Is Roy Jones the P4P GOAT?

No love for Napoles?

 

Nice plug there haha.

I'll give it a read. I quite liked the top 100 atg you did.

 

Saddler is the most dangerous puncher in that division and is top 10 greatest punchers all-time. This argument that unless there is video, we cannot rank a guy is interesting. It is like Greb never existed because hi film does not...dispite the fact that he beat up on good and all-time great heavyweight and lt. heavyweight contenders as a middleweight.

Paul Williams looks great on film in his early fights. I mean he looked like a world beater, then he lost to Quintana, a guy who he should taken apart. The guys that Roy fought...most if not all-time greats would look good against. Does anyone see Ray Robinson having any problem with any verison of James Toney, especially the one the Roy fought or with any version of Benard Hopkins, especially the one Roy fought.

Put Roy in Robinson's shoes at middleweight. Do you think Roy KO's Lamotta, Fulmer, Graziano, Olson and Turpin, and swells Basillio eye to the size of a baseball? Even if you say yes, you know that for sure that and old, out-of-retirement Robinson did. He came out of retirement and beat up all-time greats.

There is no comparision.

BTW, Jofre? How much film is there of a prime Eder Jofre, unless you have seen him live?

 

It's not an argument, it's my personal choice. People can rank however they want, but given that I rank on the eye test I only rank those I have seen footage of.

I rank Robinson above Jones in every way conceivable so I'm in agreement there.

There's enough footage of Jofre out there imo. I'm only 26.

 

I understand the way you rank and that it is a personal choice. I think we are all in bounds to challenge eah others personal choice and oppinions once they are posted on the forum, for debate.

If you want your oppinions respected you need to be ready for healthy debate. If you want to learn more about this great sport that men have studied since the English or Welsh ,whichever you prefer, put together the rules that govern our understanding then you need not worry about putting age out there. We all know about how old the other is sooner or later, and it has nothing to do with ranking fighters.

Peace,
J

 

I love debating boxing, it is the first reason I joined this site. Followed secondly by the chance of learning something knew.

I'm not really sure what you want to debate or challenge though. The whole "don't rank on the eye test" is an empty debate. The real debate is who you would have instead using the same criteria. So what would be your top ten on the eye test?

I posted my age to demonstrate I haven't seen Jofre live

 

Like I said...we will learn your age soon enough...and not by ranking. Laughing at your own jokes tells me what I need to know.

Down to business.


Your "Eye Test" is extremely flawed.

• Because it takes no account of the context of each fight. Pernell Whitaker or Mike Tyson may look like a world beater against one style or quality of opponent but may look completely ordinary or beatable when faced against a harder style and quality opponent. Duran looked like a god against Moore but, but was floored on two rounds against Hearns.

• Sugar Ray Robinson films are against tough, tough, guy out of his prime and in theirs, so he is bound to be not as impressive in these fights. Yet he was, so we can look at his record and only imagine just how fast and great he was in his prime even though we do not have the film.

By using the eye test your ranking is not only flawed but not even debatable because it is based on your preference for fighting styles. You may think that Whitaker making guys look stupid is tops...but, another guy will be more impressed by watching Mike Tyson pound guys out early. Who is right? I think the who is using all the tools at his disposal. Reports, resume, and yes film if it exist. To remove any of these from your judgment is not good judgment.

I get the feeling that you are not going to take any of this into account...but simply you are going to declare that is a dead debate. Still, I will play along because I like your question at me.

This content is protected

These men looked like they had no weaknesses on film. The had complete control over their boxing skills. Yet my preference if defense, countering, and precision punching. None of these men had better results on film when Dempsey beat Willard or Foreman destroyed Frazier. See my point. I ranked based on the style I prefer not the complete story.

 

Do you mean Pep's Saddler win is greater than a victory over a prime Chavez or Whitaker or that Saddler is a better fighter than Whitaker and Chavez? Because while all of them are close I think most would have Whitaker over the other two.

JLP you asked how much Jofre was viewable (plenty 30 rounds against swarming Harada, 14 rounds against smooth boxing legra, over 10 against hard punching trap setting Jose Medel, so close to 60 rounds of fighting against various styles to make a call) and if luf had seem him live. I think his age is relevant to the conversation. Isn't calling him out on his age a little insulting to him?

And isn't ranking based on wins subjective? Is Frazier over Ali a better win than Duran - Leonard? You are weighing the merits of a victory over a top 10 lightweight in the 1970s vs a win over a 1990's lightweight the same way luf does- without a really objective criteria. Admittedly your way is much less subjective because it takes more into account but it's not like scoring points on a decathlon table where a win over a top guy is worth so much, and a knockout over a former champion this much. We are balancing several mountains of disparate and interperatable data- Duran's longevity against Leonard ' s peak, Marciano ' s unbeaten record against Ali ' s slew of fantastic wins, Greb ' s blinding resume against Ray Robinson's visible brilliance. To pretend that this is immutable fact is in my opinion folly.

 

You asked if I'd seen jofre live. My age indicates that cannot be so. I always laugh at my jokes, though that wasn't one.

The reason I say it's a dead debate is because it is ultimately fruitless. If I was asked to rank on resume, or achievement my list would be different. As it stands my current preference is the eye test. That hasn't always been the case. So I'm not interested in debating the merits of a criteria but rather the just rendered upon a set criteria. If I'm asked to rank on resume Jones would not be top 3, but it makes no difference because I'm ranking on the eye test atm.

As for your list. It's quite agreeable to me. I am surprised at Arguello though, what is it about him that impressed you more then say Ali. It is down to preference of course, but so is all types of ranking. It is a subjective sport after all.

 

I think that Pep and Saddler are both greater than Whitaker and Chavez all-time. Pep and Saddler are basically in my top ten. Whitaker and Chavez maybe in my top 30.

Honestly, I did not realize that much film was on Jofre. The Harada fights are his two loses. That accounts for 30 rounds in a losing effort. lufcrazy's point is that he ranks his fighter on film. Jofre is in his top ten and 30 of the 60 rounds account for two losing efforts. I have not watched them so I cannot say if Jofre looked good or not. I will let you or him tell, and then I will watch them.

As far as age, he bought it in the discussion. I tried to stray him away from it and he used it against me in sarcasm. I just pointed out his immature approach with me on that point and how it had nothing to do with age. Thanks for calling me out. I want to be a gentlemen with guys around here but, I need to also try to establish a respect level between him and I if it is possible. If it came off as disrespectful I apologize to him the board, sincerely.

You have a point with wins not being the final say. I have my own problems with ranking. I have Liston at number 3 on my Heavyweight list because I think his style and skill set is better suited against everyone I have under him regardless of resume. Yet I have Ali at number one because his resume is stacked and I think he beat such a great variety of styles that is very hard to pick against him, two reasons. I cannot argue the rest of your point because it comes off rather brilliant. It may not be after a more through inspection but as of now I will stand down and re-read it until I fully understand your perspective.

This is really all I am asking from lufcrazy. He has dismissed several thought out objections to his ranking by closing his mind to them. I am pressing him because it I perceive that he has the potential to enlighten the board with quality post.

I have not read his rebuttal yet. I am going to read it and respond now.

 

I think you are right about Ali.

I did my list reluctantly and I left him off accidentally or maybe not accidentally. He should replace Arguello on my list but, I am not impressed by the rope-a-dope, he did not master Frazier in Manila, and I am not generally impressed with his lack of defense, body-punching, or superficial dancing. Yet, despite his "defects" I think he is the greatest heavyweight of all-time because he beat so many great fighters for decades.

"What are the greatest fighter based on film you have seen?". I think it is an interesting discussion if it were a discussion. I will leave the eye test alone because you are firm in resistance to being lead out of it or trying a another view. Roy at 3 for greatest resumes pulls me back to my point. Roy's resume is so thin that the only way to give him credit is film. To rank his resume over men who's resume holds wins over men greater than Roy himself is hard for me to resist commenting on.

 

I am no expert on boxing and just like to go by resume and dominance.

If a boxer fights the top contenders on his way to the title then wins said title , cleans out that division mostly from the top down is a true ATG , for me it does not matter on the names as much as the (true) rankings and does not matter as much what they look like on film as who they beat in the respective divisions. as long as they are in a true division and not in a JR / super with some great talent either side. ie you cannot be the p4p king for ruling JWW , if JWW is lean of talent and WW & MW are choc full of great fighters.

I remember Roy looking like crap for a few years , getting handled by Calazge, B Hop and thinking Roy is shot to **** because he looked crap but then he fights the 'Tiger' Thompson ( I think) and looked like his old 175# self , fast , agile , throwing three super fast left hooks like the good old days, then he looked shot to **** in his next outing.

Where a guy like Monzon never looked that great on film , even though he was the MW king for years.

 

like the world cup a bit , where a team like Italy never looks that good and just seams to scrap by teams but has won 4 times

 

Excellent post.