[Previous entry: "The Sandman Returns"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Estrada's Trip to Greece on hold until Summer"]
05/19/2004 Archived Entry: "Going Against My Own Belief: Never Again"
Going Against My Own Belief: Never Again
By Frank Lotierzo
GlovedFist@Juno.com
In following boxing for the last 38 years, I've developed a few core beliefs that I stand by and usually never deviate. One belief is that a heavyweight must have a great chin in order to become a legitimate all-time great. It's not how many you beat, but it's who you beat. Another criteria, rather than looking at a fighter's KO percentage, who did he knock out? The one I may actually feel the strongest about is the belief that you can't accurately rank a fighter until his career is complete. This is something I feel very strongly about and usually hold firm on.
Over the years I've resisted the temptation to get caught up in the euphoria of the moment after a fighter scores a spectacular victory in a big fight. It's impossible to rank a fighter historically until his career has heard its final bell. Had Sonny Liston been in a serious car accident after the second Patterson fight and never fought again, he may have been held in a higher regard than Joe Louis as an all-time great. Liston was actually that highly thought of after knocking out Floyd Patterson twice. Had Liston never fought after Patterson, we would've never seen his losses to Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali. Against Ali, we found out that Liston was somewhat of a front runner and couldn't handle a good boxer with speed and toughness like Ali.
The same thing applies to Mike Tyson. Although I never felt he was totally the genuine article because of his lack of mental toughness and character, had he retired after knocking out Michael Spinks in one round, he would've been ranked alongside Louis and Ali. Had Tyson never fought after stopping Spinks, we would've never seen him get taken apart by Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield. Now we know that he does not belong in the same sentence as either Louis or Ali as a fighter or in an historical sense.
This leads me to Roy Jones. In February of 2003 I wrote a piece titled "My Problem With Roy Jones," in this piece I outlined how all the hype around Roy Jones had escaped me. I also evaluated his level of competition and determined it was seriously lacking. In the piece I even said that I thought Sugar Ray Leonard at 147 was a better and tougher fighter than Jones was at any weight. Over the years I have had many debates/arguments with many fans and boxing writers at some of the major fights in New York, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas. In a majority of those debates I was usually defending my opinion that Roy Jones is not all that some think he is. I always mentioned and insisted that Sugar Ray Leonard at 147 was the superior fighter to Roy Jones at any weight in the pound-for-pound rankings. I also professed that going back no more than 30 years, that Bob Foster, Michael Spinks, and Dwight Muhammad Qawi would have defeated Jones if all were at their peak.
When I looked at Jones' record and opponents I always came away thinking that if Foster, Spinks, and Qawi fought the same fighters that Jones did on the night he fought them, not only would they be undefeated, but they would've scored more knockouts. I was always firm on this, and never wavered. When I looked at Jones' record it was always the same thought, who are these guys. Other than Hopkins and Toney who did he really fight? Mike McCallum was 40 and shot and at the end of his career, and had fought his best years at 154. Virgil Hill was also shot and was taken apart by former Welterweight Champ Thomas Hearns six years before Jones landed the best punch he ever threw in his career.
In March of 2003, Roy Jones won a unanimous decision over WBA Heavyweight Champ John Ruiz. This is where I finally gave into the Jones mystique and overlooked the facts surrounding the fight with Ruiz. John Ruiz was a handpicked heavyweight who had to fight under the watch of a referee who wouldn't let him fight his fight on the inside. By Ruiz not being able to fight a rough fight against the ropes and in the corners he my as well been handcuffed. Imagine Arthur Mercante breaking Joe Frazier every time he had Ali against the ropes or in a corner. Had that been the case, Frazier wouldn't have won a minute versus Ali in their first fight.
Then a funny thing happened. I actually grew tired of saying after every Jones victory that his opponent wasn't any good. I knew the Light Heavyweight era he dominated was paper thin, but still somebody among those fighters had to be pretty good. Finally, I started to come around on Roy Jones. In his first fight against Antonio Tarver he showed me something I always wanted to know the answer to, "how would he hold up on a night that he wasn't on top of his game versus a tough opponent?" Against Tarver I saw that this guy is really tough and is made up of some of the same grit and toughness as many past greats were. In the first Tarver fight, he sucked it up and won down the stretch pulling the fight out. That being said, I still ranked Foster and Spinks above him and felt they would better him in a head-to-head confrontation. Something I often repeated leading up to Jones-Tarver II.
Still, I thought about some of histories best light heavyweights and felt at the least Jones was among the ten greatest. Probably between 7th and 10th. This is something I fought with myself over, but I just got tired of demeaning the caliber of opposition that he brushed up against continuously. So what I did was go against my own belief, I ranked Roy Jones before his career was finished. My mistake for not heeding my own advice. After years of being a lone wolf saying Jones isn't all that his press clipping profess, I give in and accept that maybe I'm wrong and I'm just missing it with him. Never again will I go against my own belief, regardless of how isolated it is.
I was in the same situation with Mike Tyson in 1986-88. Only with Tyson I stuck to my beliefs and feel that history eventually proved me right. Remember, I never questioned Tyson's physical talent, it was his mental makeup that I had serious doubts and questions about and felt that was the difference between him and the greatest of the greats. With Jones I was finally influenced by the overwhelming majority of fans and writers who were adamant that I was missing it with him. This is a mistake I'll never make again. Like with Tyson, I'll stand by my gut instinct and be proven right or wrong with out being influenced by the masses. Unlike with Jones where I tired of questioning every opponent after every fight and accepted that just maybe I'm missing it on this guy?
I remember having many arguments over whether or not he was in the same class as Michael Spinks. Never once did I second guess myself there. Spinks never lost to a Light Heavyweight and beat at least three fighters who would've beat Jones' stumbling block Antonio Tarver, in Marvin Johnson, Mustafa Muhammad, and Dwight Muhammad Qawi. I always admitted that Jones was flashier and faster than Spinks, but not the better or more versatile fighter. On top of that, when Spinks was finally stopped, it was by a prime Mike Tyson at his absolute peak in 1988, who just happened to be one of the greatest punchers in boxing history. Compare that to Tarver of 2004 who destroyed Jones. Not a contest at all comparing prime Tyson to prime Tarver. The same Tarver who looked ordinary at best versus Harding, Griffin, and Jones the first time. And to take it even further, can anyone say with a straight face that Tarver could've defeated Spinks once in 10 fights? The same Spinks who took the best from Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Larry Holmes twice, and Gerry Cooney.
Seeing Roy Jones getting destroyed by Antonio Tarver re-confirms my thought that Spinks, Foster, and Qawi would have all beat Jones on each of their best nights. I'm not sure that I ranked Jones prematurely, but the fact that I have to go back and possibly reevaluate him will make me stick to my guns in believing that fighters should never be ranked until their career is complete. Roy Jones is the perfect example of why this is the only fair way to rank a fighter among the greatest of the greats. The career of Roy Jones may not be complete. What if he fights Tarver again and beats him. Or better yet, what if he fights Tarver again and loses?
To gain the best perspective on a fighters career, we must truly know where and when he was at his best. We also must evaluate how deep or thin the era was that he fought in. In order to make a balanced evaluation, we must have all the pertinent information. In all fairness, we can't possobly have all that information until the fighters career is complete.
Replies: 6 Comments on this article
well put Daniel Kim, couldn't agree more. Roy's accomplishments pale compared to other past greats. And he hasn't shown he can comeback from adversity. A true mark of a legendary fighter.
Posted by Mark Petracci @ 05/24/2004 11:00 AM EST
i meant to say "a hand picked opponent in ruiz"
Posted by Daniel Kim @ 05/22/2004 03:52 PM EST
JDVena... In agree with your assessment in some ways, but you are going into more of WHAT if than can be had... look at the list of roy's opponenets, and look at the list of opponents by spinks, foster, and some other greats.. you are going to sit there with a straight face and say roy's accomplishments are better?? when people rank roy's accomplishments and where he stands in history and against other historical fighters, the only argument roy fans have is to talk about how roy's skills are so great and guys like spinks and foster could not have overcome them... they cant point to a fight like spinks had with qawi, holmes, cooney, and foster with ali etc and argue why their figter would win.. what would roy fans point too.. a boring fight with hopkins?? a weight drained and problem toney in a boring fight?? a hand picked affair with toney??? or the bums he lined up in the prime of his career?? or the fights roy passed up on... after this big loss, it definitely puts a dent into roy's standing in an all-time great list... roy , by his fanantics, was ranked above greats like pep, hank armstrong, and ali in an all time p4p ranking just based on his perceived skill, some even argued roy was greater than SRR LOL... i guess we have to wait and see where roy stands all time as he finishes out, but if roy fails to beat tarver in dominating fashion, or even fight him again, roy, as I always argued myself, doesnt belong in the all time greats list
Posted by Daniel Kim @ 05/22/2004 03:46 PM EST
Well said JDVena!
Posted by Depressedsoul @ 05/20/2004 02:48 PM EST
Fighters can only be ranked after they're retired. Not at what age they lost or were stopped!
Posted by IDAK @ 05/19/2004 04:25 PM EST
Though I agree it's fair to wait til a career is over to rate a fighter's place in history, I disagree 100% of your assessment of Jones. Do you think others including myself, may have been right that he lost a step going into this fight? Though it hasn't happened to lesser fighters of Jones' generation, isn't it common for a fighter to lose a step around the age of 35? What if Spinks hung around 175 a little longer, til say 33 or 34 and fought a power-punching Michael Moorer. Who's to say Moorer being a southpaw and very strong wouldn't have had a chance with him? Couple this with the fact that Spinks never fought a good southpaw in his career, while Jones fought seven southies, some of which (Harding, Tarver, Johnson & Harmon) were very skilled. Or better yet, what if, after Spinks beat Holmes and Cooney, resisted the payday of Tyson and moved back down to light heavy? Would we have seen a weakened Spinks who possibly dulled his reflexes with the rigor of shedding 25 pounds of muscle weight? I think that is possible. We never got to find out about Spinks in his older years because he didn't have any. And good for him.
Also, is it any worse that a 32-year old Archie Moore got blown out in one round by an unheralded Leonard Morrow, who had under 20 pro fights before he won the title? The fact that he beat Morrow in subsequent fights and that he won the light heavyweight title years later, sure does help his legacy, but I think for Jones, what he accomplished beforehand (him losing a very important step, which I'll get into) is what should be considered in determining his greatness. So what happens to Moore's black mark? Should it be forgotten? Should it be said that he isn't any greater than Foster or Spinks because of the humiliating defeat to Morrow? Why is Jones' loss to Tarver proof that a knockout punch from Spinks or Foster would be ineveitable had they fought Jones in their primes? Also, we're never going to know if a fighter like Lloyd Marshall, who knocked out a prime Ezzard Charles, was any better than Antonio Tarver?
This is what I had said to you and the Bucket on Friday:
"Like the Bowe fight, I think the beating that Bowe took in the first fight, took a little more out of him. I don't think Roy will ever be the same after that fight. Thoguh he didn't take the beating Bowe took, tt was gruelling because of the fact that he was fighting his own body that wanted to shut down and didn't belong in the ring. And it showed. When he was walking to the ring, my friends and I were saying to each other, "He looks as if he's sick or a cancer patient." That night I thought he had a very good chance of losing and I also thought that if he ever tried to make 175 again, he'd lose. His reflexes didn't look like they were the same and as good as I think Tarver is, I dont' think it had much to do with Tarver. Motivated or not, Jones stands a very good chance of losing tomorrow night.
Here is another comparison. When Marlon Starling moved up to fight Michael Nunn while being in the prime of his career, that ruined him. I remember after he had lost he was telling Larry Merchant how much he dreaded having to put on rubber suits to move down to welterweight. Though he managed to get down in weight, he was utterly listless against Maurice Blocker and took a beating. He never fought again. This was the twilight of Starling's career. Never should have moved back down and neither should have Jones."
This "important step" I was referring to earlier was the one Jones lost in between Ruiz and Tarver and certainly after the first fight. Were the jabs that Tarver was landing in the first and second fights any quicker than the ones thrown at him by previous opponents? Roy, like Alo has always been farily accused of doing things wrong and unorthodox. Without the cat-like reflexes he once had, those mistakes will prove costly against any one. I think Tarver's landed punches, which don't land a year ago, showed signs of things to come and for Roy, things can't get any better for him, which is why it's fair to say that Roy's accomplishments, which were great, are enough to rate him along the top of any all-time great list.
Posted by JDVena@cyberboxingzone.com">JD Vena @ 05/19/2004 09:39 AM EST
