How could anyone NOT consider Roy Jones Jr to be the P4P GOAT?

so he was less fit in 1998 than he was in 1995, having had many more fights against better oposition? Uh huh, just carry on with that made up wishful thinking.

According to most polls i've seen, yeah, according to the two I mentioned, definitively.

Well you have a lot of work to do because your astonishing insight isn't shared by anyone who matters.

Cox:
Middleweights Ratings:

Harry Greb
Bob Fitzsimmons
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Stanley Ketchel
Bernard Hopkins
Charley Burley
Marcel Cerdan
Dick Tiger
Jake Lamotta

Boxing.com
01. Harry Greb (USA) 186
02. Carlos Monzon (Argentina) 151
03. Stanley Ketchel (USA) 140
04. Sugar Ray Robinson (USA) 138
05. Bob Fitzsimmons (England) 117
06. Marvin Hagler (USA) 85
07. Mickey Walker (USA) 81
08. Charley Burley (USA) 54
09. Marcel Cerdan (France) 43
10. Mike Gibbons (USA) 37
11. Bernard Hopkins (USA) 33
12. Dick Tiger (Nigeria) 19
13. Freddie Steele (USA) 15
14. Jake LaMotta (USA) 13


IBRO:
Harry Greb
Sugar Ray Robinson
Stanley Ketchel
Mickey Walker
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Marcel Cerdan
Bob Fitzsimmons
Jake LaMotta

And so on and so forth. Now, these are just lists and it's not impossible that LaMotta is overated but that little list you wrote has hardly debunked 60 years of being ranked as one of the best by most That's an utterly ludicrous claim.

This is listed as a win on Boxrec. A quick look at that site tells me that this is another one of your exaggerations designed to boost any argument relating to Roy Jones.

"Most of the crowd booed the decision and many ringside experts, including Doc Almy and Eddie Welch, believed that Lytell won handily. The Boston Daily Globe had LaMotta ahead by two points while the Boston Evening American had LaMotta up by a one point."

You've gone on to boxrec, read conflicting reports, and immediately began babbling about robberies.

Furthermore, you haven't bothered your arse to look at the circumstances. This was LaMotta's second fight in a week and his third in a month. These men were boxing for pay. I actually think that green Hopkins could beat LaMotta in these circumstances - depending upon what was going on with LaMotta. In his last fight, did he pull a hamstring? Did he bruise a knuckle? Did he bruise a rib? Did he have a bad cut? Has be been training? Don't know? No.

In case it somehow passed you by i'm saying this was an unusually bad case, and in no way normal. This is all a matter of record.

:rofl

I'd pick Robinson to beat most middleweights at that weight.

I'd pick light Robinson to beat McCallum.

As you are confused by it, I will restate - I would pick the murderer's row to do very well against Green Hopkins.

According to most, yes it is, sometimes top 10.

What is this nonsense now? KG was 45-2 and had mixed with the ATG Ike Williams and beaten Tommy Bell. Are you seriously comparing him to Bernard Hopkins and his pathetic level of competition before meeting Jones?

Uh huh, sure PP.

Picking a Hopkins who had beaten NOBODY of note, lost wide to Jones and had a huge amount of improving to do to beat an ATG MW is spastic.

ffs.



Your post was absolutely atrocious.

 

What the hell are you talking about? I think you are confusing yourself. I have at no time claimed the above. Please try and understand what i'm writing it's really boring correcting you on stuff I haven't even said.

But we know Bernard Hopkins was not, and we have his own testimony to back this assertion. So what is your point this time?

You are now making my points for me.

Seriously though, this is my point. Hopkins went forwards in terms of loads of tactics, generalship and many points of technique long before he started to recede with age, at which time he was likely still a better boxer than he was when he met Jones due to these improvments. He certainly beat better fighters and turned in better boxing performances, even if they tended to be less excited and action packed. Stopping your opponent from throwing, which Hopkins CAME to excel at can be as effective as volume punches in terms of rounds won.

I know, this is why i posted them. You made a claim that you had shown that LaMotta was not top 15 material. My hope is, that seeing in what high regard he is held will help you to understand why this is ridiculous. And it is ridiculous.

ESB tends to get these things right IMO, and it it not, for most of the people attending this forum a bias towards favourites and historical boxers. If this is the case, you will have to explain how Jones finished above LaMotta on the list in spite of what is quite clearly a weaker MW resume.

This just proves what an insanely packed era this was. You are asking me to believe that an inexperienced Hopkins with his best years in front of him and a derth of top class competition would beat a man who could become MW champ in this era? Bull. ****.

So what? Jones never proved himself the superior of Tarver, Benn, Eubank, Griffin, Dariusz Michalczewsk, Calzaghe, Collins or Watson. What's your point?

So: fighting a guy and winning a series against him ISN'T distinguishing him from a fighter but Jones, who just didn't fight most of the best of his era, he somehow distinguishes himself?

I submit that if LaMotta is non-descript, Jones is more so and having the balls to ante up and take on the best of your era is more praiseworthy than boxing cab drivers etc.

I'd pick all the fighters you mentioned to beat every middleweight and super-middleweight Jones ever met. You are confusing yourself by comparing a fighter who fought INSANE competition and has losses with a fighter, in Hopkins, who had fought literally nobody in historic terms when he met Jones and who would never surpass LaMotta in terms of actual resume in his MW career.

You seem to be making a case for Hopkins to be ranked below LaMotta rather than a case for LaMotta to be ranked lower.

Yeah, wasted my time making a really **** point, i'm totally used to it.

:deal
Exactly. A close fight as a part of a tough schedule. My position. Your position:

Lytell was robbed, Lytell clearly won, Lytell is better, none of it because you care about the history or Lytell but because it suits your bizarre agenda as far as Roy Jones is concerned. It is ****ed up.

I do absolutely love that you are quoting Springs Toledo in support of your case though, after all the times on here you tried, with embarrassing results, to argue the colour of the wind with him

Except LaMotta won So PowerPuncher Land seems much more disturbed. A place where wins are really losses if it benefits Roy Jones. Seriously - you are now attacking me over providing "excuses" (which I haven't done) for a fight that LaMotta won This is even though I've happily conceeded that green Hopkins could beat an ill-prepared LaMotta boxing for the second time in a week. So...really, the above quote is absolute nonsense isn't it? Not only are you worng that it was a defeat you are wrong that I am providing excuses - in fact I've conceded the point and we are in total agreement. I bet this gets really funny...

:rofl

LaMotta won. The fight you are pretending in your head means that LaMotta "has no wins" was a win for LaMotta. What the **** are you on?

:rofl yeah ok man w/e.

He was in the worst condition of his career. Ever. It is the worst version of James Toney to ever fight during his time at 168.

Boxers grow. Metabolic rates change. Toney trained like an absolute animal for that fight. He just couldn't get those pounds off in the same way he used to. This is why he never fought at 168 again. When he moved camps it was to a camp with a steam room and he managed to hack them off. It was horrible timing and bad luck. Roy was still so good that night that there are few better filmed performances ever.

But that's not enough for you. You are now so desperate to shrug off what are the facts of Toney's training camp that you are pretending that Toney quit in camp. Very well. I concede. Toney collapsed mentally and quit in his camp - he didn't even try versus Jones. Congratulations. You have found the only way to make this win worth even less than it actually was Well done.

Why would they be that heavy? I'm assuming that they are weighing in under Robinson's rules, as LaMotta did. I doubt you would see many fighters weighing more than 164/165. Robinson is arguably the greatest fighter that did it. I think only the very elite would beat him.

Sure. Why not? McCallum would be especially vulnerable to Robinson's speed and mobility.

Arguably. It's hard to be sure as they are both pretty green. My perception is that Hopkins improved more than Lytell did, so I'll go with Lytell based upon that but it's impossible to be sure for obvious reasons.

At a canter. One-handed, in fact

All absolutely superb fighters and better than Segundo Mercado, certainly, however, size becomes an issue. Zivic is big enough to fight LaMotta, LaMotta is big enough to fight Hopkins but is Zivic big enough to fight Hopkins? Probably not. Once fighters can reasonably fight outside of size preclusions it becomes about other qualities for the most part. IN other words, LaMotta can reasonably lose to smaller fighters Hopkins would beat on size without impacting perceptions of their relative quality.

No. That is something you have made up in your head i'm afraid. But in future when you are making these enormous leaps of "logic" can you tell me about it in the original post so I can correct you over the right mistake? Thanks.

I'm sure if you really try hard you can see how fighting world champion types will have prepared KG for Robinson better than fighting total and utter bums would have prepared Hopkins for Jones

 

This is also made up in your head.

Made. Up. In. Head.

Made up in your head.

You may be referring to a post earlier where I jokingly corrected a spelling mistake of yours. I don't remember correcting your grammar (it's "grammatical" btw :rofl).