Do some research man... Although I find it weird you list Hill as a good win but not Tarver or Ruiz.. So you obviously rate wins differently than I do. you probably wouldn't think Malinga or Griffin 2 were good wins either.
Roy was probably the best to watch in the past 25 years. Did he beat better opponents than the other most elite fighters of the past 25 years? That's the burning question.
Greatest what? Boxer? Mayweather and Rigo are more complete boxers than Roy. Entertainer? Hamed, Manny, Eubank were very entertaining also. What exactly was Roy the greatest at? Hype? Sure. He's probably the most athletic boxer of the past 25 years. I wouldn't argue against that. Great boxers don't have glass chins.
I think he was better than all three, particularly compared prime for prime. I think most people **** on him in this forum because many are younger than 18 and haven't watched fights prior to 5 years ago. It's just evident from their boxing knowledge, name calling, etc. One of the biggest myths is that RJJ wasn't very skilled and relied entirely on his athleticism. This is a criticism to his longevity. Prior to this era just about every boxer went downhill after 30. Just from a stand point of longetivity RJJ went 15 years from his pro debut 89 until his first legit loss in 04 to Tarver. SRL went 14 years from his pro debut in 77 until his 2nd legit loss to Terry Norris in 91. They were both 35 when they really went downhill.
Nope, and Joe didn't fancy his chances against a close to prime Roy either. :deal A shot to **** shell of Roy dropped him. A prime Roy would have finished the job.
Great boxers don't have glass chins? Well take Rigo off your list, because he has the glassy chin of active boxers.
ali greb duran robinson all have much better resumes though no one in boxing history had his natural talent