ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Roy Jones Jr or Evander Holyfield?

Its gotta be Real Deal for me. Unfortunately its really difficult to separate RJJ from the damage he did to his legacy at the end of his career.

I genuinely feel that if he retired on top he really would be remembered very high up there. But due to that substantial blemish on his legacy, Real Deal gets the nod.

 

This is silly.

They both had completely different styles.

This is just your personal preference.

 

It shouldn’t make a difference.

Roy getting beaten past his prime doesn’t alter what he’d previously done.

Everyone knows that the versions of Roy who fought Johnson, Calzaghe and Green etc, weren’t the versions who’d fought Griffin and Hill etc.

 

i completely agree with this - it was IMO a perfectly legitimate choice for RJJ to fight on to his sporting dotage. it's up to people who can to remember him at his best rather than dwell on the 9 losses aspect of his record. he was 35 years old before his first 'proper' loss [excluding disqualification]!

 

Evander won titles across 2 divisions

 

Roy should've wore a cape in the ring he was that good in his pomp so yes... best I've seen in an 'eye test'.

 

It's rare to see a Middle weight fighter go all the way to heavy weight and win a title, I pick Jones.

 

Of course. But it’s hard to compare their achievements, because you can’t just compare numbers. Obviously, Evander couldn’t compete in 4 divisions.

I think their resumes are pretty even though.

 

It shouldn't but it does. It's a plain fact that when you consider a career you consider it in its entirety.

 

Of course, but how relevant is it?

If you rate Mike Tyson at HW, you’re not going to look at his loss to Danny Williams.

 

True by some extent. But by that same token, if you look at Tyson at HW it is the sum of all its parts and his win over Holmes counts even though Holmes was past it. And similarly, just as Hameds loss to Barrera defines his career, had he not fought Barrera his legacy would be vastly different

 

Holmes was still an elite level fighter who went on to win at the highest level years later.

Naz was still an elite fighter when he lost to MAB.

Roy was still an elite fighter when he lost to Tarver. But he was no longer an elite fighter when he lost to Calzaghe, Green, Hopkins, Lebedev and Enzo Mac etc.

Those losses shouldn’t impact his legacy.

The whole boxing world knows that Roy didn’t lose those fights because they were a step up in competition. He lost those fights because his greatly diminished reflexes had left him extremely vulnerable and easy to hit.

 

Hopkins was not undefeated. He lost his first pro fight.

 

Holyfield by a few thousand country miles.

 

I'm not surprised Roy got votes but some of the comments baffle me. It's Evander... and yes, easily. Strength of schedule has to carry quite a bit of value over flash, even in a loss.

One thing I've never quite understood about some fans in regards to Roy and measuring him against his peers in the sport, is placing him above a guy like Evander based on fighting inferior opposition. No one ever refutes his abilities but he fought a lot of guys who didn't belong in a ring with him, i.e. Glen Kelly for example.

Stacking up wins against opposition like that, even whilst doing it with great athletic ability, shouldn't put you above certain guys who have wins and/or losses against higher caliber opponents in terms of ATGreatness or P4P.