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

top 50ish around with Olivares and Dick Tiger

and yes I do agree with Selfkill that he is definetely ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe, Mike Tyson, De La Hoya and Bernard Hopkins.

 

I agree with everything except him being in front of Bernard.

 

I apologize Boom Boom, but when I see someone leaving out Michael Spinks of the top 100, what other conclusion can I possibly come to other than they couldn't have seen Spinks fight?

I'm racist? Please elaborate. Racist again who?

 

I rate Bernard Hopkins as the best fighter of his era, but Hopkins didn't dominate a great Middleweight era, he dominated a poor one - and then beat Welterweights moving up. That said, the Tarver, Wright, and Pavlik victories are fantastic. I have Hopkins and Spinks very close to one another - I feel it's highly debatable.

 

Hopkins is top4 for sure i think Mayweather,Pac and Jones are right there. I guess Pernell,Chavez and Holy are the era before him. ....Id put Spinks a little above Hopkins.

 

I couldnt stand Bert Sugar before I knew of him. Hes a joke.

 

Im a huge Jones fan as you know, I have never rated him on who he could or would have beat... I look at who he did beat and in the fashion he beat them in, which is very impressive.

Did he beat better opposition at LHW than Spinks? No. Heavyweight should not even be a question. Yes Spinks was stronger at those weights than Roy but Roy has more depth to his resume than what he did at LHW and HW.

 

I can see arguments for Manny Pacquiao, and he'd jump to first spot in the event he beats a very good and accomplished 147lbs next time out. As things stand, I have Hopkins at number one because I think his resume has gotten progressively better these last few years, despite the man being ancient. Incredible achievement to deal with Kelly Pavlik in that matter, irrespective of the weight.

1. Bernard Hopkins
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Floyd Mayweather Jr
4. Marco Antonio Barrera

Is how I have it. That's of the decade, by the way.

 

I really don't see great depth in Jones Jr resume? McCullum, Trinidad, and Lacy are by no means great wins. Can you imagine those three guys, even in their primes, going in against a 6'3 Michael Spinks at 175lbs. McCullum even gets murdered - and he was fantastic in his own right. What point am I making here? If you're so impressed with the manner in which Roy Jones won, why were Trinidad and McCullum allowed to see the distance? Because Jones was more interested in looking good than anything else - a lot of fighters saw the distance...when they really shouldn't have.

 

You are counting Jones as the era before then right?

 

I should have said. That's my list for the decade. Jones Jr has no placing because all of his good work got done before 2000.

 

Read my post again, and this time come back with a intelligent response.atsch

 

It wasn't so much a response as it was just making a general point about Jones' career.

 

I said Roy Jones had more depth to his resume than what he did at LHW and HW... You come back talking about McCallum which was a fight at LHW, Lacy which was a fight at LHW when they both were shot and Trinidad which was at a catchweight 170 when they were both shot.

Jones and McCallum by the way are friends and Roy has a great bit of respect for him, have you ever seen the fight? I think it looks pretty clear Roy didn't want to knock him out.

 

Jones was predominantly a Light Heavyweight, but his only noteworthy work outside of the weights being Hopkins (green), James Toney, and paper champion John Ruiz. I already factored in these victories when I compared their resumes, and I still think Spinks has the more impressive work done when you consider all of the circumstances involved. We can agree to disagree on this, no doubt we will.