didnt really matter he was alreayd past his prime and abilty when he got koed by tarver and in that tarver gave a him a tough fight that night which wasnt of a p4p best at the time. if say he had lost against tarver twice then fought glen johnson he would of still lost becuase glencoffe was totally blasting at him all night long.
Jones didn't fight the competition to be considered the best ever. No matter how good or bad his chin was.
but KG, honestly whoelse was out there that RJ coulda beat that woulda meant somthing besides DM? Eubank said he would never fight RJ, he said RJ offered him money but he turned it down I mean 2 me I think RJ just came into boxing at a bad time. There was good fighters, but he was so much better than evry1, that people discredited him. If another fighter who wasnt as skilled as RJ accomplished what RJ accomplished, people wouldnt ?his opposition or nothin. Its just b/c RJ was so damn good, his opponents semed like they were no1's
How are you asking the question? Are you asking who didn't he fight that would have helped his legacy? Or are you asking who didn't he OFFER to fight (and perhaps they offered him, who knows how those negotiations truly go) that he could have. There is a lot of arguing on this site over who Jones didn't fight and whether or not they turned down legit offers. So lets just go with who he didn't fight, regardless of the offers made. McClellan before Benn beat him and injured him. Benn himself. Collins, Eubank, Nunn (who Jones never offered to fight and should have, someone I honestly believed he ducked for some reason), Liles, and DM. Those are the guys who come to mind. Of course HBO and Jones claim that Benn, Collins, Liles, all turned down offers, some for career highs. And the DM thing is a mystery as to who offered who what, though it's known that both made offers.
SO taken into the fact that he offeed Benn, Collins, Liles a shot, and they turned it down, wat else is RJ suppose to do. Besides them an Eubank who didnt wanna fight him, DM well no1 knows y they didnt fight. Who else was there? Im saying that b/c if those allegations of RJ offering to fight them were true, and they all turned him down, then I mean wat is he suppose 2 do?
If Jones and HBO are telling the complete truth (and there can be gray areas, counter offers and outrageous demands), then Jones still wouldn't be the GOAT. It wouldn't have been his fault if that was the case....but that still doesn't put those guys names on his resume. SRR, Greb, Armstrong....well, it was a different era with less politics. But the names are on their resume. Jones, regardless of the reason they are not on there, won't have the names on his resume to be in that discussion.
I mean i see wat urm sayig, But my thing is, most of the fighters that SRR beat. RJ probably could beat them on any night, does that not get taken into consideration, seeing as how RJ didnt really have the competition to test his greatness
Well now we're into guess work. Jones is alot bigger than many SRR fought and the era he fought in was different. I no longer rate guys in one long list, but from era to era. As a matter of fact, I am working on a list of the greatest fighters of the modern era, which I believe is from teh 80's on. I get what you're saying, but not being his fault won't change the ratings. But even in this era, Whitaker, Chavez, SRL, and Hagler would all have better resumes and overall accomplishments. Possibly even Ricardo Lopez, who is severly underrated.
No, he would have never lost to Tarver or Johnson in the way he did, but he wouldn't have the fighters on his resume to be considered the best ever.
ok fair enough, Im not sayin RJ is the G.O.A.T. Im just saying its like the NBA. People would have a dudes like Pistol Pete, or Eljin Baylor, or any of those old players on their ATG list ranked higher than Kobe. B/c of the championships etc. But 2day athletes are stronger, faster, better, rules have changed. See wat im tryin 2 get at, like its a different time. And for a fighterlike RJ who just came into boxing at a bad time IMO, he will never be able to be ranked where he should b from what he has done b/c therers no1 here really 2 challenge him, or he will never have 100 somethin wins like fighters be4 him etc. When do we start looking at old fighters and taking their competition and comparing it 2 2days competition and judge it that way?
It's not fair to compare eras IMO. I have stopped just recently cuz the boxing game is different now than before. The NBA is a whole nother deal. We all know Kobe is one of the best ever, but believe me there are players from the old school who could play now. It hasn't changed that much.
Liek for instance Wilt Chamberlain him scoring that 100 points If it was 2days era he would have never done that, thats y i respect Kobe's more than his. 1 Wilt was taller than everybody he played against, the rim wasnt 10 feet at the time, there was no shot clock, which meas you could hold the ball 4ever, and take a shot when you feel like it. If he was playing against the Shaq's of 2day, Yao mings, david robinson's, olajawon. He wouldnt have done that. Better atheletes 2day than back then
While I agree that Wilt wouldn't have scored 100 points in todays game, we need to make a few corrections. The shot clock was introduced to the NBA in 1950's. Wilt played with it. The rim was 10ft then. The reason Wilt and many of those guys put up some crazy numbers is because the they shot the ball alot more back then. It increased the chances for rebounds (which is why you see guys averaging 17-20 rebounds a game routinely in that era) and increased the amount of points some of them scored.