great post and it certainly helps putting langford's record into the perspective. his race and the times certainly had a lot to do with things
i cant believe i saw Roy Jones at 10. i mean i know Roy was talented and everything but i cant help but feel he was a little over hyped.
yup. he's the odd one out in that list and the one i have the least justification for keeping. however, given his talent and potential, i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. i genuinely feel he'll be rated highly as years go on. quick question about jones: let's say he had retired after ruiz or tarver? he'd be 49-1 (i believe), most talented 168 ever, long time dominating champ at 175, former 160 champion and the first middle since fitz to take a heavyweight belt. would it be so odd to have him in the top 10 then? there were rumblings at that time. if that jones could be considered in the top 10, why not this one? ezzard charles lost a ton in his final 20-30 fights. is that held against him? what about ali's late losses? we tend to rate fighters on their prime, not when they fought past their best. if jones had retired back then, would this be so odd?
Yes and no. The guys to who Jones was the childhood/youth hero will always rank him high and probably glorify him even more - can be clearly seen on here with many 80s fighters - but over time the flash will wane and the real substance in his career will step forward. And sadly this isn't much. I expect his ranking to drop with the more objective people. I rate his first loss to Tarver full. The second one and the Johnson fight still quite a bit. The other losses not at all. Jones was a beltholder at mw, the champ at smw, a beltholder at lhw, and a beltholder at hw. For me beltholder equals with top contender. This is a very good career and special achievements. Not many people did so. But it still falls short, especially when you take his resume into account. Compare it with Fitzsimmons. That guy was the champ at mw, lhw and hw. He cleaned out the hw division where Jones just beat one tailormade contender. How does that compare? Not. At. All. Still you have Jones in the Top10 but not Fitz? Crazyness IMO. I rank Jones between 35-40 these days I think. I rank Fitz in the same mold as Charles, meaning 5 or 6. Even without the losses against Tarver I wouldn't rate Jones Top30. Yes, it is. Very odd imo.
you know i can't argue with any point and your argument is very well put. Fitz is difficult to leave off the list and there are one or two others that are more deserving than jones on resume, proven ability against opposition and success across weights that i was tempted to include. but for me there simply was no fighter in my generation that looked as brilliant as he did, even considering the limited opposition. i'm ranking him almost solely on his ability and skill set and considering he's the most naturally skilled boxer i've ever seen, he gets a spot. did he earn it? no. your argument cannot be disputed but i can't say i've seen many fighters as consistently spectacular as jones. he's my guilty pleasure and one i'm having a good time (futily) trying to justify
I think if you watched a Robinson fight, you might think his footwork wa sbad, you have to really watch it to notice it.
haha, i wanted to phrase that carefully. to be honest i had to look for weaknesses. BUT in comparison to his other talents his footwork might be considered less magnificient. it's splitting hairs and nothing much but if his durability, punching power, chin, generalship is a 10, footwork may be a 9.5.
Fair enough, everybody has one or a few fighters he has a weak spot for. Just don“t let it cloud your judgement or you become the next PowerPuncher :good