where does RJJ belong ATG?

So what... You repeat this like it is a broken record... Although I think Tarver was undisputed when Roy beat him.

He beat future lineal champs and past lineal champs, future unified champs and undisputed champs as well as past.

Sometimes beating future champs is more impressive than beating current ones.

 

I don't punish Roy for getting blasted by Joe, the Austrailian, and Hopkins 2. You'd be dishonest not to consider Tarver's humiliation of him, and it's mental after-affects in the Johnson fight, though. Also note that while Roy was awesome in his prime, all of his dancing/showboating has lead to him getting more credit than he deserves for beating up a lot of the bums he's doing it against. Hopkins could have danced around like a ****** against those same guys, if he wanted to. But instead he was all business, same for other fighters. Next time you watch Roy's 10 minute (and admittedly "fun") highlight video on youtube, try forcing yourself to ONLY watch the opponents the whole time. You'll see they are corpses. Roy still gets credit for being dominant over them of course, but don't make him a legend just for dancing around like a ******.

I agree that Pernel is too high on the list. And I'm glad you're not one of these who would even consider putting Roy over Hagler, at least. I stand by that Pac should be ahead of these three mentioned, as much as it pisses off the anti-*******s.

 

Prime Roy showboated against everyone, not just the fighters you consider bums. That was just part of Roy, and I don't think the showboating is what gets him ranked so high, but the freakish nature of his speed, athleticism, awkward style and power which speaks volumes over doing a little dance. And even if you don't want to admit it, Roy's attributes proved to be greatly effective over great fighters as well.

 

Great fighter. One of the greatest of the last 30 years, but he'd probably be around 40-45 on my list. Doesn't really have the resume to justify some of the placings I often see him credited with.

 

In my opinion, Roy Jones is pound for pound the best fighter in history, in head to head comparisons.

 

Michael Spinks and Ezzard Charles beat Roy at 175lbs in my judgment. Foster has a puncher's chance, also.

To name 5 fighters better than him p4p is too easy, Bernie.

 

And I find it astounding how such a statement could exist considering Jones didn't defeat a great list of names. His win over Toney was remarkable but there were question marks regarding Toney's weight. Hopkins was green at that point, and unlike Jones, was not getting by on his athletic ability and hadn't come straight out the Olympics. Hopkins matured into a great fighter, he wasn't one immediately...whereas I'd argue Jones was.

I don't favor anyone at Super Middleweight to beat Jones, but there's Middleweights and Light Heavyweights throughout history that I think either do beat him or have a good chance of doing so.

 

Stylistically, in a pound for pound, round robin tournament, Roy would be the guy to get the most wins, I believe. I don't see anyone else who had as baffling a style for people to figure out, particularly if they're only fighting him once.

 

I think there's enough evidence on show to suggest that Jones is very capable of being knocked out whenever he is hit flush by a capable puncher. I don't honestly believe he could go 12 rounds against Michael Spinks without getting hit multiple times, and I don't see him taking Spinks' power when he was almost killed by Johnson and Tarver. Admittedly, it wasn't prime Jones and he had some issues with coming down in weight...but I don't think we can attribute the knockouts to only the weight. Typically, even shot fighters have been able to maintain a certain level of punch resistance..

 

:rofl:rofl:roflatschatsch

 

Bert Sugar is so ****ing biased,he said Roy was not as fast as SSR or SRL at MW bollix!!!!!!!!

 

Whenever that ******* asks that question i just hit back with this.Was RJJ ever a unified,lineal or undisputed champ?

 

Roy Jones Jr. for me is chalenging to rank.
In therms of skills/talent/abality or what he could do in the ring. He is a top 5 lock. He could be as high as #1.
He is up their in terms of acomplishments winning tittles at 160, 168, 175 and heavy.
I don't think anyone in history would give him much of a fight at 168. I think he beats everyone at 175. There are a few boxers who would defently chalenge him though.
He fought good but not great commpotion. Allthough it is better than his critics claim it to be. It is not as good as it could be.
At the end of the day I think he belongs in or near the top 10.

 

Who beats him at 168 prime for prime? He also has a good chance against any MW and any LHW ever. Head to head ATG is not the same as ATG based on accomplishments.

I don't know why I am wasting my time... I am sure you will come back with fighters no where near as good as Roy and would get their ass handed to them, that somehow shatter his glass mandible and expose him as the fraud he has always been.

You remind me of a broken Abba record, shitty music that keeps repeating itself. Much like your horrible insight on Roy Jones.

 

I don't feel what happened to an aged Roy really tells me much about him at his best. He was extremely mobile with some of the greatest reflexes we've ever seen. Pound for pound, his hand speed was second to none, and he was just a great ring general.