By Lucian Parfitt

Roy Jones’ lacklustre attempt at redeeming two knockout defeats on Saturday night left everyone in boxing thinking the same thing: ‘No Excuses’ its time for him to call it a day.

Although Jones showed flashes of his old self, notably in the 5th round where his showboating was backed up with some furious flurries, his 36 year old body is no longer capable of sustaining any sort of offense. The 5th was to be the only round that he really backed up his flamboyance with some hard punching, going on to land just 10 punches throughout the next 3 rounds.

In the post fight press conference, Antonio Tarver tried to enhance his own questionable performance by stating he beat the Jones ‘Of the last ten years’. In truth however, he must know that Roy is an old 36. Jones has lost most of his leg speed, and he is now desperately gun shy, seemingly reluctant to take risks because he is no longer fast enough to get in and out of range. On Saturday night he apparently threw just 320 punches.

To casual sports fans, the popular notion appears to be that Tarver de-cloaked Superman, that Jones had finally met his match. The truth is however, that unlike in the films Superman got old, but it must be said that Jones looked tremendous for a 36 year old. When you put it into context, how did Muhammad Ali look at 36 beating Leon Spinks? And Spinks is no Tarver. Despite many fans protestations Jones’ performance on Saturday was comparable to most of the greats at his advanced age.

Jones’ approach on Saturday night reminded me of Ray Leonard when fighting Marvin Hagler. Though completely bereft of the drama of that 87’ showdown, it was similar in the way Jones was playing the game of deception, hiding his flaws and age with showmanship, most notably taping his boot whilst unloading on Tarver in the 4th.

The difference being that Leonard was willing to engage with Hagler, probably because he had confidence that he could take Hagler’s punches. Jones could not afford to be that confident with Tarver because when he adopted an aggressive approach in the second fight, he ended it on his back. 

I mention Jones in the same sentence as Ali and Leonard because I believe he belongs in that same pugilistic pantheon. He may not have captured the public's imagination in the way those two did, but we should measure Jones' greatness with a different barometer. He was never in a struggle like Leonard had with Hagler or Hearns primarily because he never had to be. Jones was perhaps the greatest athlete boxing has ever seen. He may never have been in a great fight, but I would hold Bernard Hopkins, John Ruiz and James Toney responsible for that.

It must be frustrating for his fans and for Jones himself that he only took chances when he was past his prime. Jones’ post Toney opposition is often unfairly derided as truck drivers and plumbers but I dare say Virgil Hill or Mike McCallum would not oblige if you asked them to fix your sink.

However there were many match ups that slipped by. Nigel Benn, Gerald McClellen, and Darius Michalczewski would probably have been handled like the rest but we never found out.

It is up to you whether you’re willing to take Jones' word for it, but whatever you do don’t believe Tarver’s claim about beating a prime Roy Jones. I implore you to stick in a tape of the Toney battering, or the destruction of Montell Griffin. I’m confident you will be reminded that 5 years ago it would have been a different story.