In a H2H against RJJ...

Do you disagree with me?

I am saying I would favour Lewis, Tyson and Liston to beat Jones.

 

I remember joe openly admitting to avoiding jones and Hopkins while they were at their best. He defended against mostly average opposition, racking up the wins while avoiding the two best boxers of his era.
fair enough, sven ottke did exactly the same.
That's why I too am surprised to hear him mentioned with all time greats. He had a couple of good wins but you cant seriously qualify for any definition of greatness by avoiding the two best in your division until they are long past it.
Age comparisons are misleading in careers, no one could seriously claim that jones and Hopkins were in their prime when calzaghe eventually fought them.
lewis and Tyson were similar ages when they boxed but Tyson had peaked 12 years earlier whereas lewis was much closer to his best. Edwin Rosario was shot at 26

 

160-175

Marshall, Conn, Bivins, Tunney, Charles, Moore, and Foster.

 

Telesco got Roy against the ropes a couple of times and was landing clean punches. It's the achilles heel that Tarver and Calzaghe would always expose.
Tarver was robbed in the first fight, then brutally knocked Roy out the second time after cornering him against the ropes. Calzaghe gave Jones a beating against the ropes.

 

@ 168 McClellan
@175 Foster .Moorer . Spinks . Tunney. Moorer.

 

Archie Moore would find that chin, Billy Conn may be too tough, Michael Spinks had enough power to tip him and IMO Bob Foster could do it as well Jones was talented but he could take zero chances against these punchers and that may not be enough to win

 

Roy was calling for telesco to back him into the corner and telesco stayed away because Roy was punishing him. The tarver and calzaghe fights were post-heavyweight for jones and his legs were gone. The first tarver fight was close but not a robbery even though the 117-111 scorecard was a joke. Tarver got outhustled by an exhausted fighter down the stretch. Calzaghe had the best style to beat an old Roy but the worst for a prime Roy. Even joe understands he would have lost at their best from past comments.

 

You can justify favouring a lot of great light heavyweights over him, but I can’t think of any where I would be confident of the outcome.

It is kind of implicit in Jones’s attributes, that he has a chance against anybody.

 

McClellan, Nunn and Eubank would've beaten him. McClellan by stoppage, Nunn on points and Eubank by KO.

 

Eubank wouldn't of even got in the ring with RJJ.

 

Why do some need to say "lie" when it is very plausible the other poster or commenter could just be mistaken?

It would be a better forum if everyone could agree & disagree respectfully absent mean, disparaging or mocking statements. let's debate amicably & appreciate what others bring to the table, instead of being a cliche lowest common denominator forum.

OK?