1997 Roy Jones easily beats any version of Rocky the BUM Marciano

once again, showing your incompetence and ignorance, looking at rankings instead of common sense and context.

the Klitschkos fight the best opponents available. does that make their opponents any more notable? nope. I suppose you think Peter, Haye, Byrd are better p4p than Jones opponents since they were the best available in the Klitschko era. you're probably one of those guys who says i can't fault Rocky for fighting weak competition. Well, I can't give him much credit for it either.

Wilder and Chisora are number 1 contenders for different belts. According to you they are world class because of the infallible ranking system.

Rocky has nothing going for him. his opponents were smaller than him, they were washed up past their prime, and they, like Jones, were great counterpunchers.

Jones fought in their same weight classes, had almost all of their skills combined in one, far greater hand speed and far more elusiveness than all the opponents that nearly beat the BUM Marciano, and Marciano nearly lost several times - whereas Jones was never close to losing in his prime. Jones has all of the tools that greatly troubled Marciano and more.

Marciano needed a split decision to beat a bum like La Starza. And i know seeing as you only know how to look at rankings and records and nothing else, you are going to bring up that La Starza was undefeated, completely ignoring that he fought ONE opponent with a respectable record (Cesar Brion, a bum, 25-2) prior to Marciano in 1950.

Seeing as you like rankings so much

James Toney was the number 1 fighter at 168, undefeated, number 3 p4p at the time Jones completely dominated him in a near shutout. Is that not the best available? or did you want him to fight number 1 and 2 p4p Whitaker and Chavez instead? Definitely a better win for his resume than Michaelshewski. And seeing as you love to criticize Jones for not fighting Michaelshewski, what about Marciano never fighting number 1 contender in 1954 - Nino Valdes? I don't really care for that since Valdes wasnt great either way, but you can't be hypocritical like that.

Marciano never completely dominated a top 3 p4p or number 1 fighter in the division the way Jones did. He needed a miraculous stroke of good luck to come back and beat a 38 year old heavyweight champion in the second to last fight of his 23 year career. Struggled badly to squeak out a decision over washed up past prime Ezzard Charles (2-2 in his last 4) and nearly stopped in the rematch. Knocked down by 40 year old Archie Moore. No comparison between the BUM Marciano and the truly great Roy Jones. It's important HOW you win in addition to winning, and Roy crushes Marciano, again, in that department in addition to competition level.

Jones completely dominated Hopkins, far greater than Marciano or any of his washed up past prime opponents, and Hopkins never lost again until he was 40 and undisputed 160 champion.

Eric Harding, 2000 - number 2 at 175 behind Darius, had just beaten Tarver. Jones easily wins in 2000.

Virgil Hill, 1997 number 2 at 175 behind Darius, Roy KOs him in 4, early 1998.

Montell Griffin, 1996 - the "infallible" 175 rankings put Virgil Hill at number 1 ahead of Jones, and Griffin at number 3 - ahead of Michaelshewski at 4. Jones easily on his way to winning in early 1997, KOs him in the rematch in one round mid 1997. So Jones went on to crush the two highest ranked opponents at the time. Is that not the best available?

Julio Cesar Gonzalez - only ranked #6 in 2001 when Jones beat him. But he went on to beat Michaelshewski, 2003 ranked number 2 contender in the division behind Tarver and ahead of Darius. You're probably going to criticize Jones for not giving him a rematch.

2003 - Antonio Tarver is number 10 p4p and number 1 contender at 175. Jones becomes washed up and past his prime overnight, loses all his speed and reflexes from weight draining down from heavyweight, struggles badly for the first time in his career, and still pulls out the win. You're gonna sit here and tell me Tarver wasnt the best available, and try to discredit Jones even after beating a prime Tarver post weight draining and losing all his physical skills?

True, Jones should have fought Michaelshewski, but Toney, old McCallum, Harding, Hopkins, Griffin, Tarver 1 (when Roy was weight drained and lost all his reflexes/speed), Hill, Gonzalez (after Jones beat him, went on to end Michaelshewski's streak) are far greater than a prime HW beating a bunch of washed up past their prime LHWs. Toney/Hopkins/Griffin/Tarver 1/Hopkins all do much more for his resume than Michaelsewski.

Rocky's heavyweight resume is only slightly better than Jones beating Ruiz - and since you love rankings so much, Ruiz was a heavyweight champion at the time.

Oh, and according to you rankings are the most accurate determinant of opposition. Ruiz was ranked higher (7) than Wladimir (8.) in 2003, and Wlad was the number 1 contender in 2002. According to you Roy beating Ruiz was more impressive than beating Klitschko at the time.

try not to show your ignorance and incompetence again. once more, it is proven and irrefutable that prime Jones crushed the BUM Marciano head to head and pound for pound

 

and once again a repeat of the BUM Marciano's farce of a career and record

1) Jersey Joe Walcott - natural light heavy, had 15+ losses over the course of 23 years by the time he got to Marciano, 38 years old, and 2-2 in his last 4 fights prior to Rocky the BUM Marciano. Also won a questionable decision against Ezzard in one of those 2 wins. In spite of all those disadvantages, he gave a boxing clinic to Marciano for 12 rounds, but then the blind squirrel Marciano found an acorn and KOd Walcott.

a smaller, washed up, old geezer losing 2-3 of his last 4, and in the last 2 fights of his career easily outboxed the BUM Marciano for 12 rounds. let that sink in.

2) Ezzard Charles - over 90 fights with 10 losses in 14 years. Charles was only 2-2 in his last 4 fights prior to Marciano. Despite being a prime natural heavyweight against a past prime washed up light heavyweight, Marciano was barely able to squeak out a 15 round decision. in the rematch, the BUM Marciano was in danger of being stopped due to cuts.

3) Archie Moore - 39 years old, had 175 fights with 19 losses, and was past his prime by far. Fought at light heavyweight 1 fight prior to Marciano. Despite having every imaginable advantage, again, Marciano got dropped by a nearly 40 year old Moore who was well past his best. He can't even dominate 40 year old geezer light heavyweights that are past their prime. He barely squeaks past them.

Now look at Roy Jones of 1997

Basically undefeated, prime, faster than all three of the above opponents by far, never ever came close to losing or getting seriously hurt, much more elusive, and just as good a counterpuncher as those 3.

everything that the old men past their prime greatly troubled, and Ezzard and Walcott nearly beat Marciano with, Roy has that in one package, and we are talking about a prime Roy Jones at the peak of his career, not somebody who is 40 years old, washed up, past their prime, 19 losses, and who was STILL able to knock down the BUM Marciano.

 

nope. STILL have not refuted ONE point

proven that ranking system is flawed. and fighting best number 1 contenders of a weak era like Klitschkos/Marciano means nothing

Wilder/Chisora are number 1 contenders, doesnt mean anything

proven that Joens crushed Marciano in every aspect - not fighting 40 year old washed up geezers

 

it was proven that outside of Darius Roy fought every top contender possible and available, all of them outside McCallum were in their prime, and his best wins easily do more for him than fighting Darius

and for anyone criticizing Roy for Darius can do the same for Marciano and Valdez. lose lose situation either way.

and Roy was not fighting 40 year old washed up men like Archie/Walcott and beaten down 2-2 of their last 4 Ezzard Charles - let alone struggle badly against them.