Is it Controversial to Rank Roy Jones above Mayweather ?

Nobody worthwhile was even significant for the entire 90s with the lone possible exception of Holyfield. Whitaker, Toney, Nunn, McCallum and Chavez were first half of the 90s guys and Oscar, Tito, Hopkins, Roy, and Lewis were second half of the 90s guys. Floyd stayed on top for a decade and a half straight minus a couple fairly brief layoffs.

 

I personally don’t, but I can see why someone might. Divergent opinion to me, rather than controversial one.

 

Nobody is a Mayweather fan, don’t be ridiculous.

 

I agree. I can't guess b/c so many match ups never happened or didn't happen when they should have.

 

Whitaker did not have a better record in the 90's, Roy's only loss in the 90's was a DQ of Griffith for hitting after he was down. Roy was 48-1 with DQ as his only loss until he loss to Tarver in 2004. Hence RJJ was 49-0 without the DQ. Pretty close to someone else we are discussing, with a lot more risk taken IMO. Having said that, nothing but love for sweet pea. As for the trinket, won't argue with you on that.

 

So....you're arguing that b/c guys who were really good in the early part of the 90's, they don't really count?

Alright, let's take another approach to this rather than us both word vomit about 2 guys that couldn't give a crap about either of us.

I agree a case can be made either way. I just take exception w/ the idea that it's not even close from some of the Mayweather camp. RJJ had about as good a resume as you can have w/ exception like most fighters, he hung on too long. But most knowledgable guys recognise that as not really a part of his true legacy.

Shoot SR Robinson had 19 losses but that doesn't discourage 99% of experts saying he was TBE.

Again, the original question was "is it controversial to say RJJ is above Mayweather". and no, it's not controversial. That's my point. Personally I put him higher and I think many others do as well. I see the other side of it, but by no means is either argument controversial. Both are reasonable and rational. That's my point to all of this.

 

Hopkins was 21-1 with 16 KO's and had been a pro for 5 years fighting for the vacant IBF title v. Jones and was beaten UD. He lost his 1st fight as a pro, he started at light heavy. Won 21 in a row en route to the title fight w/ Jones. That's more than a fringe contender. But I digress.

 

Here are Mayweather's numbers, pulled from a different thread. I challenge you to fill in the numbers for Roy if you're unwilling to admit that it's an absurd comparison.

A. Top guy in the divison beaten (excluding themselves in rankings):
Mayweather: 8 (Genaro 98, Corrales 2001, Castillo I 2002, Castillo II 2002, Baldomir 2006, Cotto 2012, Alvarez 2013, Pacquiao 2015)
B. Top 2-5 guys beaten (excluding themselves in rankings)
Mayweather: 6( Manfredy 98, Gatti 04, Judah 2006, Mosley 2010, Ortiz 2011, Guererro 2013)
C. Top 6-10 guys beaten:
Mayweather: 5 (Chavez 2001, Corley 2004, DLH 2007, Maidana I 2014, Maidana II 2014)
D: Top 5 guys moving up or down in weight immediately before fight:
Mayweather: 2( Marquez 2009, Hatton)
E. Loses between age 18 and 38 (when Maywetaher effectively retired)
b. Mayweather: 0
Half of famers beaten:
Mayweather: 9 (Marquez, Oscar, Cotto, Gatti, Corrales, Mosley, Hatton, and Pac+Canelo are locks)
Lineal championships won:
Mayweather: 5 (130, 135, 147 in 06 and 2010, 154)

Records against reigning lineal champions:
Mayweather: 3-0 (W Hernandez, Baldomir, Mosley)

 

It's not an absurd comparison by any stretch and no I'm not willing to spend that much time to counter all of your research. Having said that, let me ask you this question: Do u think Floyd is TBE?

 

Open challenge.

 

Roy was 40-1 by the start of 2000. Whitaker was 40-3-1 with 1 NC by the start of 2000. The draw to Chavez was a clear Whitaker victory, as was the loss to Ramirez, and the ODLH fight could have gone either way but most believe Whitaker deserved the nod over prime ODLH when he was much slower than he was in his prime, fighting in his worst weight class, and declining due to age and substance abuse. Many would argue he wasn't legitimately beaten until facing prime Tito Trinidad and that his record should have been 43-1 with 1 NC if we're gonna rearrange numbers. ODLH, Chavez, and McGirt were all excellent fighter in their own right and each was a P4P entrant when Pernell bested them along with the likes of Azumah Nelson, Hurtado, Haugen, and Ramirez; Pernell's resume simply blows Roy's outta the water. If you break the rules, you get disqualified, it's that simple. Roy didn't actually take that many risks honestly, just look at some of the bums he cherrypicked for title defences (Otis Grant, Rick Frazier and Glen Kelly). He had perhaps the most stacked 160 division in the history of the sport and he never fought any of the top dogs at the time, not McCallum, not Kalambay, not Jackson, and not McClellan. He never fought Benn at 168, or Collins, or Eubank, or Liles. Never fought Dariusz at 175. Never fought Holyfield or Tyson or Lewis when he was at HW despite being offered a fight with Holyfield and Tyson. Even getting Roy to fight Tarver was like pulling teeth and Tarver had to harass Roy in public on multiple occasions to get him to sign that fight.

 

Roy would be 50-0 too if he did not get disqualified against Griffin and retired after Tarver 1. Roy was one of the greatest to ever lace them up. Unfortunately he fought on for to long which hurt his all-time P4P ranking

 

Not really the same thing. Mayweather won a lineal title in his 18th pro fight and basically fought capable guys all of the way through until McGregor.

Roy won a vacant title in his 23rd fight, pass given bc it was against Hopkins, and wedged in about 7 or 8 fights against guys who had no business getting the ring with him before Tarver knocked his head off.

 

Cop Out. Answer the question dude.

 

So...like I said, Roy had a better record.