Who should rank higher atg - toney or jones?

Yeah, but for impartiality on Hopkins you're the guy to go to, right?

 

:dead

Yep, clearly because I jump into everythread that mentions Hopkins to make the goat out of him. :thumbsup

 

Jones didn't win fighter of the decade for nothing.

 

Jones, Jr. and the discussion isn't close.

Had he retired at the correct moment, he would be considered among the top 10 all time. He was that dominant.

 

Hmmmm. You said Jones beat everyone he had to? I always thought you said he ducked a lot of fighters and didn't go looking for the big fights?

The only real fight you can say should have happened "for sure" was Michalczewski. But no one really knows who's fault that was for the fight not happening. I'm 100% sure if Michalczewski was willing to travel to America then Jones would have fought him without a shadow of a doubt. Jones would have surely won as well.


Everybody can say whatever they want about Jones "ducking" Benn and Eubank, but **** happens...

Why didn't Toney get a chance to fight these guys? Wasn't he calling them out? Toney never ducked anyone, everbody knows that but he still didn't get the Benn fight. I think what it all comes down to is that neither boxer was willing to travel and risk themselves against the "absolute elite" in their divisions.


As for Hopkins II in 2002, we all know Hopkins ducked Jones there, it was plain to see.

So when it's all said and done you can't blame Roy Jones for all the fighters he didn't face. Even without these certain boxers he still has a great resume. Montell Griffin, Antonio Tarver, James Toney, John Ruiz, Jorge Castro, Thulani Malinga, Bernard Hopkins, Virgil Hill, Eric Harding...those are some good names right there.

 

40 years old McCallum was not drained against Jones , add to it the fact that unlike Toney he did properly go down against Jones while Toney didn't.
There is also the possibility that Jones carried McCallum what can't be said about his fight with Toney where it is clear that he was afraid of repeating what Reggie Johnson tried and was the closest to achieve against James. Just imagine a non drained Toney fighting a drained Jones , Jones' poor win over Toney is more to James' credit than to Jones' . Jones lost to Griffin too , while Toney's 2 "losses" to Griffin are what I consider as draws , not that I consider them robberies either , as I think Griffin fought smart and I don't mean cowardly , just smart.
Jones was stopped by Tarver and Glen Johnson while Toney took a young and prime Sam Peter the distance twice , some say he even beat him once.
Tarver was Jones' cryptonite while Toney was impressive vs. Jirov , Toney for all of his eating disorder was braver than Jones in the fights he took and in his worst moments was still respectable while Jones' stoppage losses are funny youtube highlights , Jones was never nearly as drained neither out of shape as Toney yet he was stopped twice close to his prime and he was definitely not drained in neither of them cases because both were past his "back to light heavyweight" fight.
P4P Toney was better .

 

Compared to your bias I'm pretty objective, do I need to drag out your hate posts? Bodhi has a blatant agenda against Jones Jr, and some of his ridicolous statements like:

'Darius was as shot against Gonzalez as Jones was against Green' :silly

'Jones beating Toney and Hopkins doesn't mean anything because Toney was weight drained and Hopkins was green even though he was 28' :-(

'Jones should have gone to Germany to fight Rochiagani'

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqcn_TPu4qQ[/ame]

 

1. It doesn't change the fact that WBA and WBC have history ranking back to when there was only 1 title and traditionally the unification of these belts created linage. The Ring is just a magazine

2. No it's certain internet posters opinion, there's an argument for it, but how can Maske be rated over Jones Jr?

3. The fact you bring up Howard Eastman He was Euro level at best. Hopkins has good wins, as a reign it isn't as deep and doesn't have as much quality good as Jones Jr's LHW, it's not close.

Tito (1 very good win at MW) - Virgil Hill (a 10 year champ with 22title wins)

Tarver (Jones successor) - Holmes (decent belt holder)

DLH (gift against Sturm) - McCallum (past prime but an ATG)

Vanderpool - Reggie Johnson (2 weight champ arguably beat Toney for many)

Joppy (average titlist)- Griffin (beat Toney twice and won the DQ)

Glen Johnson-Gonzalez (Darius conquror and won a tight decision over Johnson)

John Jackson (shot ex LMW champ) - Woods (future IBF champ)

Echols (decent banger few wins) - Harding (beat Tarver)

Mercado (decent but limited banger) - Richard Hall (huge LHW, pretty much jobbed against Darius)

Simon Brown (shot LMW titlist) - Otis Grant (current MW titlist)

Eastman (Basic Euro champ) - Del Valle (current LHW titlist)


Now, say with a straight face Hopkins MW resume has more quality in depth, or has more top level wins, Jones is clearly has better quality in top level wins and second tier wins

4. It was tested against the best 2 men of his era, in which he won 21 out of 24 rounds against

5. Erdei does have a case to be lineal champ if you believe Hill and Maske were 1 and 2 when they fought

This is what people who weren't following the sport at the time or haven't researched seem to miss. There's the internet hate driven myth that Jones only beat bums, but those same bums he easily destroyed or dominated gave other champions close fights and in some cases beat them. There's a reason his contemparies he supposedly ducked also thought he was on another level

 

Are you going to deny any of these pearls Bodhi? Just admit you're full of hate that Jones is rated above your beloved Rochiagani and Darius :yep

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIu4fP4fOHE[/ame]

 

Wow. What a bad post. I'm in awe.

 

1. I wasn't trolling the Dempsey thread, I merely quoted many facts that didn't suit your apologetic Dempsey stance

2. Well 2 things, first Mayweather is lineal at WW so no, Wald is arguably lineal at HW but Haye-Vitali would have a case for it.

Secondly the belts have lost credibility over the last 15years, with all the strippings and fighters discarding them, before that they had more signficance. So it means we do look at Ring ratings these days, which are in turn more biased and unobjective due to Golden Boy running it. Establishing a new Lineage is now pretty controversal and allot of fans, boxers, promoters don't follow lineage and value belts more highly

As for you prior comment about , what about Vitali being awarded the Ring belt against Sanders? That was a pretty ridiculous jump of the gun and an unjust ranking of 1 and 2