Did any fighter ever look more spectacular than Roy Jones Jr?

[beautyistruth]

Joe Calzaghe 46-0.

Joe actually have have been better than peak Roy, but Roy was more spectacular. Roy's style over Joe's substance.

[beautyistruth]

Hmmm... check your rockers lad.

There is a case to be made that Joe Calzaghe is the p4p no. 1 of all time. That belief will be met with fierce resistance but his career is perfect. What Joe did not have was the powerful American media and establishment support, which makes a difference. As Jack Dempsey said, "I was a good fighter, you guys in the media made me a great fighter." Joe didn't get the chances to shine in USA till the second half, fourth quarter of his career and the three tests he finally did have, he destroyed Lacy, Roy and edged a still peak Hopkins.

[Willie Pep 229]

Not for me. Not for any period of time like RJJ.

I've seen guys look great on a night. I've seen guys look great on offense, defense or ring IQ-wise specifically for awhile. I've never seen a guy who looked great overall for as long as I've seen RJJ do it.

I don't know . . . I lost it with Jones after Hopkins-Jones I.

Hopkins realized early that he couldn't match Jones and went into a stall. This is OK, a fighter who realizes he is being outclassed can do little else.

But where I lost it with Jones was when he happily accepted Hopkins surrender and refused to move forward to finish the job. Eight boring rounds followed. They posed in front of each other.

I won't call a fighter the GOAT if he plays it safe, I don't care how pretty (athletic) he looks. If I want to see pretty moves, I'll watch women's gymnastics; I expect a prize fight.

Jones never impressed me much and once his athleticism began to fade we found he really didn't have much in boxing skills to fall back on.

Roberto Duran fought well past his prime because he was a master boxer. He could make adjustments as his athleticism wained.

Once Jones couldn't defeat his opponents with his speed and power and was forced to become dependent on his boxing skills, he started to come up short.

Once both fighters were past it, (Hopkins-Jones II) and Jones had to match boxing skills with Hopkins, it was Hopkins who was the better ring general and took home the bacon.

I suspect had there also been a late-career rematch between Toney-Jones, Toney would have beat him as well.

I don't see the perfection you guys see. I saw a great athlete who had little to fall back on once he aged. That guy can never be the GOAT for me.

[Eff Pandas]

I don't know . . . I lost it with Jones after Hopkins-Jones I.

Hopkins realized early that he couldn't match Jones and went into a stall. This is OK, a fighter who realizes he is being outclassed can do little else.

But where I lost it with Jones was when he happily accepted Hopkins surrender and refused to move forward to finish the job. 8 more boring rounds to go. They posed in front of each other.

No one has been or will ever be perfect.

I won't call a fighter the GOAT if he plays it safe I don't care how pretty (athletic) he looks.

I'd never call any fighter the GOAT. At best there are dozens & dozens of guys you could easily make an argument for & at worst its a silly thing for adults to discuss seriously due to the infinite metrics, realities & rules of different eras of boxing & human history in general.

[beautyistruth]

I don't know . . . I lost it with Jones after Hopkins-Jones I.

Hopkins realized early that he couldn't match Jones and went into a stall. This is OK, a fighter who realizes he is being outclassed can do little else.

But where I lost it with Jones was when he happily accepted Hopkins surrender and refused to move forward to finish the job. Eight boring rounds followed. They posed in front of each other.

I won't call a fighter the GOAT if he plays it safe, I don't care how pretty (athletic) he looks. If I want to see pretty moves, I'll watch women's gymnastics; I expect a prize fight.

Jones never impressed me much and once his athleticism began to fade we found he really didn't have much in boxing skills to fall back on.

Roberto Duran fought well past his prime because he was a master boxer. He could make adjustments as his athleticism wained.

Once Jones couldn't defeat his opponents with his speed and power and was forced to become dependent on his boxing skills, he started to come up short.

Once both fighters were past it, (Hopkins-Jones II) and Jones had to match boxing skills with Hopkins, it was Hopkins who was the better ring general and took home the bacon.

I suspect had there also been a late-career rematch between Toney-Jones, Toney would have beat him as well.

I don't see the perfection you guys see. I saw a great athlete who had little to fall back on once he aged. That guy can never be the GOAT for me.

Good points. Maybe Roy was more of a flash, like a Dominique Wilkins, Marcelo Rios, Julius Erving, Odell Beckham, where their flamboyance overshadowed their actual technical skill.

[Slugfester]

I don't know . . . I lost it with Jones after Hopkins-Jones I.

Hopkins realized early that he couldn't match Jones and went into a stall. This is OK, a fighter who realizes he is being outclassed can do little else.

But where I lost it with Jones was when he happily accepted Hopkins surrender and refused to move forward to finish the job. Eight boring rounds followed. They posed in front of each other.

I won't call a fighter the GOAT if he plays it safe, I don't care how pretty (athletic) he looks. If I want to see pretty moves, I'll watch women's gymnastics; I expect a prize fight.

Jones never impressed me much and once his athleticism began to fade we found he really didn't have much in boxing skills to fall back on.

Roberto Duran fought well past his prime because he was a master boxer. He could make adjustments as his athleticism wained.

Once Jones couldn't defeat his opponents with his speed and power and was forced to become dependent on his boxing skills, he started to come up short.

Once both fighters were past it, (Hopkins-Jones II) and Jones had to match boxing skills with Hopkins, it was Hopkins who was the better ring general and took home the bacon.

I suspect had there also been a late-career rematch between Toney-Jones, Toney would have beat him as well.

I don't see the perfection you guys see. I saw a great athlete who had little to fall back on once he aged. That guy can never be the GOAT for me.

I have been saying the same thing about Jones for years that he was 80% athleticism and 20% skill. But here I attempted to literally answer the question of who looked most spectacular of 'em all while they looked spectacular, not who is a GOAT or anything else.

So, yeah, after Jones lost his main crutch Hopkins could beat him, 17 years later!!!!

Proves only that Jones lost his prime sooner than Hopkins.

The first fight is the only one that means anything in terms of legacy; the second was a mere old timer's matchup and can be ignored.

The fight was not even close really, except in terms of inactivity. Hopkins is lucky if he won three rounds. The judges scorecards showed their same weakness as usual--giving a round to a fighter who is getting his butt beaten just because he did better than previous rounds where he got his butt beaten worse. Extremely common and pathetic.

Ledermen only gave him two rounds; I squeaked him in at three when I watched it again tonight. It wasn't close. Just every round seemed competitive because so little was being done.

[jaded]

There is a case to be made that Joe Calzaghe is the p4p no. 1 of all time. That belief will be met with fierce resistance but his career is perfect. What Joe did not have was the powerful American media and establishment support, which makes a difference. As Jack Dempsey said, "I was a good fighter, you guys in the media made me a great fighter." Joe didn't get the chances to shine in USA till the second half, fourth quarter of his career and the three tests he finally did have, he destroyed Lacy, Roy and edged a still peak Hopkins.

Most people in the USA didn't really get to know who Joe Calzaghe was until he fought Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe's attack was non-stop. Jones's speed was paced. I was a big fan of RJJ, so I'm not taking anything away from him, but he didn't have the energy that Calzaghe had, and would always have had a hard time against him. Joe Calzaghe being a Brit and retiring undefeated, is barely remembered in the USA.

[BKM-]

I have been saying the same thing about Jones for years that he was 80% athleticism and 20% skill. But here I attempted to literally answer the question of who looked most spectacular of 'em all while they looked spectacular, not who is a GOAT or anything else.

So, yeah, after Jones lost his main crutch Hopkins could beat him, 17 years later!!!!

Proves only that Jones lost his prime sooner than Hopkins.

The first fight is the only one that means anything in terms of legacy; the second was a mere old timer's matchup and can be ignored.

The fight was not even close really, except in terms of inactivity. Hopkins is lucky if he won three rounds. The judges scorecards showed their same weakness as usual--giving a round to a fighter who is getting his butt beaten just because he did better than previous rounds where he got his butt beaten worse. Extremely common and pathetic.

Ledermen only gave him two rounds; I squeaked him in at three when I watched it again tonight. It wasn't close. Just every round seemed competitive because so little was being done.

I agree in spirit, but not fully.

To be fair to Roy Jones Jr, what he did was very skillful. As an example, a huge contrast of his prime and post-prime was his defense. In his prime he relied on springy, powerful legs to move side to side. Opponents just couldn't trap him and get to him. This takes a tremendous amount of footwork, ring IQ and generalship. At the same time it takes an insane amount of gifted talent as well. Not many boxers had legs like Jones Jr.

So when he got old he couldn't use the legs anymore so what could he really do? Back on the ropes, cover up while opponents would pound him. So you're correct in a sense. His offense too, powered by freakish genetics where he's exploding with combo's from the craziest angles. Obviously not something you can keep up at an advanced age, but it was quite skilled and technical when he could do it.

[IronDanHamza]

he was a great fighter who also had great match making.

note I said he was a great fighter.

you combine the 2, great fighter and great matchmaking and you get an unbeatable looking fighter.

Jones edged Hopkins, who wasn�t ready for Jones at that point in his career, what most people don�t know, this fight was actually quite close, with hopkins turning it up late. Jones had the commentating in the bag and the flash to sell the win. Which perhaps he edged, but the fact is Hopkins really deserved a rematch.

with Toney, probably Jones greatest victory - we still gotta mention Toney was killing himself to make the weight. This fight Toney struggled to find Jones, but make no Mistake, Jones seriously struggled to hit Toney. Once again, commentating in the bag for Jones. Had Toney been in good shape the version a few years back, it could have been a different fight.

How did the shape Toney was in for his fight with Roy Jones to compare to any other fight of his career?

[beautyistruth]

Most people in the USA didn't really get to know who Joe Calzaghe was until he fought Jeff Lacy. Calzaghe's attack was non-stop. Jones's speed was paced. I was a big fan of RJJ, so I'm not taking anything away from him, but he didn't have the energy that Calzaghe had, and would always have had a hard time against him. Joe Calzaghe being a Brit and retiring undefeated, is barely remembered in the USA.

Yes, that's all true. Joe was naturally better than Ray, didn't need peds or big artificial muscles, he was a natural born fighter. The media always cheated Joe out of his credit. He made Lacy look like nothing but Lacy was very highly regarded and a legit champ. But Joe made him look like nothing and instead of giving Joe his just due credit, they said Lacy was a bum. Then he beat Roy and Hopkins and the narrative there is they were both well past their prime when Joe picked to fight them. More BS. RJ looked better and had the media hype but Super Joe was actually better, his record speaks for itself. The boxing media has an agenda to favor black fighters over white fighters. Klitschkos didn't their just due credit for dominating either, the narrative to diminish the Ks was, "Oh, they just dominated a very weak era..." More BS because there is no such thing as a weak era, every era is tough. Just certain stars in certain eras get more hype and glory and have more charisma.