who is the best p4p ever

I'm 34 and have been a big boxing fan since about 1991 and in that time Roy Jones has comfortably been the best I've seen.

Mayweather,Hopkins,De La Hoya,Whitaker and Pacquiao have all ,I believe, been rated number 1 p4p in that time and Jones was more dominant and frankly more impressive looking than all of them.

So he's my pick fully knowing that Greb,Charles,Robinson,Ali,Moore....etc etc are deservedly considered and are greater fighters.It's just that they weren't displaying their wares during my time watching boxing.

 

Sammy Angott, Marty Servo. Fritzie Zivic, Jake LaMotta, Isidoro Janazzo, Henry Armstrong, Tommy Bell, Georgie Abrams, Jimmy Doyle, Bernard Docusen, Kid Gavilan, Ralph Zanelli, Steve Belloise, Charlie Fusari, Bobo Olson, Bobby Dykes, Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer, Attilio Castellani, Carmen Basilio, Dennis Moyer and Ralph Dupas.

HOF's in bold. Fought a total of 27 fights against HOF's, all those mentioned plus Giardello and Maxim, who he failed to beat when past his prime or above his best weight against the heat. He was 22-5 in those fight's against HOF's I believe.

Are you going to argue all those guys are 'no names'. They are either HOF's or top contenders for welterweight or middleweights crowns with very solid resumes, some wins of which include against each other.

 

Actually he was 21-7-1 in 29 bouts. He lost to LaMotta, Fullmer twice, Basilio, Maxim, Giardello & Turpin. The draw was against Fullmer.

 

Ryo Jones Jr. can´t even hold a candle to Sugar Ray Robinson. Fact. And no **** off.

 

Who the ****ing hell did Roy Jones ever beat? Robinson wiped his arse with guys who would have wiped their own arse with Jones' record.

 

Robinson. Maybe Ali is second. Roy is not in the top 10. He handicked too many of his own opponents. Never fought Malchedzidkdkna;fhd (sp) who was the one guy people thought could give him trouble. I don't care to argue who ducked who. The fact is they didn't fight each other when it was "THE" fight to be made at light heavyweight for years. If you don't fight the best of your own era, you can't be called best ever.
The Ruiz win was a cheap publicity stunt. There were a number of guys from 160 to cruiser that could've moved up and beat that slow-footed, feather-fisted chump.
On top of all that, we know Roy used PEDs because he tested positive after the (i think) Richard Hall fight.

 

What is your argument, Tony? You're saying that Robinson is overrated because not every single one of his opponents was world class? The same argument applies for every fighter in history.

It's true that Robinson fought quite a few no-names, but not nearly as many as you'd think, even given the number of times he fought. The no-name fighters he fought were used as in-betweener bouts to stay in fighting shape and avoid ring-rust, as well as to simply entertain the fans. You act as if the fact that he fought a few bums here and there takes away from all the great fighters and top contenders he beat. You calling Dykes or Docusen "stiffs" just shows how little you really know. Not everyone here is handicapped by your ignorance and elementary knowledge base, so don't just assume that because you're unaware of something that it doesn't exist.

 

that's kind of the thing. tony keeps switching between "records are all that matters and they fought nobodies" for robinson/pep and "talent and skill are all that matters" when talking about roy. are you basing this is ability seen in film or their resumes? you have to use the same criteria for both: not resumes to judge the old timers and footage to judge roy. if it's the former, sure roy has a case for best in this generation and the modern era based on the amount of footage we have of his prime. if it's resumes, then you can't **** on robinson for fighting nobodies in between fighting 15-20 hall of famers and champions and ignore the fact that roy beat AT BEST 5 hall of famers (mccallum, toney, hopkins, ruiz, hill) and a whole lot of nothing specials himself.

comparing resumes-roy loses

comparing skills on tape-roy probably loses

 

Okay so i've been offline for about a week and a come back to see a thread about Roy Jones being better than Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Mayweather's a better fighter than Jones in my opinion, and i don't understand why that catches so much heat on the classic. I'll agree that he beat the better fighters, which is undoubted, but saying Roy is better than Jones is just some given that nobody thinks is even debatable, i think that's mad. Of course we could conclude ultimately that Jones is more effective because he beat one or two real quality opponents, but this is far from a subject that is absurd to debate. Like i say, Mayweather is a better fighter in my opinion. What is absurd is to say that Jones was better than Robinson however.

 

No one is going to give the definitive answer here.
Langford
Fitz
Armstrong
Greb
SRR
?????????
If Manny beats PBF, perhaps he will be mentioned with these?
Me? I go for a guy I have never seen fight.

 

Jones is a great fighter in a H2H sense but no way is even close to being rated higher than top 20 - 30 in a p4p sense.

 

I know it really pisse's me off :fire and I'm Jones fan.

how you getting on with the studying.