Does RJJ v Ruiz compare to Duran v Barkley?

Nunn and Benn more decorated than Barkley by the time of Duran-Barkley? :?

 

THe main problem for the ruiz win for me is that a fat, far from great Toney managed to replicate it.

 

Like Glen Johnson's advantages when he destroyed Jones?

 

True.

I have Jones's career set. He never looked as good or as comfortable as he did at 168. His physique was too awesome to be held to 160lbs. IMO, he was a natural smw.

Numerically, this is undoubtedly impressive. As was Pacquiao v De La Hoya. The reality is a bit of a different story.

One of the worst world champs of his era? I don't think it's unfair to call Ruiz that. He is better than he is often given credit for, that much is true, but he was not a good hw champion never mind a great one. He was adequate.

Come on PP! Holyfield was not superb when he fought Ruiz.

This is a good and often overlooked point, hence why I said Ruiz is better than he is often given credit for. The man was a decent hw, he did manage some wins over solid comp among the dreadful performances and the losses.

I'm not sure Ruiz had better power, even at hw. He had 20lbs on Roy, but Roy's punches looked a lot more venomous than Ruiz's did.

Fresher? Yes he had less fights but I don't know if that translates into freshness. Watch the fight, tell me how looks fresher. Jones is on fire boxing like a 22-year-old, Ruiz plods around like a doddering loser. Saying Ruiz is fresher is pretty meaningless really.

True. Jones was magnificent. But Ruiz did not push him. It's up to you if you think that was because Roy was so good or Ruiz was so bad.

Roy did stun him. His punches did affect Ruiz, probably in a way Ruiz didn't expect.

That's bias talking. Absolutely no chance. I don't care about Barkley's later losses, the Iran that fought Duran was a FAR better boxer than the Ruiz who fought Jones.

Toney. Oh, you mean before Roy? Yeah, Fitzsimmons. A ludicrously long time. It is without doubt a brilliant achievement IMO.

Not anywhere near as impressive as Duran's feat I'm sure you'll concede. 22 years as a pro, beat Barkley SEVENTEEN years after his first world title win - longer than Jones had been a pro. :think


Powerpuncher, you have definitely made some good, valid points in your post. But you have, to an extent, undermined all of that good work with this SHAMEFULLY biased comment which has been clearly made to further your case:

THE. EXCELLENT. VALUEV.

And not a hint of sarcasm in sight. Shame on you. :-(

 

Barkley was a one-punch wonder at the time, who was losing the fight clearly before he managed to land on Hearns. A mediocrity with no skills at all, just some toughness and a punch.

 

You can't say they are all ridiculous excuses, same as you can't say they are all true and perfectly legitimate reasons for a poor performance. You simply have to study the fights, study the contexts, and make your own judgment on each on a case-by-case basis.

Sometimes there are genuine mitigating circumstances, sometimes there are not and the excuses are just excuses. There is no hard and fast rule.

 

Fighting consistently at a weight that is too high for you is not the same as growing into it. Duran was fighting at mw, but he was never a genuine mw, he could easily have trained himself down to a lower weight. Had he retired before his mid-30s, he would never have made it to mw.

Jones's weight-jump was special, no-one can or should deny that. But a feat of weight-gain is not the same as a feat of boxing. One compliments the other, but it does not make it what it is (another reference must be made to the almost non-existent credit given in retrospect to Pacquiao for his own stunning weight-related achievement in shutting out Oscar).

 

As said before weight gains are usually and advantage to a fighter moving up in class. In this case, I think its hard to debate that it wasnt more of a disadvantage for the speedy Jones to pack on that much extra weight. Something that makes his accomplishment more special in my opinion.

 

Do you consider top 100 OAT fighters ATGs, or do you have a more specific definition/more selective entry requirement?