If Roy Jones Jr. had retired after Tarver 1 where would you have ranked him?

I just wonder if you apply the same standard consistently or, as is usually the case, its with modern bias?

Who sits above RJJ. And do they have their post prime losses held against them?

 

Yes, that's how this whole discussion got started.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...u-have-ranked-him.737228/page-2#post-23413178

 

I guess it depends on your criteria but surely every fighter is different, no?

 

I always wanted to know what Roy Jones’s advisors were telling him after the John Ruiz fight. He could’ve literally cherry picked some easy defenses with the WBA heavyweight title and retired with more than 50 wins and 1 loss. Could have argued GOAT status.

He matched up well with guys like Oquendo, Rahman, Holyfield, a Toney rematch, all heavies who were not much larger than him.

He would have beaten all of them, that’s 53-1 if he went that route.

 

In the PED hall of fame with Barry Bonds and Marion Jones.

 

Sugar Ray Leonard was washed by 35.

 

these casuals are destroying boxing, saying stupid **** like being 35 and washed is a bad thing.

 

Because longevity and adaptation must be rewarded. You can't give the GOAT title to speed and reflexes that, once on the decline, end up on the canvas. It goes without saying that only the most capable and enduring athletes should make that top 10.

 

At least Leonard wasn't getting slept left and right by everybody.

 

K

 

so your argument is if someone is unbeatable because of their speed and they lose their speed, they can’t be a great?

 

No. RJJ had more speed than most fighters post-35. The problem is, he was so fundamentally flawed that even a slight decline in speed and reflexes would cause him serious harm. Still, one of my favorite fighters, by the way. But if we want to measure greatness objectively, we need to look for more attributes.

 

Outclassing Hopkins and Toney in their primes automatically qualifies him as an ATG. Regardless of longevity. However, I do get your point but that should be an exception to the rule.

 

49-1 compared to 66-10 that included being stopped 5 times? Of course he would have been ranked higher if he'd retired 49-1.