Anybody who ranks Floyd's prime that highly over Roy's prime, must have just started following the sport. What's funny is, the two of them actually WERE in their primes at the same time, circa 99-02. And during that time, you'd be LAUGHED at in saying Floyd was better. Funny how revisionist history and bull**** propoganda works.
No. Stupid logic. Prince was thought of as being better than Mayweather then too, he was only a two year pro, nobody is going to call a two year pro an all time great and rate him over more established stars that had been undefeated or very successful for years. You don't seem to have much of an argument, do you?
I think it's more a problem of people grossly underrating prime Jones than buying into the Mayweather propaganda.
I'm not following this .. Please clarify. In comparing, RJJ and Mayweather, what does Prince have anything to do with it? Are you saying that Prince and RJJ are on the same level boxing wise? And if Prince fails in comparison to FM , then so does RJJ? Not being rude here, just don't understand it
Floyd Duran SRL Pea RJJ I could swap Pea and RJJ but feel Leonard is 3rd. I feel comfortable with Floyd and Duran, but could see them swapped without any questions
X wanted to focus on the perception of the men at a time when Mayweather was only a two year pro and Jones had been undefeated for near a decade. It's not a fair comparison. Prince was brought up because he's not really thought of as being on the level of the 5 men being discussed, but in that 99-02 time frame I was asked to consider, he would be rated above Mayweather. Because...Mayweather was only a two year pro we weren't completely sold on yet.