light Heavy and Heavy. Why would Jones be ranked above DM at Light Heavy? He was the one who held the proper belts.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> Because 99% of ATG lists aren't just based on pure talent.
> 
> Resume's are important, whether you find them boring or not.
> 
> I have no problem with you thinking Jones is one of the most talented, that's just completely subjective. I was just reminding you that it's a lot easier to look more talented against inferior opposition.


don't make a stat if you can't back it up.

believe me I know they are important. Downstairs I have an excel spreadsheet featuring every top ten opponent of about 350 boxers. It is useful, just not how I prefer to rank fighter due to it being boring.

If you have no problem I dont see why you are wasting time on the debate. I voted him top ten in my list and went forth to justify why. I believe he is amongst the most talented in filmed history.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

TFG said:


> Because 99% of ATG lists aren't just based on pure talent.
> 
> Resume's are important, whether you find them boring or not.
> 
> I have no problem with you thinking Jones is one of the most talented, that's just completely subjective. I was just reminding you that it's a lot easier to look more talented against inferior opposition.


How do you define resume ? Level of opposition. How do you evaluate level of opposition without take talent into consideration ? You are not a good oponent if you don´t have talent. So, ultimately, you are evaluating talent, he beat some talented fighters, some underrated ones actually. Of course, you can find others who beat higher number of talented fighters, but that doesn´t make Roy´s opposition not talented.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) my dispute is with the word green. He wasn't peak but he wasn't green. Not only was he not green he was a great fighter and only Jones would have beaten him that night.
> 
> 2) bollox mate. Noone could score them last 3 to Hopkins and justify it. It is outlandish.
> 
> ...


1. Green = inexperienced. Are you trying to say Hopkins wasn't inexperienced compared to the latter half of his career?

2. Erm well quite a lot of people did, including the judges.

3. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, was he classed as great at the time? Nope.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> He was most certainly a paper champion at Light Heavy and Heavy. Why would Jones be ranked above DM at Light Heavy? He was the one who held the proper belts.


because he was beating better people. In fact I'd be interested to see if you could find any rankings from say 99 onwards that have DM ranked above Jones.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Vic said:


> How do you define resume ? Level of opposition. How do you evaluate level of opposition without take talent into consideration ? You are not a good oponent if you don´t have talent. So, ultimately, you are evaluating talent, he beat some talented fighters, some underrated ones actually. Of course, you can find others who beat higher number of talented fighters, but that doesn´t make Roy´s opposition not talented.


Some fighters have more talent than others, for example Jones has more talent than Hopkins. It doesn't mean he's the better fighter.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

TFG said:


> Some fighters have more talent than others, for example Jones has more talent than Hopkins. It doesn't mean he's the better fighter.


Okay. To me it does. I wouldn´t be so sure to call Roy more talented than Hopkins though. Not really my point anyway.

Sometimes, I find this resume evaluations a bit superficial. Oh, this T guy beat A, and because A beat B, C and D he is better than E, because E beat Z and X, not B and C, he is not as good...hmm, okay, fine, but wait a minute, if E is more talented than A, he is more difficult than A, for T, so if he is more difficult we need to give to his win a bigger value!

Got it ?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> He was most certainly a paper champion at Light Heavy and Heavy. Why would Jones be ranked above DM at Light Heavy? He was the one who held the proper belts.


Roy was ranked above DM at 175 for quite some time 2000 - on


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy was ranked above DM at 175 for quite some time 2000 - on


Of course he was, the way DM among others were treat at the expense of the HBO golden boy was disgusting and rightfully considered a corrupt period of the sport.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Of course he was, the way DM among others were treat at the expense of the HBO golden boy was disgusting and rightfully considered a corrupt period of the sport.


Considered corrupt by who? And what does HBO have to do with RING rankings?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Green = inexperienced. Are you trying to say Hopkins wasn't inexperienced compared to the latter half of his career?
> 
> 2. Erm well quite a lot of people did, including the judges.
> 
> 3. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, was he classed as great at the time? Nope.


1) ah inexperienced I can work with. Yes both were great yet inexperienced.

2) can you justiy it?

3) :lol: why would anyone class either as great at the time?


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

It was a prelim bout at the time, Bowe vs Ferguson was the main event. Just show you how BOTH were not a big deal at the time, not only Hopkins.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Luf said:


> 3) :lol: why would anyone class either as great at the time?


You're walking him right into a trap :yep


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) ah inexperienced I can work with. Yes both were great yet inexperienced.
> 
> 2) can you justiy it?
> 
> 3) :lol: why would anyone class either as great at the time?


1. Hopkins inexperience hurt him a lot more than RJJ's. That should be pretty clear to anyone who understands the way either fighter fights.

2. Yes, obviously, as I scored it a similar way along with many others.

3. You are completely missing the point. RJJ was just as lethal then as when he beat Toney. The difference between the RJJ that beat Hopkins and the RJJ that beat Toney is *minimal. *His fight game was based on crazy natural talents that were amplified with young age, he got worse as he aged. Hopkins on the other hand improved a lot other time. He wasn't gifted with great intangibles like Jones, he relied on a great boxing mind, longevity/discipline and a well rounded skill set. Those things aren't given to you, RJJ was always going to have ridiculous speed, Hopkins wasn't going to have that kind of Ring IQ without earning it. He had to earn it through testing himself against tough opposition and constantly improving his game. The difference between the Hopkins who lost to RJJ and the Hopkins who beat Trinidad is *substantial.

*According to your 'eye test' Jones was already great was he not? Seeing as it didn't matter who he fought.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Considered corrupt by who? And what does HBO have to do with RING rankings?


A lot of boxing fans who were actually following the sport at the time, do you even know what corruption I'm referring to?


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Hopkins inexperience hurt him a lot more than RJJ's. That should be pretty clear to anyone who understands the way either fighter fights.
> 
> 2. Yes, obviously, as I scored it a similar way along with many others.
> 
> ...


1) :lol: this isn't a contest on who was more inexperienced.

2) then explain why you scored the last 4 rounds to Hopkins.

3) I call him great because of the sum of his prime career. Had both fighters retired in the build up to that fight I wouldn't have either in my top 30.

4) you say you have no issue with me placing Jones in my top 10, what is the point of continuing when we are comparing apples and oranges?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) :lol: this isn't a contest on who was more inexperienced.
> 
> 2) then explain why you scored the last 4 rounds to Hopkins.
> 
> ...


1. Nice try, but if you are going to ignore the argument, try not to make it as obvious. You've got a nice way of being selective with your replies. It's not as simple as saying: Both inexperienced = Both at the same stages in their career. Your line of thinking is way too simplistic. I'm sick of repeating my self. If you can't understand the simple fact that Hopkins got better with age then well I don't know what to say.

2. I scored the last three rounds to him. He outworked Jones who wasn't nearly as active as he was earlier in the fight. Hopkins picked up the pace, RJJ slowed down the pace. Simple as that.

4. Because the way you are trying to justify your opinion is the problem. You have come out with some completely asinine stuff ie "Hopkins didn't magically improve as a fighter" as if to say it's impossible for a young fighter to improve :lol: You are also unable to understand that RJJ was much closer to prime than Hopkins when they fought. These are just a couple of the statements that are causing the debate.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. Nice try, but if you are going to ignore the argument, try not to make it as obvious. You've got a nice way of being selective with your replies. It's not as simple as saying: Both inexperienced = Both at the same stages in their career. Your line of thinking is way too simplistic. I'm sick of repeating my self. If you can't understand the simple fact that Hopkins got better with age then well I don't know what to say.
> 
> 2. I scored the last three rounds to him. He outworked Jones who wasn't nearly as active as he was earlier in the fight. Hopkins picked up the pace, RJJ slowed down the pace. Simple as that.
> 
> 4. Because the way you are trying to justify your opinion is the problem. You have come out with some completely asinine stuff ie "Hopkins didn't magically improve as a fighter" as if to say it's impossible for a young fighter to improve :lol: You are also unable to understand that RJJ was much closer to prime than Hopkins when they fought. These are just a couple of the statements that are causing the debate.


1) I don't even understand what your argument is. I accept Hopkins was in experienced, he was. As was Jones. As are most people in their first title fight.

2) that's just not true at all. Hopkins missed a huge amount of punches. He came in wild looking for a knockout and was getting picked off by Jones. The few times he got Jones on the ropes he was tied up and would miss by miles as Jones danced away. Jones landed, by far, the better and cleaner punches. You really should watch the fight.

4) my justification is the film we have of Jones. Watch his career and make your own mind up. If you were to rank on talent where would you rank Jones?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> A lot of boxing fans who were actually following the sport at the time, do you even know what corruption I'm referring to?


If it has to do with HBO influencing RING magazine rankings then no I do not.

Roy earned his ranking by beating the available contenders and continued to do so until he lost. Just like Calzaghe was rated #1 while only holding the paper WBO belt at 168. Not difficult to grasp


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> 1) I don't even understand what your argument is. I accept Hopkins was in experienced, he was. As was Jones. As are most people in their first title fight.
> 
> 2) that's just not true at all. Hopkins missed a huge amount of punches. He came in wild looking for a knockout and was getting picked off by Jones. The few times he got Jones on the ropes he was tied up and would miss by miles as Jones danced away. Jones landed, by far, the better and cleaner punches. You really should watch the fight.
> 
> 4) my justification is the film we have of Jones. Watch his career and make your own mind up. If you were to rank on talent where would you rank Jones?


1. How can you not understand it? This isn't a complex view point. I'll try one last time to break this down for you.

The whole debate is mainly over whether Hopkins was green. You are content on saying that RJJ was also green. Your argument is basically Both inexpereinced = both green = same thing. My counter to that is that RJJ was much closer to his prime than Hopkins. You can say that RJJ was green, but his main strengths were natural intangible skills that benefited from his young age. Hopkins strengths were ones that he picked up throughout his career. That means when he fought RJJ he didn't have the same kind of experience and ring IQ that makes him so great now. It's way too simplistic to tar them both with the same brush just because they were two young fighters. We know for a fact that Hopkins got better with age and RJJ got worse.

2. I disagree, Jones landed a minimal amount of punches in those last few rounds. Hopkins outworked him, it's as simple as that. You do realize you arguing something that was unanimously agreed upon by the judges? It's obviously not outlandish is it now? You think all three judges were completely fooled?

You can keep telling me to go watch a fight I've already watched plenty of times but I'm not the guy who said the only rounds you could give to Hopkins were some of the earlier ones. Now that is an outlandish opinion and it is an opinion that isn't supported by anything.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> If it has to do with HBO influencing RING magazine rankings then no I do not.
> 
> Roy earned his ranking by beating the available contenders and continued to do so until he lost. Just like Calzaghe was rated #1 while only holding the paper WBO belt at 168. Not difficult to grasp


Yeah it's pretty clear you don't even know what the level of corruption was about.

I'd advise you to go do some reading and then come back and talk.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> 1. How can you not understand it? This isn't a complex view point. I'll try one last time to break this down for you.
> 
> The whole debate is mainly over whether Hopkins was green. You are content on saying that RJJ was also green. Your argument is basically Both inexpereinced = both green = same thing. My counter to that is that RJJ was much closer to his prime than Hopkins. You can say that RJJ was green, but his main strengths were natural intangible skills that benefited from his young age. Hopkins strengths were ones that he picked up throughout his career. That means when he fought RJJ he didn't have the same kind of experience and ring IQ that makes him so great now. It's way too simplistic to tar them both with the same brush just because they were two young fighters. We know for a fact that Hopkins got better with age and RJJ got worse.
> 
> ...


1) as I suspected you are going about something that I wasn't commenting on. That's why I wanted clarification. My point is that Jones is one of the top ten most talented in history. He proved his talent throughout his career and most notably against Hopkins and Toney. You said Hopkins was green, I asked what you meant and you eventually said inexperienced. I agree both men, despite being great talents, were inexperienced.

2) Hopkins did not outwork Jones at all. Jones actually started punching with more authority down the stretch. I actually doubt you've seen the fight and are basing it on some fight report you once read. If you wanna debate this fight you need to watch it first otherwise it's fruitless.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> 1. How can you not understand it? This isn't a complex view point. I'll try one last time to break this down for you.
> 
> The whole debate is mainly over whether Hopkins was green. You are content on saying that RJJ was also green. Your argument is basically Both inexpereinced = both green = same thing. My counter to that is that RJJ was much closer to his prime than Hopkins. You can say that RJJ was green, but his main strengths were natural intangible skills that benefited from his young age. Hopkins strengths were ones that he picked up throughout his career. That means when he fought RJJ he didn't have the same kind of experience and ring IQ that makes him so great now. It's way too simplistic to tar them both with the same brush just because they were two young fighters. We know for a fact that Hopkins got better with age and RJJ got worse.
> 
> ...


What you said makes no sense. You are assuming that Roy who was also green didnt grow as a fighter after beating Hopkins. Roy grew a lot as well and learned more and added more to his game as well. You act as if Roy got as far as he did on physical attributes alone.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> What you said makes no sense. You are assuming that Roy who was also green didnt grow as a fighter after beating Hopkins. Roy grew a lot as well and learned more and added more to his game as well. You act as if Roy got as far as he did on physical attributes alone.


Even in Hopkins prime he wouldn't have beaten Roy bc he was losing to Jermain Taylor in his prime.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> What you said makes no sense. You are assuming that Roy who was also green didnt grow as a fighter after beating Hopkins. Roy grew a lot as well and learned more and added more to his game as well. You act as if Roy got as far as he did on physical attributes alone.


I never said Roy didn't grow as a fighter, I said Hopkins grew more, which is pretty obvious. So what part of that 'makes no sense' then or do you just like saying it?

Roy's main strengths _were_ his physical attributes, why do you think he was so rubbish when he lost them? He never learned the fundamentals because he never needed them. He had his main strengths when he fought Hopkins, Hopkins didn't have his main strengths.

If your going to reply that please reply with some actual evidence as to why Hopkins never grew more as a fighter.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> Even in Hopkins prime he wouldn't have beaten Roy bc he was losing to Jermain Taylor in his prime.


Great logic man, I really can't argue with that excellent triangle theory. Incredibly insightful stuff.

Take that everyone who said Hopkins would of beat Jones (No one)


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> I never said Roy didn't grow as a fighter, I said Hopkins grew more, which is pretty obvious. So what part of that 'makes no sense' then or do you just like saying it?
> 
> Roy's main strengths _were_ his physical attributes, why do you think he was so rubbish when he lost them? He never learned the fundamentals because he never needed them. He had his main strengths when he fought Hopkins, Hopkins didn't have his main strengths.
> 
> If your going to reply that please reply with some actual evidence as to why Hopkins never grew more as a fighter.


It makes no sense bc you are discrediting Roy's win based on the fact that Hopkins was green. How does that make sense when Roy was green himself and both where in their first title fight?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Yeah it's pretty clear you don't even know what the level of corruption was about.
> 
> I'd advise you to go do some reading and then come back and talk.


Can't find anything. :conf

What boxing fans and what corruption are you talking about? You have no problem writing essays for answers so why dont you just give me the bullet points or else you're talking out of your ass (again)


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

He's on about hanging out the belts Willy Nilly as opposed to those who held the traditional lineages.

The ring had an opportunity to give the lineal championship some meaning, and they blew it.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Who cares about belts in this era? Anyone with a set of eyes could see Roy was the #1 LHW in the world


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

I selected 40-50 by accident, if i were to ever start a list i think anywhere between 26 and 40 would be perfectly reasonable.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> It makes no sense bc you are discrediting Roy's win based on the fact that Hopkins was green. How does that make sense when Roy was green himself and both where in their first title fight?


Do I have to spell it out for you letter by letter? How many times have I said that Hopkins was* more *green than Roy and that is the point. It doesn't matter that it was their first title fight, Hopkins hadn't grown into the fighter he would soon become. Roy was already becoming that fighter. How much more did Roy adapt to his game from the first Hopkins fight? Not much at all. Hopkins on the other hand developed his main strengths after that fight.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

Luf said:


> He's on about hanging out the belts Willy Nilly as opposed to those who held the traditional lineages.
> 
> The ring had an opportunity to give the lineal championship some meaning, and they blew it.


And stripping genuine champions for no reason.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

TFG said:


> And stripping genuine champions for no reason.


hey in an ideal world DM would have kept all the belts and Jones would not have been considered champion without fighting him, in that case I'm confident the fight would have come off. As it is, belts got stripped, Jones unified them and was able to reach the top of the division without facing the tiger. I hate the situation and wish there was only one champ per division, it just isn't the reality we live in.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

He's talking about the thing with Rocchi.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> And stripping genuine champions for no reason.


Is that Roy's fault? Hell he was going to get stripped of one of his titles if he didnt face mandatory Richard Frazier. We all know Roy wasn't going to another country back then but make no mistake about it he was the p4p number one fighter in the world and fighter of the decade so guys should have came for him.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> He's talking about the thing with Rocchi.


The court case? Nah it would be a hollow point to make since he's been banging on about linearity and rocky never beat Jones in the first place.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> And stripping genuine champions for no reason.


What does that have to do with Jones' ranking? Calzaghe only had one title but was #1 . Naseem Hamed was #1 despite being stripped and only having 1 title. Just because you hold trinkets doesn't make you #1 automatically as much as you'd like it to


----------



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

Never in my life have I heard of someone solely using the eye test

Roy theoretically had the talent to beat anyone at his weight(s) ever

His resume could have been much much better though

He's in the top 30. I know everything is about opinions but its outrageous to rank him number 3 when there are fighters who have not only looked fantastic but done it against top tier opposition time & again


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Gunner said:


> Never in my life have I heard of someone solely using the eye test
> 
> Roy theoretically had the talent to beat anyone at his weight(s) ever
> 
> ...


first time for everything eh :good

if you feel passionate enough to be outraged then I sympathise with you. A list is a list is a list. If you don't think Jones is amongst the top 10 most talented in history then please tell me your top ten.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

So is TFG ever going to get back to me about how HBO corrupted the rankings for Roy Jones?


----------



## DobyZhee (May 19, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> Did you miss the day he got KO'd by Tarver? Because that happened first.


I saw that too..


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> So is TFG ever going to get back to me about how HBO corrupted the rankings for Roy Jones?


Sure, just quote on where I said that happened. I called him the HBO golden boy, that's completely separate.

I was referring to the absolute farce regarding the titles. DM was the legitimate champion in that division. This has already been explained to you.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Sure, just quote on where I said that happened. I called him the HBO golden boy, that's completely separate.
> 
> I was referring to the absolute farce regarding the titles. DM was the legitimate champion in that division. This has already been explained to you.


Ok but it doesn't mean he is the #1 fighter there.


----------



## megavolt (Jun 5, 2013)

somewhere around 20-25ish i'd say. Not far off at all from where Whitaker stands


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Ok but it doesn't mean he is the #1 fighter there.


On paper it certainly should. I don't care for head to head, that's not how you rank a fighter. Jones was a paper champion, that's the simple truth.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> On paper it certainly should. I don't care for head to head, that's not how you rank a fighter. Jones was a paper champion, that's the simple truth.


No Jones beat the top ranked guy at light heavy more than DM did thats why he was ranked #1


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> No Jones beat the top ranked guy at light heavy more than DM did thats why he was ranked #1


Erm no he never, DM become the true lineal champion when he beat Hill and Jones never faced him. You want to be the true champion at the weight, you beat the true champion at that weight.

Whether Jones was technically the best fighter is irrelevant. DM was mentioned because someone asked who Jones should of fought. He should of fought DM, cause whether you like it or not, he was held the true lineage at the weight.


----------



## SJS20 (Jun 8, 2012)

TFG said:


> Erm no he never, DM become the true lineal champion when he beat Hill and Jones never faced him. You want to be the true champion at the weight, you beat the true champion at that weight.
> 
> Whether Jones was technically the best fighter is irrelevant. DM was mentioned because someone asked who Jones should of fought. He should of fought DM, cause whether you like it or not, he was held the true lineage at the weight.


By that notion Bernard Hopkins was always behind Zsolt Erdei.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Erm no he never, DM become the true lineal champion when he beat Hill and Jones never faced him. You want to be the true champion at the weight, you beat the true champion at that weight.
> 
> Whether Jones was technically the best fighter is irrelevant. DM was mentioned because someone asked who Jones should of fought. He should of fought DM, cause whether you like it or not, he was held the true lineage at the weight.


I meant top ranked guyS, my bad. DM sat on his belt and fought Roy Jones left overs and could hardly beat them. Roy was rightly #1


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

SJS20 said:


> By that notion Bernard Hopkins was always behind Zsolt Erdei.


In terms of lineage, yes he was.

The whole lineage this is largely bullshit, I'm not denying that, but DM was the rightful guy in that division that Jones didn't fight. That was the question, he is the answer. He wasn't a bullshit champion.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> In terms of lineage, yes he was.
> 
> The whole lineage this is largely bullshit, I'm not denying that, but DM was the rightful guy in that division that Jones didn't fight. That was the question, he is the answer. He wasn't a bullshit champion.


So why didnt he come fight the P4p number one fighter and fighter of the decade? Why fight guys Roy had already beat instead?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> I meant top ranked guyS, my bad. DM sat on his belt and fought Roy Jones left overs and could hardly beat them. Roy was rightly #1


It's a shame that Roy wasn't as confident as you. If he was, he'd of went and knocked out DM in Germany for career high money.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> So why didnt he come fight the P4p number one fighter and fighter of the decade? Why fight guys Roy had already beat instead?


Because Jones was lowballing him to come to America, when Jones could of went to Germany, filled out a stadium and earned career high money. There's plenty of examples of Jones doing this. No one cares if he was P4P number 1 or fighter of the decade, he was in the same division as the Lineal champ (DM) for what, five years? And he didn't fight him. That's a guy he should of fought.

I'm not really taking this seriously, you've proven to be completely bias.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Because Jones was lowballing him to come to America, when Jones could of went to Germany, filled out a stadium and earned career high money. There's plenty of examples of Jones doing this. No one cares if he was P4P number 1 or fighter of the decade, he was in the same division as the Lineal champ (DM) for what, five years? And he didn't fight him. That's a guy he should of fought.
> 
> I'm not really taking this seriously, you've proven to be completely bias.


You say no one cares but Jones cared. He was the bet fighter in the world p4p and didn't have to go anywhere. You have the nerve to call me bias as if you aren't.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> You say no one cares but Jones cared. He was the bet fighter in the world p4p and didn't have to go anywhere. You have the nerve to call me bias as if you aren't.


That's fine then, he ducked DM because he didn't care.

The fact you can't bare to admit that DM was a guy Roy could and should have fought is pretty funny.

I'm not the guy with Roy Jones in my avatar.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> It's a shame that Roy wasn't as confident as you. If he was, he'd of went and knocked out DM in Germany for career high money.


Roy was already rich and the best fighter on earth. What does DM do for Jones :lol:


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> That's fine then, he ducked DM because he didn't care.
> 
> The fact you can't bare to admit that DM was a guy Roy could and should have fought is pretty funny.
> 
> I'm not the guy with Roy Jones in my avatar.


Like I said Jones was the number one fighter in the world and fighter of the decade. Since when does the p4p number one fighter have to travel across waters to face someone? Smh


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy was already rich and the best fighter on earth. What does DM do for Jones :lol:


Would have done nothing for Roy and would be called a bum like every other guy Roy toyed with.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy was already rich and the best fighter on earth. What does DM do for Jones :lol:


Well it would of made him a hell of a lot richer for what according to you would be an easy fight. It's because he never fought guys like DM that his resume is now criticized across pretty much every boxing forum on the internet. Not looking too good for him now is it?

And using your logic what did most of the fighters Jones was fighting at the time do for him?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Well it would of made him a hell of a lot richer for what according to you would be an easy fight. It's because he never fought guys like DM that his resume is now criticized across pretty much every boxing forum on the internet. Not looking too good for him now is it?
> 
> And using your logic what did most of the fighters Jones was fighting at the time do for him?


Roy toys with him, then he goes on to lose and rob guys Roy Jones toyed with.

I'm sure that'd be your stance.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Well it would of made him a hell of a lot richer for what according to you would be an easy fight. It's because he never fought guys like DM that his resume is now criticized across pretty much every boxing forum on the internet. Not looking too good for him now is it?
> 
> And using your logic what did most of the fighters Jones was fighting at the time do for him?


Roy has a better resume than DM. That's a fact.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy toys with him, then he goes on to lose and rob guys Roy Jones toyed with.
> 
> I'm sure that'd be your stance.


He talks about Jones resume but Jones has a better resume than DM. Lmao


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Roy toys with him, then he goes on to lose and rob guys Roy Jones toyed with.
> 
> I'm sure that'd be your stance.


It's fine dude, you've basically admitted Roy ducked him.

The old "Roy was rich and P4P number one anyway" card is the reason his legacy is constantly under scrutiny.

It's like when it comes to Roy, fighting the best guy in your division who gives you the most money and apparently an easy fight is something you _don't_ do. Great logic guys.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> He talks about Jones resume but* Jones has a better resume than DM.* Lmao


No shit sherlock.

Your comprehension skills are some of the worst I have ever come across.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> It's fine dude, you've basically admitted Roy ducked him.
> 
> The old "Roy was rich and P4P number one anyway" card is the reason his legacy is constantly under scrutiny.
> 
> It's like when it comes to Roy, fighting the best guy in your division who gives you the most money and apparently an easy fight is something you _don't_ do. Great logic guys.


So DM ducked Roy bc he didn't want to come to America and fight the best fighter in the world. I gotcha


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> It's fine dude, you've basically admitted Roy ducked him.
> 
> The old "Roy was rich and P4P number one anyway" card is the reason his legacy is constantly under scrutiny.
> 
> It's like when it comes to Roy, fighting the best guy in your division who gives you the most money and apparently an easy fight is something you _don't_ do. Great logic guys.


You should keep the word logic out of your mouth.

You haven't even answered the question. Where do you rate Roy Jones all-time?


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> No shit sherlock.
> 
> Your comprehension skills are some of the worst I have ever come across.


You can't comprehend the fact that Jones was the best therefore DM should have came to take that P4P ranking from him. Instead he was fighting Richard Hall twice.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> So DM ducked Roy bc he didn't want to come to America and fight the best fighter in the world. I gotcha


Once again, your comprehension skills are awful and your bias is beyond silly. I'm not going to debate with somehow who comes to conclusions based on falsified arguments spawned in your own mind.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You should keep the word logic out of your mouth.
> 
> You haven't even answered the question. Where do you rate Roy Jones all-time?


Based on what? Resume? Head to head? Talent?


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You should keep the word logic out of your mouth.
> 
> You haven't even answered the question. Where do you rate Roy Jones all-time?


Based off the fact that Jones didnt face the great DM he probably ranks him at 87 just behind DM. Lmao


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Once again, your comprehension skills are awful and your bias is beyond silly. I'm not going to debate with somehow who comes to conclusions based on falsified arguments spawned in your own mind.


I'm only doing the same thing you're doing. It's okay for you to say Roy ducked but not okay the other way around? Lmao


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Based on what? Resume? Head to head? Talent?


Everything considered.


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Based on what? Resume? Head to head? Talent?


However you choose to judge it.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> I'm only doing the same thing you're doing. It's okay for you to say Roy ducked but not okay the other way around? Lmao


Erm no you're not, you've interrupted quite a few times with arguments out of nowhere and every time I've had to correct you and dumb things down for you. Let the adults talk.

How did DM duck Roy, explain to me? Roy would of earned much, much more money fighting him in Germany. A mythical P4P title means nothing when talking about who the actual champion in a division is. Being the P4P number one doesn't make you the guy in any division you go in.

You've signed the last three of your posts with 'lmao', what's the deal, are you 12 years old?


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Everything considered.


Everything Considered = Somewhere around the 40 mark.

Head to Head = Top 20

Talent = Top 20


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TFG said:


> Everything Considered = Somewhere around the 40 mark.
> 
> Head to Head = Top 20
> 
> Talent = Top 20


Fair enough :good


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

TFG said:


> Erm no you're not, you've interrupted quite a few times with arguments out of nowhere and every time I've had to correct you and dumb things down for you. Let the adults talk.
> 
> How did DM duck Roy, explain to me? Roy would of earned much, much more money fighting him in Germany. A mythical P4P title means nothing when talking about who the actual champion in a division is. Being the P4P number one doesn't make you the guy in any division you go in.
> 
> You've signed the last three of your posts with 'lmao', what's the deal, are you 12 years old?


Once again the P4P meant something to Roy and obviously means something to damn near every fighter. Roy was making his money as well and didnt feel he needed DM and I'm sure DM felt the same way.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

So how far does a win over DM move Roy Jones?

How far did it move Gonzales, a guy Roy blanked and almost stopped? (RIP)


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

#1 .

No one in the history of boxing beats a prime Roy Jones Jr.

That's my personal opinion. But if I was being fair, accomplishment wise and everything, I would say top 25-30.


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

90s Fighter of the Decade, dominated 154-200lbs, with titles in 4 weight classes, unbeatable in his prime, beat the best fighters in his weight classes easily, wins over other All Time Greats/Hall of Famers in their prime.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

TFG said:


> How did DM duck Roy, explain to me?


By turning down offers of a fight and ducking most the top guys in the division? Darius had awful competition after the Hill win and needed home town ref to get through the first Hall fight while avoiding Reggie J, Harding, Tarver and yes RJJ


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Powerpuncher said:


> By turning down offers of a fight and ducking most the top guys in the division? Darius had awful competition after the Hill win and needed home town ref to get through the first Hall fight while avoiding Reggie J, Harding, Tarver and yes RJJ


Awful comp? He beat nothing but ranked contenders at 175


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Awful comp? He beat nothing but ranked contenders at 175


If I know what you mean...


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Isn't Edwin Rodriguez the lineal champ now :lol:


----------

