p4p who is better?

In a 'wow' sense, perhaps, in terms of adding to legacy, Pep's win over Saddler is MUCH more of an achievement than Duran's over Barkley, and I say that even if you think Duran won the Barkley fight clearly, which I don't (had it a draw myself).

 

I don't need to check because you deserve the benefit of the doubt, paisan.

Although I did apply it rigidly, I do still find Ezzard's statement more true than not. Skill untested is often, I'd say "very" often, illusory. Some guys make the heavy bags grunt. But heavy bags don't hit back. I think we agree on this one.

I'm with you. Pep has been crucified out here by a few because he has relatively few greats on his resume, but I don't get too severe, the man got in into the ring 200 more times than 95% of most fighters.

You're a fair man... but I do think that Jones, Holmes, Foster et al do have the burden though that requires them to overcome the liability of not having met and beat "great". I can do it for them; but it is still a liability!

I forgive Robbi. "Stonehands" has been known to "cast stones" too quickly so far be it from me to hold a grudge against one who commits a similar sin, and far less redundantly than I!

Jones has incredible talent and a difficult style to deal with. This is why I consider him a great, albeit reluctantly. I will always express displeasure at the gulf between what he did and did not actually proved and the glory heaped on him by his (usually youthful) fans.

I am distinctly unimpressed. If anything that performance demotes him further. He fought a survival fight. I saw nothing remotely approaching what you expect and get from other greats -that "never say die" "bring it on" "I'll get you" "I don't have time to bleed" attitude (yep. Paz said that one. He aspired!). I remember Holyfield being questioned on what he was thinking when Bowe hurt him. Holyfield's answer was something like "I'm just waiting for my opportunity to catch him".

Compare that to Jones after the fight: "I consider this a victory because I didn't get knocked out." WHAT? He deserved to get a dope-slap for "comments unbecoming to a fighter"!

I don't. There is too much circumstantial and actual evidence that prevents me from giving him the same benefit of the doubt that I give you.

That's called "selling wolf tickets." Jones was easily talked out of a fight with an old, fat, Buster Douglas. He never would have stepped in there with Lewis and you, me, and Jones' conscience knew it.

Okay... but Jones was also well-preserved. When you have a defensive-style to begin with and it operates behind bone-breaking power it helps. Credit due. However, when you challenge yourself against 2 serious guys and then take a decade off and fight , you can fight well into your 30s.

During his time at SMW, he had Collins, Eubank, Benn, and Frankie Liles... he fought none of them and instead gave us Bryant Brannon, Paz, and Mailman Tony Thornton. That's a problem, JT.

Some say that Hopkins was a late bloomer.

Tarver and Jones are the same age.

Was Jones that bad or was the problem what Jones said it was -that what Tarver brought was that difficult? The answer here is subjective.

Okay, but would you not consider Jones-Ruiz his crowning effort? He hurt him in about round 2 and just took over after that!

No one clubs you, JT.

 

Not even close. Skillwise, they were close but: Ali beat too many greats, as well as very dangerous guys like Shavers. He never ducked anyone. He had two separate championship careers, I doubt Jones would have come back as well as Ali did after a 3 year layoff.

 

I disagree. Strenuously.

Look at Duran. He was inconsistent as he aged and fought in weight division that was far above his natural one; After Brown walked away, there were times that he barely trained. And that "no mas" debacle which was a monstrous and inexcusable disgrace to the sport, to the man, to his country, and to Leonard himself. These are beyond the realm of debate.

But I would propose that his stand against Hagler and his taken a MW title against Barkely is taken for granted. He had no business, absolutely no business going 15 competitive rounds with Marvin Hagler -a man I and many others argue is the greatest MW ever. For the sake of argument, let's say that it never happened. What would we say about Benny Leonard's chances against 1983 Hagler? How about Armstrong? Williams? Ortiz? Whitaker? No reasonable person with a rudimentary understanding of physics would would give any of them much chance. I wouldn't make any assumptions about their chances against Barkley either. He's too damn big and he hits too damn hard -and these are small men.

Suddenly Duran gives the finger to history and we speak of it as if it's no big deal.

How many threads have Duran squaring off in hypotheticals against guys like Pavlik and Tiger and Monzon and lesser LHWs? And then you have posters debating it as it if was even worthy. As if the fact that any natural lightweight who stood 5'7 with his shoes on could be considered a threat 25 pounds north and 5 or 11 years past his peak.

Duran is taken for granted!

A small man, a natural LW, beating a peaking Barkley (who had just decimated Hearns in 3 rounds) is objectively ridiculous. Throw in that he did it when in his 22nd year as a pro, at the age of 37 and after taken vicious shots flush on his beard that would have felled 99% of MWs is a miracle.

SS, you're an historian. Tell me others who were, at their peak a LW, who can claim accomplishments that match these of Duran's at MW.

.....................PS/ This is not to in any way dismiss Pep's beautiful achievement against Saddler... but arguing that it was "MUCH" more than Duran's defeat of Barkley demands a loud retort.

 

I think Rooster and Bojak are in cahoots.

 

I really don't have any agenda. I'm not trying to put anyone down, or elavate anyone for that matter, I just think it's an interesting discussion.

But if you wonder I would probably rank Ali higher than RJJ p4p.

 

Solid...nuff said. (There will never be another Duran)

 

Great post Stonehands, very well put that.

 

Ali was the greater fighter period. Jones is not anywher near the great Champion that Ali was ever and you must consider that we never saw Ali's prime years 67-69 stolen away. There is just no comparison its like saying Dominique Wilkins was a greater player than Bird beacause Nique could jump higher and was faster and had greater reflexes. In a lot of ways this is a bad example since nique never won a championship and the physical abilities of Ali and Jones are not as seperated but its a like comparison that comes to mind.

 

Thanks champ, the same trusting hand would always be extended of course.

We are on the same page, yes. Obviously a battle proven (against GREATS, mind) Ali gives us great peace of mind, but i would like to have seen Jones with similar opportunity, say with a Hagler or Monzon class opponent being accessible. I myself do however gives Jones a lot of merit points for his absolute schooling of a very very good fighter in Toney. It wasn't just that Jones won, it was how he won. It was all but a shutout.

For sure.

A small liability for me. Some will see it bigger of course, but i can well see this lot rising right up to almost any occasion that presents itself.

Oh for sure, everyone has done it at some time or another. He's a fine lad and puts forth plenty in here.

I'm not sure i would class them as bad as Tyson fans, however both have their share of haters and shallow minded detractors. Again i think things come close to evening out for both and their extremists - one way or another.

Yeah, i too was a bit disappointed. We have been in the same thread where i have criticised him for it before.

Here's my deepest most profund thought on the matter/fight - the fight was very possibly there for the taking for Jones, and he truly didn't know it. Controversial view maybe, but i really had that vibe. Tarver at one stage to me looked a bit vulnerable, and could very well have been finished over the top of given the right application.

I have to be honest and admit i have never read thru enough of the debates here per topic to ever get a solid feel for the facts of the matter.

Again, i can honestly say i don't know much of the matter. I like your phrase tho

Regardless of style i still don't think we can categorize fighters and their quotients. I don't think it would be fair. A Benitez was suddenly impotent almost overnight, and he was an absolute defensive wizard. Who are we to say just how badly the whole Ruiz jump up then down damaged him on top of his already lengthy career. I really do think a decade unbeaten (forget the Griffin rubbish) run from winning his first title is a pretty thorough career achievement.

Again, i am not up to speed here but will take your comments on board.

Undoubtably.

Lets not forget here that Jones beat Tarver fair and square the first time around. This in itself lends credence to my feelings. He was aging by the day and looked progressively worse from Tarver thru to Tarver 3. He was pitiful vs Johnson.

But yes the age. Jones was in his 51st fight the second time around, Tarver in his 24th. Less than half the fights. Jones had also been in the pro's 8 more years. These two aren't really comparable when we look deeper.

Yes, but Jones like so many before him is hardly going to say he's just plain past it. He's in denial, and still is.

Yeah but Ruiz hardly looked on fire did he. He was so slow and tedious, a perfect big man for Jones if ever there was one. This isn't the greatest of Jones, tho certainly a fantastic achievement.

:good

 

has to be ali, better wins to judge him on easily

 

I can't but reiterate what I said Stoney, it was amazing, but in terms of adding to legacy, I don't think it does near as much as Pep's win against Saddler does.

If Duran never took Hagler the distance (I noticed you slipped in discussion of Hagler, even though I simply mentioned Barkley, but I'll roll with it nonetheless) and beat Barlkey, I'd still have him ranked top ten as I do now. Maybe a spot or two less, at MOST.

If Pep never beat Saddler, there'd be massive question marks over him and I doubt he'd make many top 20 lists. I don't think he'd make my top 20 without that Saddler win.

I don't deny that it's unlikely any other lightweight could have done what Duran did (perhaps Armstrong, though I even doubt he could have done it, perhaps Walcott, if you want to classify him as a lightweight - he did fight there - but of course he was more welterweight, maybe a Carpentier, but he'd probably be Ko'ed), but putting up a game effort against Hagler and beating a decent middleweight in Barkley doesn't really define who Duran was for me. What defines Duran is 1970-1980. THAT was Duran. The rest, (Moore, Cuevas, Hagler, Barkley) is icing, a nice addendum, or postscript if you will, but not the genuine article.

I'll make a comparison here which will seem absurd and insulting, but I mean it only as an analogy as to the principle, not the level of the participants involved.

Vinny Pazienza had some pretty good wins at 160-168, and not many former junior lightweights could have done what he did. Does that really add to his legacy? Does that speak of who Paz was? I doubt many lightweights or junior welters could have done what he done, but does that mean that Vinny's status becomes hugely elevated because of it? I don't think so.

"Steroids! Steroids!" I hear you scream. "He was fighting hacks and shot fighters!" I hear you scream.

Sure, but still, even on roids, not many could have beaten the fighters he did.

In any case, what he did do at those weights doesn't really constitute how good he was a fighter.

 

Handling Hopkins was actually more impressive in my book. Much is said about Hopkins being a late bloomer (as I myself said earlier) but Hopkins was technically sounds, determined, supremely conditioned, and banging well by his 5th fight. He looked damn good. Jones' defeat of James "Head-Case" Toney was less impressive in real terms in my book.

However... compared to the p4p best ever, Jones' competition isn't close to damn near all of them. He was undeniably reluctant to take risks and that really should be THE measure.

I read all of Robbi's posts. He's like the youthful Hopkins -hungry and proficient early.

I think that most of Tyson's fanboys, aside from Classic Forum's oddities like "I Am Licking" or whatever his latest incarnation is, have been tamed.

I saw precisely the same thing. Tarver's style is a vulnerable style. Many windows are left open in it.

But again, Jones doesn't take risks.
Now he's fighting out of regret.
He's the Marley's Ghost of pugilism:

........................................
`It is required of every man [great fighter]' the Ghost [of Jones] returned,

`that the [fighting] spirit within him should walk abroad among
his fellowmen, [walk into the ring with serious men] and travel far and wide [seeking real threats and real challenges]; and if that
spirit goes not forth in life [during his prime], it is condemned to do so
after death [after his powers have dissipated]. It is doomed to wander through the world [ring]--oh, woe is me!--and witness what it cannot
share, but might have shared on earth [in the ring], and turned to
happiness! [true glory]'

Again the spectre raised a cry, and shook its chain [bloated record]
and wrung its shadowy hands [everlast gloves].
......................................................

(I hope the ghost of Charles Dicken's is a forgiving one.)

Anyway, Jones is implying that he recognizes his great flaw & like any procrastinator is racing time too late in the game.

He is nowhere near Ali and nowhere near Duran. And let's all just put those kinds of debates to rest. Because they're stupid.

 

Marley's ghost... Now that's something, Stonehands...beautifully put...

In some ways Jones seemed scared to take risks... too afraid of losing, unlike say Duran who was willing to take big risks and bounce back...

It might be though that Jones realsied that there is life after losing and appreciates that a loss is only really damning if you can't come back from it... without the bitterness of defeat you can never fully appreciate the sweetness of victory...

Defeats are way overplayed by contemporary 'experts' and this is partly why the top fighters just don't square off as often as they should.

 

I still go for the Toney fight, but each to their own. He absolutely schooled an established version of Toney, where as Hopkins turned the corner discipline wise after failing in his second title tilt vs Mercado. He himself named this the turning point of his career, and it does show. Many still believe Jones would beat any version of Hopkins - whether right or not he would sure be facing a better one.

I am going to have to take more note of these claims in future threads that go over them. There were some in the past but i didn't find the time. I have to say i don't think Jones would have been troubled greatly by the names i see anyway. Certainly no ATG's among them, that is for sure.

Well there doesn't seem to be many of them about at the moment in here, true. Whether tamed, or gone/banned i don't know.

If Jones doesn't take risks why did he rematch Tarver when he had been troublesome already and Jones had won? Most believed Jones prevailed and he didn't absolutely have to go again.

Head to head Jones can be built up quite significantly. His assets were enormous. On a resume level i would never argue him near level with those two. I'm just giving him some dues.