Whitaker or Jones? Who should rank higher on a p4p list?

How is it being unfair to Jones? I'm not BLAMING him for not fighting better competition (of course one could if one were so inclined because Dariusz Michelczewski was hovering around the top 10 for a while there, maybe top dozen or so and Jones never showed genuine interest in making it happen) I'm simply saying he didn't fight better competition.

As for Azumah Nelson not ranking higher than Hopkins I have them close, but Nelson is better all time for mine. I don't see anything unreasoable in holding that position.

 

By the way, I'm not using resumes as the ONLY basis upon which to rank Whitaker higher, (as i've said to McGrain, an argument can be made to have Jones higher if you think he was the more talented and dominant fighter) but I dare anyone to tell me Jones has a resume as good as Whitaker's. He simply doesn't. That Jones has more David Telesco's on his resume doesn't phase me.

 

Jones. It was harder to achieve what Jones achieved i.e. winning the HW title given that his career started at Lt Middle. In Jone's prime his fights weren't even close, he was just that far ahead of his peers. Whilst whittaker had tremendous skills he lacked physical advantages that Jones might have enjoyed. Whittaker was in most cases shorter than his opponents but, Jones was roughly the same height and taller than some. This is a pound-for-pound list and not a height-for-height list. Furthermore, there were some fighters I can't see Whittaker beating at WW (even though it was not Whittaker most advantageous weight) such as Hearns, Robinson and Leonard but, you could make an argument that Jones could beat anyone from Lt Middle to Lt Heavy. So, it's Jones for me.

 

Your post was a bit one sided IMO. And Michalczewski was perfectly content to sit where he was as well and not face Jones. So that's a wash as far as I am concerned. Jones still beat a ton of champs at LHW.

No, Jones resume isn't as good overall. He was perhaps more talented and more dominant, but that wasn't my point. You gave a detailed analysis of Whitaker's resume and then listed Jones' as an afterthought. It isn't Jones fault that the LHW division was full of Telesco's (Ring rated Telesco in the top 5 at LHW when Jones beat him. Thus illustrating my point)

And while not unreasonable to hold Nelson higher, I don't see Nelson as being a better overall fighter than Hopkins, and certainly not McCallum.

 

A ten year past his prime James Toney did the same thing. How hard is it really to outpoint John Ruiz, especially with a ref which doesn't allow Ruiz to do the only thing he doesn't suck at - HUG!

Either wer Pea's really. Only the first Buddy McGirt fight was close. Even that out with the first Montell Griffin fight for Roy.

Jones was quicker and hit harder sure. But is that the sole measuring stick for who had more to offer? I'd argue pea defense more than makes up for his lack in power and speed.

Not sure about that. I think there's a lot of welters that I'd favour to beat Whitaker, but I'd make quite a few light heavyweights favourte over Jones too. After all, who exactly was the best lightheavy Jones faced to give us ANY reason to think that he could beat the cream of the 175's?

 

Sweet Pea EASY.

 

There are LHW that would beat Jones. There is a noticable difference in Jones at 168 and Jones at 175.

 

Your ranking is about right.

 

Using the criteria I was using (fights against other fighters that were p4p) there was nothing one sided in my post - unless you want to include Tarver perhaps after th second Jones fight (was he top ten p4p after he Ko'ed Roy?)

Is that criteria only a facet of what goes into determining p4p rankings? Sure, resume of top wins/losses is only part of the equation.

About Roy-Dariusz, they both had no intention of budging I agree, and so it is neither here nor there. I'm not interested in excuses for why Jones fought this or didn't fight that guy, I'm simply looking at who he did fight (under the criteria I was using of guys ranked p4p).

Well it made Jones pale in comparison. And on that criteria he does pale in comparison. All things considered he doesn't really pale. (Though i have Pea higher).

I have Nelson and Hopkins near my top 50 but have McCallum outside my top 100. Not saying he wasn't a great fighter, but I do think Nelson was better.

 

Yes, but clearly that isn't the only criteria you are using. You have already said that. It seems to me you decided to only point out the criteria that made Jones pale in comparison. Thus the post was one sided IMO.

I can't see McCallum outside the top 100 fighters ever. I have him rated as the best ever in his prime weight class.

 

That's right. I did it to counter some of the Jones fervour. It wasn't a holistic account of their p4p status. Just something to make those picking Jones so readily re-asses. Hopefully it did that.

You're entitled to have him top 100, p4p lists are, afterall, quite sujective matters and open to one's interpretation.

You're also entitled to have him no.1 at 154, though with that said, I can think of plenty of guys throughout the years that I would favour to beat him if they were to fight him there.

 

Fair enough. I doubt either side changes it's mind much on these matters. It is as we all know, subjective.

Who do you have beating McCallum at 154? Besides Hearns, I can't think of anyone having a shot at him.

 

Guys I'd favour to beat him:

Ray Robinson
Ray Leonard
Tommy Hearns
Jose Napoles
Emile Griffith
Kid Gavilan
Billy Graham
Luis Rodriguez
Joey Giardello
Charley Burley
Marcel Cerdan
Carmen Basilio
Wilfred Benitez
Sam Langford


I'd also give outside chances to quite a few guys e.g.
Roberto Duran
Nino Benvenuti
Mickey Walker
Ted Kid Lewis
Winky Wright

To say nothing of guys I've never seen fight, who might have a shot, e.g.
Holman Williams
Barbados Joe Walcott
Tommy Ryan

 

Winky.

 

This has the looks of an old vs new discussion, one which I won't get into. We all have our own views on that.