Roy Jones Jr vs Carlos Monzon

[Sharkey]

One has to be careful about assessing things on a 'seems' basis.

DLH's WBO belt did not do anything to elevate his actual prowess as a fighter. If Oscar beat 34 'champs' that means only something if we look at who those guys are, how good they were when they faced Oscar.

Take Oscar. Imagine a world where there are no belts. Take the belts away and he is the same fighter he was all along.

If he fights the same men and there are no titles, he is the same fighter. If he fights a guy and wins a strap that just happens to be at stake, winnign it doesn't make him better than if he won a salad or half a cow or whatever.

THAT's the point.

Hell, I don't even have disdain for Roy. He was awesome and if he was the world's worst jerkasaurus he'd still have been awesome.

[hawk5ins]

You are including Glen Kelly here among the "23". Glen Kelly was an IBF Inter Continental Champ at 175 and an IBF Pan Pacific titleist at Cruiser. These are not World titles.

Does the weight of holding an interncontinental title to you hold more value than the entire body of work done by Bennie Briscoe who never held any such nonsensical bauble?

And even looking at those who DID hold a "legitimate" belt. Jorge Vaca held the Welterweight title he won from Lloyd Honeyghan in 1987 via Technical decision...he won becuase HE got cut and couldn't continue and HE got the belt. Lloyd Ko'd him in 3 rounds in the return to win his belt back.

6 years later, he's facing Roy Jones at Middleweight. Vaca had never previously fought at Middleweight.

Does a Win over Jorge Vaca carry more weight than a win over Bennie Briscoe?

So not only is it being asked if the titles are legit, but evaluate where the fighter was when Jones beat him as well. Beating a former Welterweight champ who won his belt via Technical decision who was champion 6 years prior to facing him and this former champ had never even fought in the Middle weight division, does NOT carry the value of beating a Non Champ like Briscoe when Bennie was in his prime.

Hawk

[walshb]

Fellas, I think the TERM 'Quality over Quantity' is appropriate here!

[hawk5ins]

Which is why if you state a Number like 23 as in "Jones defeated 23 world Champions", you need to break this list out and detail it:

*Who the "champs" were?

*What "Title" did they win?

*WHen did they win their "titles"?

*What weight class did they win it in?

*And where were they in their respective careers WHEN they faced Jones?

Hawk

[walshb]

These freaking alphabet belts and pointless world title fights are what has destroyed boxing IMO. Money and hype and sensationalism is the root of all evil in the world of boxing. It has so diminished the sport, and diminished
the achievements of the past greats. Take Oscar and Pac; as Kyoodle I think said, can anyone imagine Sal Sanchez or Arguello challenging Hearns for the 147 lb crown? What a fucking joke

With that said, Jones is still a great great fighter who did beat some fantastic men; but I do feel the list Pink gives needs to be taken in context and studied first before SHIPPING!

[wpink]

You it is funny. I have a post, where in the post I state inaccurately that Jones beat 23 world champions, when what he did was beat 23 champions, most of which where world champion, some IBF's and some WBO's etc. However, ALSO in the post and other post is the fact that I clearly stated that may of these champions where not that great. I clearly pointed out that I too, believe Roy took the easier path in many fights. I clearly pointed out that there where fights that Roy could have made. I also pointed out that Quality over quantity is the most important thing. Hawk, is this not the basis over many and your debates with Aaron Pyror regarding who he beat at 140 besides a beefed up Arguello, or what you and I used to go round and round about why I rated Leonard up so high.

Funny that I feel like Barack Obama or something with my speech being sound bitted. Please if your going to attack my position (which is fine that is what this board is for, I love the back and forth), please at least give me the respect and know my entire position!

I will say it again. Roy beat 23 world champions. Hawk correctly pointed out that technically all 23 where not world champions. even thought IBf and WBO are titles that many that come to respect and praise have these title on their resume with out challenge. Now the point about quality over quantity is valid and is my position as well. Always has been. I said Roy beat not 23 greats, but 2 greats. Some have targeted these two great to try to discred them, and I argue that to say Hopkins was not valid at the time is like saying Leonard was not valid at the time, as he was green, or hell like not give leoanrd credit for beating duran as he had to move up from 135 for leoanrd. We can go on and on and discredit every fighter ever, based on our opinions. I think universally Hopkins is considered a top flight champion and was not old or shot yet, was young. Maybe he was not as good as he was later, but neither was leoanrd IMO until after the 1st duran fight.

So quality over quantity, yes Roy had 23 fights with champions. Fact. We can disagree over how valid this is, but my point is that these where champions he beat. My question was not name another fighter who beat 23 great fighters, it was name one that beat 23 champions, undefeated til 35, and conquered titles in a comparable fashion as roy has.

I also said, that DLH, whitacker, leoanrd, etc fought tougher schedules.

Finally, our original debate was Roy vs Monzon at Middleweight. Name a fight at middleweight that roy struggle at, or was hurt at. So again the point many are making about a glass jaw, does it really pertain to Roy at Middle? Did roy ever get stopped or seriously hurt before age 35?

All your points about alphabet titles are valid very valid, but we can say that same about Duran who got one when he beat davey moore who had something like 9 fights, or Leonard when he got two titles when he beat lalond, or Dlh when he got a wbo title early on....

[hawk5ins]

Can you do me a favor here.

Can you list the 23 fighters that you are referring to.

And list what titles they won and when they won them and where they were in their careers when Roy faced them?

I'm not looking to play "gotcha". I'm looking to see the list of what 23 champions you say Jones beat.

I Promise. I will NOT comeback with a breakdown critique of the list.

I won't do that.

I simply want to see the list and what titles you beleive they won.

Thank you.

Hawk

[walshb]

Can you do me a favor here.

Can you list the 23 fighters that you are referring to.

And list what titles they won and when they won them and where they were in their careers when Roy faced them?

I'm not looking to play "gotcha". I'm looking to see the list of what 23 champions you say Jones beat.

I Promise. I will NOT comeback with a breakdown critique of the list.

I won't do that.

I simply want to see the list and what titles you beleive they won.

Thank you.

Hawk

C'mon Hawk, the ZONE only has a certain amount of Random Access Memory ,mate

Pink, I hear you; but the guys do make relative points as to the quality of opposition he beat; some good as you pointed out, and some bad, as you pointed out

[Sharkey]

An argument for or against Jones' fighting acumen is not bolstered or weakened by the amount of 'champions' faced or defeated.

ESPECIALLY in the modern era.

It is the fighters he faced themselves, regardless of their having had, having, or not having titular qualities.

I am not one who looks at Tarver and Johnson's KOs of Jones and deduce his chin always sucked, so had he faced Great Fighter X he would get Kod if they hit him right...

I wonder more if Great Fighter X will hit him just right... and if so, can we really transfer his late career chinniness back to his prime via a matter of degrees?

Many fighters went puddy-chinned. Some may have got found out that their chin may not have been great at all, some started getting hit more, some never had defensive prowess other than relfexes, others.. well you get the picture.

Gerrie Coetzee got hit with the kitchen sink for quite awhile and was 'known' to have an excellent chin. Then, it kinda started failing him. Sure Page had power as did Bruno, but I don't think Coetzee found himself suddenly a stranger in some new era of supermen,.... nor do I believe it was the chin that was all the problem..his O got worse too.. as did his speed... as did may things. Dokes nailed him with some terrific lefts that Coetzee walked right into. Coked or not..

Weaver while 'losing' clocked Oats-Ee real nice, again with Harry freight-training right into them. then when he slowed down to elephantine speed and was gassed and dead, he went out from.... a shot perfectly placed.

I dunno.

I think the same may apply to Jones. but it's just that, a guess.. as is saying his chin couldn't possibly have degraded along with the rest of him and that all along he had a chin issue...

[wpink]

Hawk,

First off, I have no problem with you picking apart my list. Just be fair and point out that I am not saying that these where great champions. I am saying these are champions, whether alphabet or not. The position where we rate Roy all-time has always been IMO for all fighters based on a combination of mostly Quality, then if you have the quality you can go to quantity. I believe you of all people know this, based on our many discussions.

Roy to me has not faced 3-4-5 great fighers. I do believe he faced and easily beat 2 of them. I personally dont think Toney was at his best that night, but I also know that Toney had issues with speed, as you can see how he did vs Nunn. Nunn was a big southpaw too, but I think his speed gave Toney problems too. I think if we go down the road of finding reasons to discredit great fighers because they where not their best a particular night, and it was not from a physical ailment, etc then we will be discrediting many top names on alot of fighter's resume's, and many times it is these victories that we elevate one fighters greatness on.

Example Ali vs Frazier the 1st time. We could say ali was not his self that night, he just got back out of retirment.
Leonard vs Duran...we could make excuses for both.
Duran vs hearns at jr middle...we could easily discredit this fight.
Benetiz vs Leoanrd.. Benetiz didnt train effectivly is the excuse I always hear.

Etc..etc.. etc..

Get my point?

Your point Hawk is spot on.... here are the additional fighters and their titles. I am adding to your list

Your list

Jorge Vaca
Bernard Hopkins
Thulane Maligna
James TOney
Vinnie Pazienza
Eric Lucas
Mike McCallum
Montell Griffin
Virgil Hill
Lou Del Valle
Reggie Johnson
Antonio Tarver
Clinton Woods
John Ruiz
Felix Trinidad

Richard Hall WbA
Glenn Kelly IBF
Julio Ceasar Gonzalez WBO
Derek Harmon..WBC (interncontinental) and NABF
Eric Haring. IBF Nabf Usba Stopped Tarver and beat Griffith
Otis Grant WBo WBC Nabf
Jorge Fernando castro WBA
Prince Badi Ajamu WBF

I even when I originally counted these was like alphabet, and :"WHO". However i never said these where great fighters just world champions..corrected later to champions. I believe 20 of them do officially qualify as world champions.

Can we agree that Roy simply beat a lot of good fighters, 2 great fighters, and up until 35 was unbeaten (outside of a DQ) inside the ring, and had beaten over 20 champions current or former, some who would go on win champions after Roy. He also won titles at middle, super middle, and light heavry, then beat a heavywieght champion. Can we not simply agree to those facts.

This arguement again is not was roy an all time great better pound per pound than leoanrd Duran etc. Even though I think he had the skills to be that. I dont think he had quit the resume to say that. However at middlewieght in his peak with his blessed skill set, he eradicated the need to have a chin or for us to find out, didnt he? Also at middleweight at his peak, I believe he wipes the floor with Monzon, Hagler, Leonard, Hagler, Duran. His style, speed, movement, unorthodoxness, super super super fast counters which would eat a conventional fighter like that jabs up,like leoanrd. Keep in mind Ray IMO would beat Norris, probably by ko in his peak, but I think he would have to go through a furious fight to do so. Jones is Norris x 10. It would be a non-fight at middleweight. I think Monzon, bless his heart would find out that his style would fit right into Prime Roy's trap, and his long jab and right crosses as he methodically comes forward, would lead to blistering counters, the likes that He never imagined existed when he was fighting. He never saw anything Like Roy, much less be prepared for him. Roy would be tooo fast, and unorthodox for Monzon to get prepared for, coupled with the fact that Roy hit hard at middleweight.

I will admit Monzon would IMO be the best test for Roy, but I beleive the Roy that completely clowend Toney, and toney again to me is neck and neck with Monzon..It would be a great fight both of them at their peaks... Toney didnt win a round vs Roy, couldnt hit roy..I look at Monzon fights, reminds of out Liston use to come out and slaughter fighters,,until he met movement and speed, and then everything changes. Your timeing, angels confidence..Your jab stops pumping when unlike fighters like Napoles who was smaller or older griffen,,Who has Monzon faced remotly like Roy. Hasnt roy faced fighters that are somewhat like Monzon...maybe they were lightheavy's.

I just can't see Monzon having a chance vs something he never knew existed! Roy brought a whole entirely new set of problems to the table for Monzon. Based off of what can we say we say Monzon deal with that shows us what he would do with Prime Roy?

[wpink]

An argument for or against Jones' fighting acumen is not bolstered or weakened by the amount of 'champions' faced or defeated.

ESPECIALLY in the modern era.

It is the fighters he faced themselves, regardless of their having had, having, or not having titular qualities.

I am not one who looks at Tarver and Johnson's KOs of Jones and deduce his chin always sucked, so had he faced Great Fighter X he would get Kod if they hit him right...

I wonder more if Great Fighter X will hit him just right... and if so, can we really transfer his late career chinniness back to his prime via a matter of degrees?

Many fighters went puddy-chinned. Some may have got found out that their chin may not have been great at all, some started getting hit more, some never had defensive prowess other than relfexes, others.. well you get the picture.

Gerrie Coetzee got hit with the kitchen sink for quite awhile and was 'known' to have an excellent chin. Then, it kinda started failing him. Sure Page had power as did Bruno, but I don't think Coetzee found himself suddenly a stranger in some new era of supermen,.... nor do I believe it was the chin that was all the problem..his O got worse too.. as did his speed... as did may things. Dokes nailed him with some terrific lefts that Coetzee walked right into. Coked or not..

Weaver while 'losing' clocked Oats-Ee real nice, again with Harry freight-training right into them. then when he slowed down to elephantine speed and was gassed and dead, he went out from.... a shot perfectly placed.

I dunno.

I think the same may apply to Jones. but it's just that, a guess.. as is saying his chin couldn't possibly have degraded along with the rest of him and that all along he had a chin issue...

Agreed..... we simply dont know. AS is the case with many fighters that had reflexes earlier on that minimized the punishment that they took. Ray took hearns best shots at his peak,,,we got to see that, so he gets a pass. However, didnt he get rocked seriously and almost taken out by a bum earlier in his career. You simply never know. Ray also got dropped by Kevin howard, but later even after 3 more years being off he took Hagler punches.
Then got stopped much later by Camacho...So may things factor into the equation...I am for looking at the facts, did Roy get dropped stopped serioulsy hurt as a middlewieght during his peak, so that we can point to facts to say he had a glass Jaw? I leave that question up to you all.

[mrbig1]

Agreed..... we simply dont know. AS is the case with many fighters that had reflexes earlier on that minimized the punishment that they took. Ray took hearns best shots at his peak,,,we got to see that, so he gets a pass. However, didnt he get rocked seriously and almost taken out by a bum earlier in his career. You simply never know. Ray also got dropped by Kevin howard, but later even after 3 more years being off he took Hagler punches.
Then got stopped much later by Camacho...So may things factor into the equation...I am for looking at the facts, did Roy get dropped stopped serioulsy hurt as a middlewieght during his peak, so that we can point to facts to say he had a glass Jaw? I leave that question up to you all.

the real question is who has Jones fought who was worth a shit at any weight division? The Anwser is 1 1/2. A fat James Toney counts as half.

[Michael Frank]

the real question is who has Jones fought who was worth a shit at any weight division? The Anwser is 1 1/2. A fat James Toney counts as half.

Glenn Thomas (24-0), Bernard Hopkins, Castro, Sosa, Thomas Tate, Toney, Pazienza, Griffin twice, Virgil Hill, Del Valle, Reggie Johnson, Tarver twice, Ruiz, Glen Johnson, Trinidad (BOTH were old, not just Roy), undefeated Calzaghe, undefeated Toney, an older McCallum.

And a quick look at the records shows a few more who were undefeated or nearly so: Grant, Frazier, Telesco, Hall, Harding, Harmon, Gonzalez, Kelly, Woods, Ajamu, Hanshaw. All of these guys had 20+ wins at the time and either 1, 2, or 0 losses. Add in 16-0 Bryant Brannon.

It would seem either that Roy fought a ton of guys with excellent records, or the top ranks of boxing are filled with "not worth a shit" fighters from top to bottom.

Which is it?

[hawk5ins]

or near pristine records are only as valuable as the fighters on the resume of that Pristine record.

Give me a fighters who's record may hold a half dozen losses or so but has quality wins and losses on that record over someone who is 27-0 and never proved a damn against anyone.

This is a general statement.

I think those listed in MF's post need to be analyzed and disected to see if the records that LOOK nice, actually mean anything.

Hawk

[mrbig1]

It almost seems that HBO was protecting their biggest star. Not matching Jones against big punching good fighters. It's hard for me to think that Frazier,Hall,Tate,Kelly or Woods were the best of the best. I don't blame Jones for not fighting someone who can knock him into the middle of next week. When he can fight someone else for good money. Jones has even said himself he didn't want to get hurt. I'm fine with that, but at the same time is it fair to compare him to others fighters who took on the best in the world again and again? Alot of people here don't like DLH. But they can never say he didn't fight the best fighters in the world. A fighters record doesn't tell the whole story. Mike Weaver had a bad record. I didn't see people standing in line to fight him. If the Redsox beat my high school baseball team would the victory mean anything.

[wpink]

It almost seems that HBO was protecting their biggest star. Not matching Jones against big punching good fighters. It's hard for me to think that Frazier,Hall,Tate,Kelly or Woods were the best of the best. I don't blame Jones for not fighting someone who can knock him into the middle of next week. When he can fight someone else for good money. Jones has even said himself he didn't want to get hurt. I'm fine with that, but at the same time is it fair to compare him to others fighters who took on the best in the world again and again? Alot of people here don't like DLH. But they can never say he didn't fight the best fighters in the world. A fighters record doesn't tell the whole story. Mike Weaver had a bad record. I didn't see people standing in line to fight him. If the Redsox beat my high school baseball team would the victory mean anything.

Yes this is very true. Roy does not have that many wins that force us to say, Wow,,great great win. However I have also heard the train of thought that these where good fighters, that no one gives credit or they where not allowed to grow in the publics mind due to the dominance in the 90's of Roy Jones.

I am in the middle. I think that none of these fighters except for Hopkins and Toney had the skills greatness etc to challenge a Roy Jones, and only Toney had the publics curiosity at the time they met. This does hurt roy, but Roy did fight the champions and beat them. Nobody except for DM had anyone in the media even thinking about a fight could cause some issues for Roy.

Toney was peak, and it is not Roy's fault if Toney may or may not have been completley prepared. Roy made him look horrible that night. In fact Roy made two great fighters look a lot less than what they looked like vs most other fighters. Roy beat all the fighters that MFrank mentioned, and was signed to fight McCllelan had he won vs Benn. Then apparantlly ( I say this as I am not 100% certain) Benn wanted none of Jones, and Roy also started thinking more business like after the Benn-McCllelan fight.

How do you judge Jones. No he did not have all those challenges like Ray had that where top notch. But he did have 2, and he easily passed the test, more so than when Ray was tested He was more dominant over weight classes than Ray was, had many more fights and defenses. Moved up to Heavy and won the heavywieght title something not done in 90+ years.

He beat more champions regardless of the fact if we only give credibility to 15 of the 23 he beat. How many did my favorite of all time beat, and who is generally regarded as a top fighter. Didnt ray lose to a fighter in his prime. Didnt that fighter move up 2 weight classes to beat him? Did Roy go undefeated until 35, and who on hear thinks that a welter could have moved up and beat him, any welter.

So I think it is a challenge to rate Roy, but just as there are things we wish Roy could have done more of, there are things he did do more of, than many of our beloved champions.

[Michael Frank]

No he did not have all those challenges like Ray had that where top notch. But he did have 2, and he easily passed the test, more so than when Ray was tested He was more dominant over weight classes than Ray was, had many more fights and defenses. Moved up to Heavy and won the heavywieght title something not done in 90+ years.

He beat more champions regardless of the fact if we only give credibility to 15 of the 23 he beat. How many did my favorite of all time beat, and who is generally regarded as a top fighter. Didnt ray lose to a fighter in his prime. Didnt that fighter move up 2 weight classes to beat him? Did Roy go undefeated until 35, and who on hear thinks that a welter could have moved up and beat him, any welter.

WPink, I am in your corner for much of this, as a supporter of Roy.

However, I cannot agree with any of the quoted comments comparing him with Ray Leonard--that Leonard's one loss to a "perfect" Duran (a close decision loss to a legend who moved up and was highly effective at the heavier weight) reduces Ray's stature relative to Roy, who didn't have that happen.

I give Jones all props for his achievements, and as previously noted, even against the opponents he fought, but to then leap to the conclusion that Leonard's one, close loss places him below Roy--that I can't see. Leonard beat the best of the welters--several greats such as Hearns, Benitez, and Duran--and beat the best of the jr. middles at the time, Kalule. He beat the best middleweight, Hagler. LaLonde was not a great fighter but he was a recognized world champion at a much heavier weight, probably on par with Ruiz or a bit better.

I think making a case for Roy by placing him above Ray is not the way to go. I believe Leonard was the better fighter and had greater accomplishments, even if he didn't win the heavyweight title (he was also a smaller man). HBO and others saying back then that Roy was the greatest thing to come along never made me place him above Leonard and the few fighters of that ilk..

[wpink]

WPink, I am in your corner for much of this, as a supporter of Roy.

However, I cannot agree with any of the quoted comments comparing him with Ray Leonard--that Leonard's one loss to a "perfect" Duran (a close decision loss to a legend who moved up and was highly effective at the heavier weight) reduces Ray's stature relative to Roy, who didn't have that happen.

I give Jones all props for his achievements, and as previously noted, even against the opponents he fought, but to then leap to the conclusion that Leonard's one, close loss places him below Roy--that I can't see. Leonard beat the best of the welters--several greats such as Hearns, Benitez, and Duran--and beat the best of the jr. middles at the time, Kalule. He beat the best middleweight, Hagler. LaLonde was not a great fighter but he was a recognized world champion at a much heavier weight, probably on par with Ruiz or a bit better.

I think making a case for Roy by placing him above Ray is not the way to go. I believe Leonard was the better fighter and had greater accomplishments, even if he didn't win the heavyweight title (he was also a smaller man). HBO and others saying back then that Roy was the greatest thing to come along never made me place him above Leonard and the few fighters of that ilk..

Frank, I am not merely saying Roy is greater than Ray. In fact I have Roy ranked behind Ray and Duran. However, my point is more a question to get people thinking about this and all the different ways we think about how we rank fighters.

I point out that we rank Ray high up, imo top 6-7 all time, because of what? Because of his fighters vs 4 fighters. Duran, Hagler, Hearns,Benetiz. That is it, along with winning titles at 5 divisions. However, when we can not say that he has X amount of defenses, beat 14-20 different champs, or that he mvoed up and dominated divisions north of his original weight (this is not entirely true as his 1st 2 fights he weighed at the jr welt division according to a documentary I saw last week, my records show 141 which is welterweight, barely).

Duran we always hear about his 70-1 record at lightweight, and then he moved up and beat leonard in his peak years. Very few question just how great his resume at 135 was, or how quality was his best wins at lightweight. They simply point to his dominance and his savagery, then the leoanrd win.

Hagler, many point to his dominance over the middleweights, and his beating Hearns, duran, and all the other #1 ranked challengers to his throne by ko (except by duran) for a a entire decade almost. He never moved up, or beat a legendary solid middleweight did he? Didnt he let a retired for most of 5 years welter move up and beat him, regardless if it was close, controversial etc..he should have stopped Leoanrd, should he have, or at least brutalized him?

Hearns, he is revered due to his brutal ko power, his 32-0 with 30 ko's at welterweight then the great fight IN WHICH HE LOST BY STOPPAGE, to Leoanrd. Then he hear about his stoppage of Duran at jr welter, wins vs benetiz and hill and others at the higher weights including 5-6 titles. But in his biggest 3 fights he go stopped. Or 3 out of 4 biggest fights.

I just bring this up, as I loved and idolized these four fighters, but I also grew up on these four fighters. Am I biased as a lot older fight fans think by pointing to the Grebs and Robinsons armstrongs Pepps and saying that the fighters I hype up just dont measure up.

How about the younger generation that grew up on Roy Jones, and Mayweather, Pacquiau etc. how do we compare the to generations. Is it far to discredit Roy as not being a all time top fighter simply because the fighters he beat even though they where champions many of them did not have the publin aduration of our beloved Leonards. Durans, etc. I always argue that Leoanrd is better than Mayweather because Mayweather has not faced the best welterweights...Hmmm then I think,, Mayweather is not a natural welterweight. Did he face and beat the best at 130-135, Yes. Where some of these very very good fighters, Yes. Did he move up to higher wieghts and win vs very good competition, yes. Maybe not all of them, but beating DLH at 154, Judah and hatton, the way he brutalized Gotti at 140 when he is a natural 130-135 pounder is impressive. Also, did Ray ever defend his middleweight or Jr middleweight or even super middlewieght titles vs any peak fighters? Did PBF. Who is undefeated and who isnt? If being undefeated is not important then why do we even consider Rocky Marciano being great. I find myself being just like the old timers that try to tell me that boxing just is not like it was, and discredit the factual accomplishments that the Mayweathers, and Jones's accomplish.

How do we know? Could it be that fighters from 90's on are more physicial conditioned and stronger pound per pound than leonards or even Robinson era. Could it be? Thus Roy at middlweight is faster adn stronger than the fighters he would have fought in previous generations. I am asking not making a statment.

IMO there is a lot of value in considering the quality, in fact it is the determining factor in a Opinion based pound per pound poll, or even discussing who would win dream matches. However, I bring up these issues simply to point out that in discrediting Roy Jones a fighter who had speed like none other, and in the fights that we saw vs 2 fighters who we generall regard as Great fighters in any time frame and vs others who where champions and many undefeated at the time, many bigger than Roy was naturally, and Roy even moving up to beat the heavyweight champion, all this done with out a legitimate loss until age 35 when he other things going on with him...I personally think that history may be kinder to some fighters based on the time they fought than others. Had roy fought in the 80's and beaten hagler which to me would be something he could have done comfortably, then we have a Roy Jones who is considered possibly top 10 all time, and hmmm does hearns move up to challenge him and Duran (duran personally told Pazienza that he would be crazy to move up and challenge Jones), I dont know, maybe hearns. I don't think Leonard takes that risk, as it would be suicidal, this would be a EASY win for Jones over my all time favorite. That would mean history would be different simply if Roy was fighting 8-10 years earlier, and beat hagler, with the same resume he had, which boast a great 23 champions of which roughly 20 where world champions, title in 4 divisions, including Heavyweight.

[Michael Frank]

I wrote what I wrote because YOU wrote, "he easily passed the test, more so than when Ray was tested He was more dominant over weight classes than Ray was." I disagree with that.

As to Roy beating 1980s middles, I like Thomas Hearns over Roy. Hearns was a stalker with his own lightning speed, and not only is this my view, but that of Emanual Steward, who told a buddy of mine that while he is exceedingly high on Roy, he felt Hearns was a guy who had the style to beat him. As in, beat him up badly.

I do not go strictly by who a fighter beats and how many; there is way too much latitude there dictated strictly by the quality of opponents in the particular era. Hence, why I'll always think little of Duran's lightweight foes (most of them), yet I credit him with greatness in that division--from WATCHING him. Same with Leonard. Ray beat several legends, but if the quantity isn't enough for some, I look at how he beat them, and I saw a gifted fighter.

Same with RJJ. I deplored his hands down, his low punch output, and his jumping punches, but watching him, I saw several gifts, and smarts, and felt he was great. I don't care how many aphabet champs he beat, etc. I go by what I saw him do and I compare that with what I saw others do.

I don't think boxing prognostication lends itself to statistics, anyway. I do note that if an opponent is 25-0, he probably can fight, but beyond that, it doesn't mean he's any star until I see him in action. For me it's all quite qualitative.

I don't go by who Mayweather did or didn't beat; I look at how he wins, and watching him, I can't help but pity the fool if he were in against Leonard, Hearns, Pryor, Duran, Curry, Benitez (Wilfred at 154), and a few more from that era. It has nothing to do with records.

Jones beat Hagler? I could see it, but Marvin took such a good shot that if nailed, he'd be all over Roy, if not from the opening bell. Not sure Roy deals with that too well.

By the way, I think the notion that 1990s-and-more-recent fighters are, as a class, in better shape than the 1980s and 1970s guys, is patently false. Except for a few of those fat 1980s heavies, such as Tubbs, Witherspoon, and Page.

[wpink]

I wrote what I wrote because YOU wrote, "he easily passed the test, more so than when Ray was tested He was more dominant over weight classes than Ray was." I disagree with that.

As to Roy beating 1980s middles, I like Thomas Hearns over Roy. Hearns was a stalker with his own lightning speed, and not only is this my view, but that of Emanual Steward, who told a buddy of mine that while he is exceedingly high on Roy, he felt Hearns was a guy who had the style to beat him. As in, beat him up badly.

I do not go strictly by who a fighter beats and how many; there is way too much latitude there dictated strictly by the quality of opponents in the particular era. Hence, why I'll always think little of Duran's lightweight foes (most of them), yet I credit him with greatness in that division--from WATCHING him. Same with Leonard. Ray beat several legends, but if the quantity isn't enough for some, I look at how he beat them, and I saw a gifted fighter.

Same with RJJ. I deplored his hands down, his low punch output, and his jumping punches, but watching him, I saw several gifts, and smarts, and felt he was great. I don't care how many aphabet champs he beat, etc. I go by what I saw him do and I compare that with what I saw others do.

I don't think boxing prognostication lends itself to statistics, anyway. I do note that if an opponent is 25-0, he probably can fight, but beyond that, it doesn't mean he's any star until I see him in action. For me it's all quite qualitative.

I don't go by who Mayweather did or didn't beat; I look at how he wins, and watching him, I can't help but pity the fool if he were in against Leonard, Hearns, Pryor, Duran, Curry, Benitez (Wilfred at 154), and a few more from that era. It has nothing to do with records.

Jones beat Hagler? I could see it, but Marvin took such a good shot that if nailed, he'd be all over Roy, if not from the opening bell. Not sure Roy deals with that too well.

By the way, I think the notion that 1990s-and-more-recent fighters are, as a class, in better shape than the 1980s and 1970s guys, is patently false. Except for a few of those fat 1980s heavies, such as Tubbs, Witherspoon, and Page.

Good Points and I concur about a lot of what you posted. Since this is Jones vs Monzon I wont make this long and drawn out, but I will ask what if Hearns got hit by Roy at Middle. Remember every single shot he took at welter by leonard that was flush hurt him. Now maybe he can deal with it better since he is more filled out, but IMO Hearns could easily stop roy if his chin was what many suspect it was, OR Roy could easily stop Hearns as we know that Hearns in his prime got stopped when tagged in his biggest fights. Plus Leonard hurt Hearns to the body too. I think Roy is just Leonard + size and even speed. Maybe not the complete package Leonard offers, but what he lacked in basic skills like jab, proper defense etc.. He made up for it in sheer speed, reflexes ( yes his reflexes for a counter where faster even at middleweight than our previous barameter of speed leonard). Also again Roy has a bit more speed, size and hmm reach, so I am leaning towards Roy on this, in a big way.

As for Mayweather vs leoanrd and others. This is the very point I make. We rate Ray off of what he did vs benetiz, hearns, duran at welter his natural weight..yet we many times ignore that mayweather dominated a 32-0 with 28 ko fighter in Corrales much more so than Ray did Hearns, and Corrales was a very good fighter too beating Castillo once winning titles in several divisions too. He moved up beat a very good castillo with one arm the first time in a very controversial call - hmmm in comparison to leoanrd who had Duran move up to him and beat him.. No castillo is not duran but they both are very good fighters. Now we are comparing Mayweather on his accomplishment at welterweight, did we do the same for Leonard in comparing his accomplishments at Middleweight or above.

Frank we generally agree most of the time, but on this one, I see Roy whipping the matt with Leonard and I would have hated to see this fight. Ray plays right into Roy's hands too. Ray is a boxer warrior who has many styles, but he is used to being the faster fighter, what will Ray do vs a fighter faster than him, stronger than him, bigger than him, who is not your everyday style jab etc..type fighter. Leonard offered his own analogy. "I am very lucky I did not have to face Roy", in fact his exact words where " We the big four where very lucky we did not have to face Roy, just too big, too strong, too fast and too awkard". Ray would try and try and try, and just get hammered with counters until either a stoppage or a easy decision. Hearns stopped inside 6. Hagler outboxed all night, easy decision. Duran fight would have never materialized, as Duran himself told Pazienza "your stupid to move up and fight Roy Jones, he will destroy you".

[Michael Frank]

Pink,

Yes, we do agree most of the time, and here I'll just address my disagreements.

1) Yes, if Hearns got nailed by Roy at middle, it's all over. But my opinion is that Hearns's overall skills and far greater busyness, always in attack mode, buoy Hearns to victory.

2) Agree, Castillo and Corrales are no Duran, Hearns, Benitez, or Hagler. Floyd in his best days at 130 just didn't show me the skills I saw in Ray at 147 . . . irrespective of who had tougher opponents.

3) I think Roy beats Leonard at 160, but don't think he could on a PFP basis (I think Ray is the better overall fighter), and I'm not so sure Roy wins at 154. Ray had his way with Kalule, and Ayub's punches didn't dent Leonard, who was fairly aggressive and unworried about tasting leather in that one.

I feel your characterization of Roy as bigger, faster, and stronger than Ray . . . is off point (my point, anyway). I feel Ray is the better P4P fighter, with better technical skills, better opponents, with no questions about his chin, and frankly the better finisher, even.

That Roy would win straight up ("whip the matt with Leonard") ignores their size difference. Yet, I'd take Leonard of 1980 or '81, at 147, to beat Roy at 154--I'm that confident.

At 160, I didn't say Ray beats Monzon or Roy. They are too big. Still, I think Leonard has a better chance against Monzon, who doesn't present the offense that a similarly-sized guy, Hearns, did. He just takes a better whallop, unfortunately for Ray. I do wonder, though, if Monzon ever catches Leonard, the far faster man and IMO the more skilled combatant, significantly. Except for Carlos's height/reach, I'd take Leonard all day long. But Carlos's size advantage gets him the nod from me.

[wpink]

Pink,

Yes, we do agree most of the time, and here I'll just address my disagreements.

1) Yes, if Hearns got nailed by Roy at middle, it's all over. But my opinion is that Hearns's overall skills and far greater busyness, always in attack mode, buoy Hearns to victory.

2) Agree, Castillo and Corrales are no Duran, Hearns, Benitez, or Hagler. Floyd in his best days at 130 just didn't show me the skills I saw in Ray at 147 . . . irrespective of who had tougher opponents.

3) I think Roy beats Leonard at 160, but don't think he could on a PFP basis (I think Ray is the better overall fighter), and I'm not so sure Roy wins at 154. Ray had his way with Kalule, and Ayub's punches didn't dent Leonard, who was fairly aggressive and unworried about tasting leather in that one.

I feel your characterization of Roy as bigger, faster, and stronger than Ray . . . is off point (my point, anyway). I feel Ray is the better P4P fighter, with better technical skills, better opponents, with no questions about his chin, and frankly the better finisher, even.

That Roy would win straight up ("whip the matt with Leonard") ignores their size difference. Yet, I'd take Leonard of 1980 or '81, at 147, to beat Roy at 154--I'm that confident.

At 160, I didn't say Ray beats Monzon or Roy. They are too big. Still, I think Leonard has a better chance against Monzon, who doesn't present the offense that a similarly-sized guy, Hearns, did. He just takes a better whallop, unfortunately for Ray. I do wonder, though, if Monzon ever catches Leonard, the far faster man and IMO the more skilled combatant, significantly. Except for Carlos's height/reach, I'd take Leonard all day long. But Carlos's size advantage gets him the nod from me.

Don't know where to start.

My man Frank. Leoanrd did handle Kalule punches,but that is because kalule could not dent a grape. The announcer's made note of this prior to the fight, that Leonard camp plan was to stay on top of Kalule because he could not hurt him.

The punch you get hurt with is the punch you cant see. There will be many punches that a even faster Roy at 154 would catch ray with that Ray would not see, and i think Roy would be much faster and more powerful than what Ray saw in norris, kalule, etc. I know Ray was shot when he fought Norris, but lets examin Ray vs Benetiz and vs Duran.

Ray would have to take the fight somewhat to Roy. As Roy has the speed and reach advantage on Ray. So Ray would have to face a fighter who was faster than him for the first time. Ray also got hit plenty of times by counters from Benetiz. Now I am not saying Roy is a better boxer than Benetiz i am saying he has faster counters, and more powerful.

What are some the biggest punches in the 1st leoanrd Duran fight that competley rocked Ray, and also punches that his own brother said Ray was a sucker for? Straight Right hands. Duran landed several right hand leads in later parts of round 7 and 8 that shook ray. Roy being faster, more awkward, more reach, bigger. would catch ray with a Lot of these.

Roy simply is not a good match for Ray...Now for Monzon I think he would be a bigger test at 160 than the others. However, what would he do vs a fighter he never even dreamed existed. We saw nothing in monzon's career that leads us to believe that if he faced prime roy he had the style to beat him.

[Michael Frank]

Pink,

"Roy simply is not a good match for Ray." - I agree. A tough fight, it might be.

But, I think Ray is just a better fighter. Size, sucker for a right, whatever. I could be wrong. I DON'T like the 154-pound Leonard as even close to his best, never did. I would take the Leonard who beat Duran in New Orleans--moving, outpunching in clinches, not getting hit. THAT Ray against the best Jones at 154.

And you may still be right, Jones was excellent at 154 and had tools Leonard never saw. But, Ray is by far the best fighter Roy has faced, and Roy holding his hands down all night and pot-shotting--this is Roy's offense, isn't it?--this type of fighter Leonard eats up.

So, I would have liked to see it!

[TDKO]

I think the difference with both Leonard and Jones at 154, is that Leonard will
take chances, Roy won't which comes down to a difference in reflexes,
can Roy exploit the split second openings created by Ray attacking?
I belive he can, and Prime Roy had exceptional reflexes and speed, and was not hit flush too many times, (I know he never faced anybody with Ray's speed and combination punching), but was just a hair faster, enough to win a close UD.

[walshb]

Jeez, the last time In remember Roy at 154 was in the Seoul games?

Did he ever compete PRO at 154?

If this match is at 154, I see Leonard definitely being the favorite and winning!

[Crold1]

It almost seems that HBO was protecting their biggest star. Not matching Jones against big punching good fighters. It's hard for me to think that Frazier,Hall,Tate,Kelly or Woods were the best of the best. I don't blame Jones for not fighting someone who can knock him into the middle of next week. When he can fight someone else for good money. Jones has even said himself he didn't want to get hurt. I'm fine with that, but at the same time is it fair to compare him to others fighters who took on the best in the world again and again? Alot of people here don't like DLH. But they can never say he didn't fight the best fighters in the world. A fighters record doesn't tell the whole story. Mike Weaver had a bad record. I didn't see people standing in line to fight him. If the Redsox beat my high school baseball team would the victory mean anything.

A LOT of Roy's misses amongst U.S. based dudes had to do with an HBO-Showtime feud that never gets brought up with the seriousness it had. Most of the best at 60 and 68 were under contract to Warren and King, neither of whom did business with HBO. King-Abram was a fued of epic proportions.