p4p who is better?

That last statement is what drives it home.

Some guys are gold tested in fire. Ali. Robinson. Duran. Greb. Burley. Charles...

Some guys have a sparkle that's only apparant because they're fighting non-threats and human punching bags. They get into the ring with a live guy and they crash down to the earthen canvas. Who remembers Jose "The Threat" Barrett? He was knocking guys dead (like Eddie Flanning -take a look at his record) but then he meets Marlon Starling and down he goes in 4 rounds. He practically quit because of a cut under his eye.

Some guys shine like the stars but something happens before they can reach their full potential. Wes Mouzon is the best example here.

Then we have Jones. He looks supernatural and it seems to be confirmed by a few fights against serious guys ... Hopkins and Toney... but then he coasts for a decade, challenges a HW (the dubious Ruiz), wins and basks in glory, and then gets cold-cocked twice at a division he seemed to "dominate". What are we to make of him? Is he great? Regardless of the answer there, he sure as hell shouldn't be considered a nonpareil and he sure as hell isn't "better" than Ali.

 

Honestly, I began as a fan of Jones and remember his first fight on HBO way back when. As I studied him, I began to see a reluctance in the ring and later out of the ring to take risks. His style was designed to look good. It was an ego style, not a character style. Be that as it may, and many will argue that boxing is exactly that -hit and don't get hit, Roy's reaction when an opponent did put pressure on him struck me as curious. He'd cover up and close his eyes and turn his head away. Roy struck me as pathologically concerned about getting hit.

I have always celebrated his athleticism and argued that he is murderous in hypotheticals. But now I'm reconsidering even mentioning him or anyone else -Holyfield included- who were on steriods. If it became conclusive that he was on steroids during his great victories, of which there were few to begin with, then I will strike him from any consideration. Same goes for Holyfield, who I followed fanatically since 1986.

The Romans would remove every trace of certain statesmen who had fallen from favor after death from every scroll and monument. I'd do the same with any fighter who had such a blatant unfair advantage.

There is not one iota of difference between Luis Resto and a boxer who is a steriod fighter. I think it very likely that Roy Jones was. His body, even his cave man like jaw line, and his ridiculous 20 pounds of muscle mass that he put on against Ruiz convinces me. A recent poster drove this home.

 

Ali.

 

ali but not by too much

 

Whilst the statement and criteria here gives us fantastic peace of mind it's not the be all and end all. The fact that Jones absolutely dominated a top fighter in Toney without having to have his gut checked can only be held against him so much. I look at a Hagler whom showed tremendous endurance and will to go thru anything to win but see a guy who struggled as soon as things got complicated (i know we have debated this one and won't be doing it further) vs a top line savvy opponent. We can be assured Jones would not be hindered in such a way. There are many subtleties to the pinnacle of greatness. A Larry Holmes never got to fight the "very best". Nor IMO did Joe Louis tho i'll accept counter. I will accept there is no better proving ground than the ranks of the highest level i must say i am not sure it should be so harshly held against one. I also believe the Toney fight aids Jones a great deal here.

and many not, but they are still great fighters and it doesn't mean they cannot kick the ass of the gold tested.

There are thousands like Baret. To mention him in some sort of comparison to Jones is absolutely ludicrous to say the least, no insult intended. Baret is a never was, Jones barely set a foot wrong in a decade. I don't need to expand on the comparisons here.

Are you saying Jones didn't reach his full potential or fell short?

Whilst i rate Ali higher only someone trying to find negatives would hold Jones losses from Tarver on against him. He wasn't suddenly exposed as a fraud, and nor was Tarver any better or even as good as many Jones had pasted years earlier at his finest. Jones last top effort was Ruiz or even earlier. He struggled plenty vs Tarver in their first fight after playing with weight jumps and it is easy to see he was past his best, or even close to it.

While some do indeed go heavily overboard with Jones many others don't give him a semblance of a fair go too, it evens out pretty well really.

 

Totally agree. If conclusive proof is found either or both were on steriods during their best years it will be kaput from me too. Fair is fair and i don't care for suspicians of others beside them without proof.

 

Yeah, it seems reasonable to think that RJJ was on steroids, because of his freakish explosivity for one thing. But you can say the same for many of the top performers from the late 80's onwards. The flip card is that if he wasn't on steroids then he dominated an era where many undoubtly was. That should really improve his rating.

But, Stonehands hands my question was why you don't think Ali can compare with "SRR and other nonpareils". Is it because of his style, his record or something else?

 

Comparing Ali to Jones in terms of competition is what I was addressing. And Jones isn't close to Ali. Not close. No way, no how. The Toney fight is not a catapult.

I rank Pep ridiculously high as you know, and that's because "level of comp" isn't the only measure. But then again, Pep was fighting practically every week. And that Saddler win was on par with Duran's win over Barkley.

The rest are just quick categories that contrast, those tested, to those somewhat tested, to coulda-beens, to border-line frauds. I leave it to the reader to place Jones where he will.

Sure, but let's join hands and give the benefit of the doubt first to the guys that faced down monsters or more monsters. Jones forces us to be speculative. Now, at times it is a matter of era and the dearth of competetion. For Jones it was that but it was also his peculiar pugilistic pathology.

Here's an example from today. On a Hagler thread, the question was asked: who could do what Hearns did and beat Hagler? Robbi says "Jones". It is extremely likely and logical to argue that Jones simply would not meet Hagler in the trenches. Granted, it would be dumb for Jones to try, but I have a problem with the fetishism out here for relatively-untested athleticism. Put a man in real distress and see how he responds. That tells us what's what and who's who.

No, you don't, because nowhere did I make the comparison. Jones is in a separate category below that.

Yes and perhaps no.

Yes, because he accepted only safe challenges with 1 or 2 exceptions outside of the ring. Reluctant Roy was not an inaccurate nickname. I call him "Rip-off Roy" and hold a grudge because he never showed me what I wanted to see -I want to see greatness tested before I concede that it is greatness that I am seeing. The mere idea that Jones convinced anyone of his greatness when he KOd Vinnie Paz makes me want to wretch. By that measure there are many great fighters who should be adored based on their performance... punching the heavy bag in their basement.

And no, because an argument has been made and can be made that he exceeded his potential because he was on steroids.

Might a reasonable alternative argument pose that you are making excuses? You tread dangerously when you suggest that his top effort was against Ruiz and then suddenly he's in a free fall.

Might a reasonable argument be offered that states that Tarver would always have posed a stylistic threat at any point in Jones' career because he was good, unintimidated, an unorthodox southpaw with a good punch and a good chin?

Jones himself admits this.

I see it differently. I think that the vast majority of Jones' commentators are infatuated. There are a handful who are not. I consider him a great fighter with a big fat asterick, and I consider it my duty as a classic poster to force his cheerleaders to make real comparisons and be honest about what they are actually seeing.

 

I just got tired... but I'll answer it now. Coffee gives me a second wind!

I don't consider Ali up there with I'm calling the "nonpareils". I formerly called these top 5 guys the "elites" but there was a semantics problem... anyway.

Here's why. Ali was a heavyweight. I take points off. Here's a summary of what is by not my worn-out, well-tread logic: There are fewer large men and therefore there are few good large men. It's a problem of demographics. In addition, larger men are more prone to rely on power and not skill and speed, both of which make boxing hard. Boxing 101 teaches you to avoid bombs... but speed kills and skills impede. The lower divisions have more good fighters and relatively speaking, those smaller guys are more good than the good heavyweights. Why was Ali so great? Because he fought like a WW. That's why.

 

That's a logic I can live with. The competition has probably been toughest in the welterweight and middleweight divisions, so it's not unreasonable to give achievements at these weights greater value in a p4p sense. With this reasoning SRR:s standing as the greatest p4p seems pretty unquestionable.

 

What names are missing on RJJ:s record? Eubanks, Benn a McCallum closer to his prime, who else?

 

... add Michalczewski, McClellan, Collins, and perhaps Jirov.

 

This is the worst thread I've ever seen. Roy Jones is nowhere close to Ali. Ali ducked no one, Jones did.

 

I totally agree here, Ali has at least 3 victories better than any of Jones. My comment tho is in regard to you saying this statement drives it home - " You appraise a skill set and an ability set when you see it up against the very best and you see it truly put to the test." I am just saying that with some guys we never get to see this, so do we just not apparaise them or automatically have them lower than others.

Ezzard wasn't talking about Ali vs Jones comp wise, he was talking of Jones overall ranking as an ATG. This is the perspective i addressed from. If you addressed his comment as per you've said above then i wholeheartedly agree, but you will be able to see looking back how i come to the point i did i think.

Yeah Pep's got Saddler and that incredible run. I rank Holmes and Foster high based on the fact they beat what was available at their time (excepting Holmes latter career but i pass him a bit for that) This would make a great thread actually, name the ATG's who didn't have the opportunity to stamp themselves against GREAT opposition.

Fair enough. A fighter like Jones (and Tyson in different ways) will always be heavily rated from both ends of the scale.

I have no problem with ranking the obviously proven at the top. I am just rallying for a bit of Jones leeway as opposed to just slapping him below any and every (slight exagg) "proven" fighter. Tho Holmes didn't beat any real greats in their prime i still rate him above some that did, for e.g.

Robbi doesn't read thread headers at times. He has since amended to say he meant Jones could win with the right strategy, which of course means he totally misconstrued the thread. As for real distress, don't you think Jones feat of not getting in real distress for a decade or more is a form of greatness? I mean how good is that????

Tell me your thoughts on Jones getting badly hurt in Tarver III and continuing on? It would be easy to say he didn't get back in and mix it later but this is a ordinary version of Jones.

Yeah, got me there. Beer goggles.

You don't think this dodging of certain fighters is blown out of proportion?

Didn't he actively pursue a fight vs Lennox Lewis that was actually declined by Lewis himself?

Possibly, maybe etc but i am in your boat, if we fight out Holyfield, Jones, Vitali etc used em at their best i too will exclude them totally from any list and possibly even credit.

I've addressed this one many times. Jones went 50 fights without ever being beaten by a fist. This period encompasses 15 years. Titles in 4 or more divisions and too many to count. He was i think 35 before the Taver loss. Take a look back at the Haglers and co. and see what they were doing at this advanced age and career stage. Jones best was well behind him as it was with the vast majority of other greats. I could put up a list of ATG's that were either retired or fighting shyte at similar career stages, but should we hold it against them? Holmes was beaten by a light heavy that wouldn't have carried his jockstrap just a couple of years earlier etc.

The thing is Jones wasn't suddenly exposed, hell he even beat Tarver just prior and it could be seen he wasn't the Jones of old. Jones beat better men than Tarver quite easily back in the day, and regardless of what he says i can see him beating Tarver quite easily at his peak. A past prime (but obviously still damn handy) Hopkins made Tarver look very ordinary in there. Tarver wasn't that good, Jones was simply that bad.

You misread this time instead of me. "Jones last top effort was Ruiz or even earlier." I am saying his last good exhibition was vs Ruiz. He looked shyte in the first Tarver fight not to mention thereafter.

I've addressed this above.

Just as now and then (not that often) i jump in to give him the odd needed hearing. You haven't mentioned the haters and refusalists above, of which there are also plenty.

Cheers mate.

 

Wow, Stonehands just verbally clubbed about 8 people to death.