I just read that Bert Sugar has Roy Jones 88th on his greatest fighters list

Had Jones retired after the Ruiz victory, he'd be in my top 5.

 

Even if this is true, Roy's biggest wins come from below the weights you mentioned.

At first I thought you were a subjective poster, but you seem to have an agenda... Not giving Roy credit for his wins because fighters were too small, too old, or too young, and then giving Tarver full credit is ridiculous.

 

Spinks had only fought 22 fights himself, and Qawi was already an established fighter having defeated Saad Muhammad twice in addition to winning the WBC title and seeing off solid contender Davis. Little bit different from Hopkins, who had no amateur pedigree or fought anyone worth a lick in the professional ranks.

 

Well said!:good

 

Tarver isn't getting full credit for anything, and of course I'm a subjective poster. Jones was a great fighter, but the majority of his defenses came against sub-par opposition, whereas Spinks was having tough fights on a regular basis because it was tough, competitive, and stacked Light Heavyweight division. All of these things, Boxrec can't tell you. How can you put so much stock in how many titles Jones won, when Edwin Valero and Jorge Linares are both two weight world champions? It can't happen.

 

Hopkins had NO AMATUER PEDIGREE?

Ummm, no...atsch

Hopkins started boxing at 10. He had 99 career fights in the amateur circuit (going 94-5 in that time) before it was cut short by his incarcerations into prison...where he continued to fight and became the jailhouse champ.

I guess boxrec doesnt post this stuff for you to learn it...

Jones and Hopkins were both green and both have admitted so, just like Spinks and Qawi.

Again, maybe you should check to make sure the person your debating with doesnt know more about the sport than you think before you start with some pompous ass comments about where their knowledge comes from or how extensive it is.

 

its actually not a bad list. old-time fighters fought a lot more, and in the very old days for many more rounds. these were tough guys. jones cherry-picked for far too long to be included in the top 50. I'd probably put him around 72.

 

Well im not much of a boxing historian / classic boxing guy so excuse my ignorance...

but i strongly think there is no doubt that Lennox Lewis should be on that list....

 

I agree..he should. I actually have him ranked over Tyson.

 

Fair enough, I apologize.

Lacy never established himself as more than B level, which is why the victory is not noteworthy. Likewise. Trinidad was a Welterweight and had been on a long lay off prior to fighting Roy Jones. Neither victory is impressive or noteworthy. That is all.

Beating John Ruiz isn't in the same league as beating Holmes. We agree.

Hopkins didn't have an amateur pedigree, and has clearly peaked late in his career evidenced by his signature wins all coming well into his 40s.

Jones Jr gets credit for his consistency at LH but were his defenses against better opposition than Michael Spinks faced? Certainly not.

I can tell you how easy it is to win multiple world titles in today's climate. Boxrec Edwin Valero and Jorge Linares, there pages alone will tell you how much titles are worth these days. Jones won the IBF and WBC belts for instance, but all that really means is he beat Tate and Griffin.

 

Bernard had an extensive amatuer background actually and was quite decorated throughout it...check my post on the last page.

(that boxrec **** pissed me off to no end, so I apologize as well for my boxrec comment in that post)

 

Honestly, I never knew Hopkins had an amateur pedigree. I knew he boxed a bit before being put behind bars, and then most likely did some fighting in prison. That said, I think my point still applies. Jones come out of fighting on the amateur circuit, whereas Hopkins come straight from Prison. Jones needless to say had more natural talent, and Hopkins would peak later on as he learned his trade. Jones got by on his physical gifts.

I'm not here to put anyone down, it's quite apparent you're not a boxrec warrior, hence my apology, No hard feelings on that front.

That said, I still refuse to concede that Jones' reign at Light Heavy was more impressive because I think it's apparent who beat the better opposition, and that coupled with the fact Michael Spinks had more credible victories at Heavyweight is the reason I have Spinks listed higher all-time.

 

Hell yea man...

He was one of the most dominant champions in recent history. and im not much a lewis fan cause he beat golota;p

not many other fighters can say that they beat every fighter they faced.

 

Point taken, but again, I think that's a rather weak criteria to have. When you look at the talent pool of the late 90s, who did Lennox beat that would qualify as a great win? His blowout of Ruddock, Golota, and Grant were marginally impressive, whereas his biggest wins came against battle worn fighters in Holyfield and Tyson. Great Heavyweight, but he should have been expected to beat everyone during those days.

 

Yey he says some way out **** sometimes. I am not a big Jones fan but I have him around #15. I met Bert Sugar one time at a VIP after party at the WBHOF banquet, I asked him who he thought won the Delahoya/Trinidad fight and he told me he had it a draw,we debated on this for a few minutes. Then I see this senile old bat on ESPN(classic) i believe ranting on about how Delahoya was robbedatsch My mouth about dropped this guy was arguing with me a few years back sayin Oscar didnt do enough and blablablabla. What a fu**ing liar.