Simple Question...

If Jones had retired at 35 would he be regarded as the greatest ever?

3fingers wrote:If Jones had retired at 35 would he be regarded as the greatest ever?

No. But he may have made a few top tens if he'd retired after Ruiz.

Although nobody was in any doubt about his talents and the fact that his record was still pretty incredible by just about any standards, Jones did have his naysayers and detractors over his opposition and attitude to the sport even in his absolute peak years, so even if he'd have retired after beating Ruiz (or even after reclaiming his old Light-Heavyweight title from Tarver later that year), I don't think there'd be enough pull there for him to have usurped Robinson as the consensus number one.

However, I do think he'd have been a lock in a lot of top tens, and may well have garnered acclaim as being the best since Robinson. Certainly, that second option was being talked up a fair bit by 2003.

The failed drug test and the many speculative allegations that he was a serious steroid user have hurt his legacy in some quarters.

Not sure about the serious steroid abuser allegations. As far as I'm aware he tested postive for a steroid which was contained in over the counter sports supplements....once.

Regarding Roys standing in 50 years, I see a few scenarios:

1) writers and fans will be at odds over his rating. Writers will favour the traditional (predictable) greats (robinson, moore etc), while fans will favour jones simply due to the extended highlight reell compared to the aforementioned

2) In the next 50 years many boxers will be caught using. If testing becomes more stringent, positive test results will become tedious. And doubts will be present about those who weren't caught using during the period of lax testing (always - till - present). This will favour jones' rating as doubts and speculation over others will allow him to be rated alongside them.

Not sure that the second point will affect the standings of Robinson, Moore, Louis or Ali, they were around at a time before PEDs became prominent.

I here what your saying H H, what I mean is drug use may become so common that it is no longer used as a stick to swat fighter down the rating ladder. What's more, doubts may surface over 80's fighters, benefiting 90's-to-now fighters. Jones before Ruiz was better than Robinson by the way.

Hear

I can't agree that Jones was ever better than Robinson, there comes a point where a resume means an awful lot and that is one factor where very few can touch him. Jones for all his talent can have his record stripped down to Hill, Hopkins, Toney and McCallum with a few world level operators like Reggie Johnson and Gonzalez.

3fingers wrote:Not sure about the serious steroid abuser allegations. As far as I'm aware he tested postive for a steroid which was contained in over the counter sports supplements....once.

Regarding Roys standing in 50 years, I see a few scenarios:

1) writers and fans will be at odds over his rating. Writers will favour the traditional (predictable) greats (robinson, moore etc), while fans will favour jones simply due to the extended highlight reell compared to the aforementioned

2) In the next 50 years many boxers will be caught using. If testing becomes more stringent, positive test results will become tedious. And doubts will be present about those who weren't caught using during the period of lax testing (always - till - present). This will favour jones' rating as doubts and speculation over others will allow him to be rated alongside them.

Look into the gains in muscle weight Jones Jr made in very short periods of time and then read the discussion that falls out of that.

Speed, accuracy, power and defence all belong to Jones.
We can speculate (ok assume) heart belongs to Robinson (Gatti had a big heart too?).

Opposition smopposition.

If I was a runner and I was faster runner than you, but I raced against people slower than the people that you raced against.......I'd still be faster than you.

Accuracy and Power both belong to Robinson by a long long way, stopping LaMotta and wiping Fullmer out with one punch takes some serious doing nothing on Jones ledger compares to either.

Boxing can't be quantified like athletics can with very clear measures, it's a sport that boils down to beating one man by any means possible.

I think head on, Jones is definitely a bigger puncher than Robinson. But he is the naturally bigger, heavier man. In terms of who hit harder pound for pound, it's a bit harder to say, for me. Still think Jones may have the edge, though.

No doubt Robinson was a venomous hitter, but I think his power gets slightly exaggerated at times. He stopped La Motta, but only in their final meeting out of six, by which time La Motta had been through one of the most gruelling and punishing careers imaginable, thanks to using nothing but his face to block so many punches. As Manos once put it, Jones would have used La Motta's head as a speed bag, and I'm pretty sure that Jones would have got at least one win inside-schedule against Jake if he had six cracks at him, even allowing for La Motta's incredible chin.

The Fullmer knockout was a piece of magic, I agree, but it was very, very much an exception, not a rule. It wasn't meant to happen, but then again, neither was Jones' knockout of Hill. Jones wasn't even regarded as any kind of body puncher and Hill had never been stopped (and his only subsequent stoppage defeat afterwards was a corner retirement years later at Cruiserweight aged 38), but he got it bang on at that precise moment. Same with Rodrigo Valdes knocking flattening Briscoe, something Hagler (or Monzon for that matter) couldn't do. Or Pep, a moderate hitter at best, being the only man to ever legitimately stop an iron-chinned, very accomplished fighter like Sal Bartolo etc.

Accuracy is hard to gauge, I guess. Suppose I'd back Robinson there, as he threw a lot less pawing punches than Jones, and a lot less range finders. I think that maybe helps to overblow how hard Robinson hit come to mention it, as he was always very aggressive with the shots that he did let go. But Jones packed more whack, I feel.

Head to head it is quite clearly Jones who punches harder but p4p I give a clear edge to Robinson, it would be an exception if he didn't also flatten Turpin, Graziano, Wade, Olson and Basora. Too much emphasis is placed on Robinsons post retirement career where he was half the fighter of before, it would be like me comparing him post Maxim to Jones post Tarver.

Stopping LaMotta at all is an achievement whether they fought 5 times previously or not, he was the first and only man to ever do it at middleweight.

love reading your posts chris, one of the main reasons I visit.

Robinson threw more flurries than jones, when your accurate anyway then one or two will always get through when you throw threes and fours to body and head. Whats more, back in the day fighters were less elllusive, had more heart, and were more willing to engauge, this made hitting the target easier.

No one in the history of boxing has had the accuracy and timing combined to throw a leaping left hook, from out of distance, flush to the jaw and send a man to the floor, like jones did, that's accuracy.

Engage

The thing is where was all that when he faced Hopkins, he won comfortably enough but against a boxer with considerable talent and nous the fancy dan stuff disappeared. That is why level of opposition is important and the sweeping generalisations of previous times have no impact on anything. Kid Gavilan wasn't exactly a face first brawler he was dealt with by Robinson with ease and he's a better boxer than anything Jones has ever beaten and that includes Hopkins and Toney. There have and always will be face first brawlers, it's not something that is unique to the past, nor are the illusive types unique to the present day.

Id like to see robinson land a single leaping left hook from out of distance on the defensive genius that is hopkins. Infact, id like to see anyone do it.

Gavilan a better boxer than a 1993 Hopkins, or just a better boxer than him overall, Hammersmith?

Certainly better than a 93 version of Hopkins while as Welterweight at least the equal of Hopkins at middleweight, lower down p4p but that takes into BHops amazing longevity and subsequent 175lb career.

Generalisations can be usefull when making a point. The fact remains, there were more face first brawlers in the 1940's than there are now. Even the majority of the technically skilled from that era would hàve a tear up in fits and spurts.

Can't say I agree with that at all, would love to know when Burley, Booker, Wade, Charles, Moore, Williams, Cocoa Kid and Marshall engaged in tear ups. Almost to a man they used their technical ability to either outbox or grind down their opponents. People seem to look at LaMotta and Basillio and think they were the norm when they were not, the best fighters in the 40's were black and have regrettably been somewhat forgotten.

Well I don't think Hopkins was yet at his peak in 1993, Hammersmith, so I'd agree with you that Robinson's two wins over Gavilan have more gravity than Roy's over Bernard. But I'm surprised you'd have Gavilan down as Hopkins' equal as a technician and pure boxer, though.

I think Gavilan's natural athleticism, fitness and durability were his greatest assets, rather than having impeccable technique, textbook fundamentals or an outstanding boxing brain. Opposite in a lot of ways to Hopkins, who has never been that quick and who has always looked to work at a slower, more maintainable pace, but who was incredibly technical and tight with everything he did in the ring.

I don't know, I just never find myself particularly impressed with Gavilan's defence or Ring IQ whenever I've watched him. Quite easy to hit a lot of the time and seemed to make fights a lot harder for himself than he need have by just getting involved in close when he could / should have been boxing, but getting by because of those flashy combinations which helped him outland other fighters by 2:1 and, of course, because of that chin he had. He did have a lovely jab when he decided to use and stick with it though, I'll give him that.

Apparently there's footage knocking about somewhere of Gavilan-Robinson II that some hoary old collector refuses to share for some reason (could be a load of cobblers though, mind you!). Many who watched Robinson right throughout his peak said it was his greatest performance and that it was one of the best displays of technical wizardry of all time from both. Worth seeing if by chance the above is true and it ever sees the light of day!

Indeed, they used their technical abilty to win. And mostly they won because thier technical skills far outmatched the brawlers of the day, but all of those names were not averse to standing and trading, even if just for a moment. These days I get excited about, the rarity, which is the great modern brawler, however, when I look back in time I get excited by the rarity which is the great old era boxer.

Great old era technician

All of those mentioned tended to be a bist busy fighting each other to worry about the 'brawlers' of the day and if pinpoint a single fight where any of them stood and traded that would be appreciated or the fights they were up against outmatched brawlers.

You're right I look at Provodnikov, Maidana, Lopez, Karass, Margarito, Rios, Matthyse and long for the days when there was more than just one brilliant technician in the Welterweight division.

As it goes, there was a short feature done with Jones which aired on ESPN a year or so ago (probably on YouTube somewhere now). The ESPN panel asked Jones how he saw a fight between him and Robinson going at 160 lb. Jones answered that he'd feel confident of beating Robinson because he was just a bit too big naturally for him, and that he felt (like just about everyone does) that Robinson was a better all-round fighter and was more effective at Welter.

However, after saying that he'd have taken a decision against Robinson, he also once more stressed the importance that his size advantage would have played, and was careful to repeat two or three times that, to him, Robinson was and is still the greatest pound for pound fighter of them all.

One thing that really, really surprised me, though. They asked Jones which fighter from in or around his best weight classes (so basically Middleweight up to Light-Heavy) from any point in history would have been the hardest night and biggest test for him - and he answered Andre Ward. Make of that what you will.

3fingers wrote:Id like to see robinson land a single leaping left hook from out of distance on the defensive genius that is hopkins. Infact, id like to see anyone do it.

I'm pretty sure the punch you're referring to was against Toney not Hopkins, but either way it was very impressive!

A good debate by the way.

Yeah, jones only threw that that punch once in his career!

Lets not get side tracked, my point remains H H, Jones is faster, stronger, more accurate and better defensively than Robinson, infact, he has those advantages over Armstrong and Ali too (p4p) therefore, had he retired at 34/35 he would have been the greatest ever.

3fingers wrote:Yeah, jones only threw that that punch once in his career!

Lets not get side tracked, my point remains H H, Jones is faster, stronger, more accurate and better defensively than Robinson, infact, he has those advantages over Armstrong and Ali too (p4p) therefore, had he retired at 34/35 he would have been the greatest ever.

Or you could argue that Jones wasn't that great defensively - considering the amount of times he has been knocked out - and that it was his freakish speed and reactions that got him out of trouble rather than his defensive technique?

3fingers wrote:Yeah, jones only threw that that punch once in his career!

Lets not get side tracked, my point remains H H, Jones is faster, stronger, more accurate and better defensively than Robinson, infact, he has those advantages over Armstrong and Ali too (p4p) therefore, had he retired at 34/35 he would have been the greatest ever.

Sounds like you're basing that on the "eyeball test" -- who looks better on film. That's subjective. Jones would probably tell you Salvador Sanchez was the greatest. Others would say Jofre. Some Mayweather even.

When rating a fighter's worth you need to factor in resume, quality of competition and how great they were in their time (did they face all of their greatest rivals etc.). Jones plainly falls down on those counts.

He was an outstanding athlete and a great fighter but his record could have been a lot better.

I didn't think that his career post the age of 35 will ultimately have to much bearing on how he is rated a few years down the track in much the same way as Ali post 1975, or any other example you care to use of a fighter carrying on way past his prime.
In terms of greatness he was certainly one of the top ten in terms of talent if not record.

88Chris05 wrote:I think head on, Jones is definitely a bigger puncher than Robinson. But he is the naturally bigger, heavier man. In terms of who hit harder pound for pound, it's a bit harder to say, for me. Still think Jones may have the edge, though.

No doubt Robinson was a venomous hitter, but I think his power gets slightly exaggerated at times. He stopped La Motta, but only in their final meeting out of six, by which time La Motta had been through one of the most gruelling and punishing careers imaginable, thanks to using nothing but his face to block so many punches. As Manos once put it, Jones would have used La Motta's head as a speed bag, and I'm pretty sure that Jones would have got at least one win inside-schedule against Jake if he had six cracks at him, even allowing for La Motta's incredible chin.

The Fullmer knockout was a piece of magic, I agree, but it was very, very much an exception, not a rule. It wasn't meant to happen, but then again, neither was Jones' knockout of Hill. Jones wasn't even regarded as any kind of body puncher and Hill had never been stopped (and his only subsequent stoppage defeat afterwards was a corner retirement years later at Cruiserweight aged 38), but he got it bang on at that precise moment. Same with Rodrigo Valdes knocking flattening Briscoe, something Hagler (or Monzon for that matter) couldn't do. Or Pep, a moderate hitter at best, being the only man to ever legitimately stop an iron-chinned, very accomplished fighter like Sal Bartolo etc.

Accuracy is hard to gauge, I guess. Suppose I'd back Robinson there, as he threw a lot less pawing punches than Jones, and a lot less range finders. I think that maybe helps to overblow how hard Robinson hit come to mention it, as he was always very aggressive with the shots that he did let go. But Jones packed more whack, I feel.

Jones was a natural 168 pounder. Robinson was a natural welterweight.

Offensively, it's a bit of a wash but Ray was probably tougher and less of a frontrunner. He was also better technically. Jones was the supreme athletic boxer -- he did things his own way and got way with them. As he aged, though, that caught up with him. He couldn't slip the punches he once did and was knocked out as a result. Ali changed his game, learned to absorb shots and had that iron chin to bail him out.

Robinson, too, was tough enough to absorb a hiding and respond when he was winning and losing the middleweight crown on a regular basis.

horizontalhero wrote:I didn't think that his career post the age of 35 will ultimately have to much bearing on how he is rated a few years down the track in much the same way as Ali post 1975, or any other example you care to use of a fighter carrying on way past his prime.
In terms of greatness he was certainly one of the top ten in terms of talent if not record.

Was he past his best after Ruiz or did he just meet the two best light heavyweights he'd ever fought? I think it was slightly more a case of the latter than the former.

88Chris05 wrote:As it goes, there was a short feature done with Jones which aired on ESPN a year or so ago (probably on YouTube somewhere now). The ESPN panel asked Jones how he saw a fight between him and Robinson going at 160 lb. Jones answered that he'd feel confident of beating Robinson because he was just a bit too big naturally for him, and that he felt (like just about everyone does) that Robinson was a better all-round fighter and was more effective at Welter.

However, after saying that he'd have taken a decision against Robinson, he also once more stressed the importance that his size advantage would have played, and was careful to repeat two or three times that, to him, Robinson was and is still the greatest pound for pound fighter of them all.

One thing that really, really surprised me, though. They asked Jones which fighter from in or around his best weight classes (so basically Middleweight up to Light-Heavy) from any point in history would have been the hardest night and biggest test for him - and he answered Andre Ward. Make of that what you will.

I think i'd probably agree with roy's assessment there. Interesting re his views on ward.

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:I didn't think that his career post the age of 35 will ultimately have to much bearing on how he is rated a few years down the track in much the same way as Ali post 1975, or any other example you care to use of a fighter carrying on way past his prime.
In terms of greatness he was certainly one of the top ten in terms of talent if not record.

Was he past his best after Ruiz or did he just meet the two best light heavyweights he'd ever fought? I think it was slightly more a case of the latter than the former.

More former than latter for me haz. We can speculate on for the reasons for his decline of which there are numerous theories. Regardless, some fighters decline slowly, some seem to fall off a cliff... especially reflex fighters, where the margins are small between slipping a punch and getting sparked by it.

Terry norris may have been the best light middle that ray leonard ever fought, but i don't see the fight going the same way had leonard been 5 years younger.

Personally, I don't see tarver or johnson, decent fighters though they both are, laying a glove on Roy a few years earlier, but its all conjecture and opinion.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:I didn't think that his career post the age of 35 will ultimately have to much bearing on how he is rated a few years down the track in much the same way as Ali post 1975, or any other example you care to use of a fighter carrying on way past his prime.
In terms of greatness he was certainly one of the top ten in terms of talent if not record.

Was he past his best after Ruiz or did he just meet the two best light heavyweights he'd ever fought? I think it was slightly more a case of the latter than the former.

More former than latter for me haz. We can speculate on for the reasons for his decline of which there are numerous theories. Regardless, some fighters decline slowly, some seem to fall off a cliff... especially reflex fighters, where the margins are small between slipping a punch and getting sparked by it.

Terry norris may have been the best light middle that ray leonard ever fought, but i don't see the fight going the same way had leonard been 5 years younger.

Personally, I don't see tarver or johnson, decent fighters though they both are, laying a glove on Roy a few years earlier, but its all conjecture and opinion.

Robinson had also slipped when he hit 35, losing to the likes of Fullmer and Basilio. Crucially, though, he managed to avenge those losses.

Well part of Robinson's greatness is how he was able to hold off the ravages of father time so well, Haz. Definitely an area where he stands Jones on his head.

But regardless of that, I have troube believing that it was anything other than father time which cost him against Tarver and Johnson. Granted, anyone can have bogey men - but a guy goes from absolutely annihillating (or completely outclassing at least) the likes of Griffin, Toney, Hill, Reggie Johnson etc, but then doesn't just lose, but gets hammered himself against Tarver and Glencoffe, two men who aren't exactly different class to the aforementioned names? Could just be a coincidence and that he was facing men who just had the kryptonite, but I'm not convinced. To me, just watching Jones in those fights it's pretty obvious that he had gone right off the boil.

Agree with Milky - if Jones fights either Tarver or Johnson before his move up to Heavyweight, he outclasses them both, the same way he outclassed and wiped the floor with so many other good fighters.

Tarver and Johnson were not the best 175lbers that Jones faced, I put those defeats down to Father Time just like Robinsons to Basilio, Fullmer and Pender.

How can you go from being sublime against Ruiz to being completely shot to pieces within one fight ? I have no doubt Jones Jnr may have slipped but not to the degree where Tarver gets the tag of " he beat a shell"

As mentioned Jones Jnr never really fought many noted bangers.

Cheers Rodders

Having to lose an extra 15lbs of muscle can have quite a drastic effect on someone, were he fighting in the 40's I'm sure he'd be let off for such a thing.

Appreciate that it's a pretty unique case, Rodney, but if you didn't think Jones looked like a shell when Tarver got him in the second fight, then surely you must have thought he did against Johnson? That was only three fights and eighteen months after Ruiz, so it was clearly a pretty rapid (almost unprecedented amongst elite fighters) decline.

88Chris05 wrote:Well part of Robinson's greatness is how he was able to hold off the ravages of father time so well, Haz. Definitely an area where he stands Jones on his head.

But regardless of that, I have troube believing that it was anything other than father time which cost him against Tarver and Johnson. Granted, anyone can have bogey men - but a guy goes from absolutely annihillating (or completely outclassing at least) the likes of Griffin, Toney, Hill, Reggie Johnson etc, but then doesn't just lose, but gets hammered himself against Tarver and Glencoffe, two men who aren't exactly different class to the aforementioned names? Could just be a coincidence and that he was facing men who just had the kryptonite, but I'm not convinced. To me, just watching Jones in those fights it's pretty obvious that he had gone right off the boil.

Agree with Milky - if Jones fights either Tarver or Johnson before his move up to Heavyweight, he outclasses them both, the same way he outclassed and wiped the floor with so many other good fighters.

I think Tarver and Johnson were the best light heavyweights he faced (Hill probably nudges ahead of both but he'd seen better days when Roy crushed him). Toney, Johnson and McCallum were better below 175.

Jones had undoubtedly slowed down somewhat but the first Tarver fight was only 8 months removed from Ruiz (and Tarver gave him all he could handle in that one). Jones himself admitted that Tarver would have given him a hard time even when he was at his best.

That shocking three fight losing streak was obviously a bit of both: he's slowed down somewhat and that coincided with him taking on his toughest opponents at 175.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Having to lose an extra 15lbs of muscle can have quite a drastic effect on someone, were he fighting in the 40's I'm sure he'd be let off for such a thing.

Fighters weren't able to put on 15 pounds of lean muscle in such a short space of time the 1940s.

Do you really buy the whole 15lbs loss of muscle ?

You have 14 months between Ruiz and both Tarver fights, it's easy to point that Jones was finished when Tarver got to him. I don't believe that was the case, admittedly Chris against Johnson he looked a man with half the confidence and with legs heavier than anchors.

Cheers Rodders

My take on it that along with a slowing of the reflexes Jones probably never had the chin to deal with punches in the first place. However, his sublimes skills meant that for years we were unaware that he had a jaw like Amir Khan

I struggle trying to make up my mind on Jones' chin, really. Safe to say it was never a great one by any means, but was it always made of glass?

He hardly ever got hit with a clean shot in his prime, but every now and then guys like Griffin and Del Valle did connect properly (Del Valle even got a flash, but still legitimate knockdown). His whiskers seemed to cope well enough with that, but of course neither Griffin or Del Valle were genuinely big hitters at world level.

Ruiz obviously wasn't a big puncher in Heavyweight terms, but it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that any much smaller (a natural Super-Middle, as Jones always classed himself) man with a glass jaw would have struggled to stand up to one of his shots. From my recollection, Jones started relatively aggressively against Ruiz and even seemed to stun him once or twice as he did - but he also took a pretty good shot from Ruiz in the process, which saw him revert to pure boxing and no risks for the remainder of the fight. Suggests to me that maybe Jones knew he didn't have a top, top chin to put his trust in, hence why he boxed more cautiously afterwards, but also a bit of evidence to suggest that it was at least serviceable for the most part, rather than there to be cracked by anyone with a bit of pop in their fists?

If I had to take a guess I'd probably agree that Jones' chin was never that good, but I don't think it was glass, either. Even allowing for his reflexes and the fact that he was so hard to hit cleanly, I just can't see a truly glass jaw going a whole eleven years and something like twenty-five fights at world title level without being smashed at some stage, or at least being badly cracked enough to give people a genuine cause for concern.

Jones had started to slow down before going up to Heavyweight, having watched his whole career up to the Calzaghe debacle on DVD you can see the beginnings of his decline as early as the Gonzalez fight where he wasn't at his ridiculous best.

88Chris05 wrote:I struggle trying to make up my mind on Jones' chin, really. Safe to say it was never a great one by any means, but was it always made of glass?

He hardly ever got hit with a clean shot in his prime, but every now and then guys like Griffin and Del Valle did connect properly (Del Valle even got a flash, but still legitimate knockdown). His whiskers seemed to cope well enough with that, but of course neither Griffin or Del Valle were genuinely big hitters at world level.

Ruiz obviously wasn't a big puncher in Heavyweight terms, but it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that any much smaller (a natural Super-Middle, as Jones always classed himself) man with a glass jaw would have struggled to stand up to one of his shots. From my recollection, Jones started relatively aggressively against Ruiz and even seemed to stun him once or twice as he did - but he also took a pretty good shot from Ruiz in the process, which saw him revert to pure boxing and no risks for the remainder of the fight. Suggests to me that maybe Jones knew he didn't have a top, top chin to put his trust in, hence why he boxed more cautiously afterwards, but also a bit of evidence to suggest that it was at least serviceable for the most part, rather than there to be cracked by anyone with a bit of pop in their fists?

If I had to take a guess I'd probably agree that Jones' chin was never that good, but I don't think it was glass, either. Even allowing for his reflexes and the fact that he was so hard to hit cleanly, I just can't see a truly glass jaw going a whole eleven years and something like twenty-five fights at world title level without being smashed at some stage, or at least being badly cracked enough to give people a genuine cause for concern.

It certainly wasn't glass but it wasn't Ali or Robinson calibre (few are to be fair).

Jones was a natural super middle. He's one of the few fighters who went up a weight due to boredom!