Is Roy Jones the P4P GOAT?

These guys accomplishments were so off the chart, that it is almost irrelevant what they looked like on film.

Whatever they look like, would by definition be good, because it is what works.

I don’t think anybody would be suggesting Jones as the p4p #1, if all the film of him had been lost!

 

where are you going and how long will you be gone? Who are you taking with you? is this a business trip?

 

it's actually totally relevant because it's my sole criteria.

If all footage of Jones was lost and I had never seen him fight, I wouldn't rank him at all.

 

he then quit to Leonard. And he didn't knock him out. That Leonard win overrated which makes Duran overrated. Simply put.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Seriously, Im continuously amazed at how the abilty to be objective is soooo rare.

 

Well accuracy is had by none of us ranking to be fair.

Unless these fights actually come off we know not what would happen.

You can talk about the balance of probability but that is an interpretation within itself.

There is no objectivity here, we are subjectively listing and picking based on our personal criteria. None are right and none are wrong imo.

 

OK, I see. Roy is the greatest fighter you have ever seen film of. Since there is no film of Greb or a prime Charles or prime Robinson and very little of Langford and Fitz this is something you can say without having the do anymore research. Cool.

I have a question. At what weight is Roy his greatest. 160, 168, or 175, or 200? Which of these verision is the greatest fight you have ever seen?

 

I'm surprised that Luf is getting crapped on for his criteria. All judgements on boxing greatness are somewhat subjective; he just chose the most subjective one. It's not like he's ranking based on how well they grew facial hair.

 

I do not get the sense he is getting crapped on.

He is getting challenged but, he is also getting a pass. He is right to have his oppinion but it is really narrow. Ultimately he is the one who suffers, not those who differ.

 

No Jones isn't my number 1. He's my number 3. I think his best performances are against Hopkins, Toney and Hill.

I do not suffer one iota. I rank based on how good a fighter looks on film. You rank on some nameless criteria yet to be specified. None of us suffer, none of us are right, none of us are wrong.

Do we have different rankings? Sure we do but don't for one second think I haven't researched into the history of this sport. I know an awful lot about an awful lot of boxers but despite what one man might have achieved in the past, it will not change what my opinion is of how a fight would go and who is the more skilled.

i gave my top 5 earlier:

Robinson
Whittaker
Jones
Armstrong
Duran

 

If I was ranking on achievement and Resume i would probably have:

Fitzsimmons
Robinson
Greb
Armstrong
Langford

It doesn't make any difference though. We rank how rank and they did what they did. Whether i prefer resume today or filmed skillset won't change anything other than my own interpretation of the past greats.

 

Whitaker is a better fighter than Muhammad Ali?

I do not even see him on the top five. Sure Whitaker looks great on film but put him in with Duran at 135 or Robinson at 147 and we would notice a change of his performance on film.

The tally is 0 to 14 for Roy Jones being the GOAT. Not one vote. You did not even spell Whitaker right. Geeez! I am suffering.

 

I guess my way of looking at it is this:

Resume is a more reliable criteria for ranking, as we are dealing with actual historical events, and we can compare resumes by certain objective measures.

When I give a prediction in a fantasy fight, I am offering nothing more than my opinion on where the balance of probability lies, by anywhere from an inch to a mile.