Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by surfinghb, Mar 10, 2019.
Louden vs NoNeck …. Go !!!!
Mayweather barely. I favor his consistency and longevity over RJJ's superior competition
Had RJJ never returned to 175.... Might be a different story
Roy Jones by a ton. The resumes are not even remotely close
Are you officiating/reffing this or can I nominate mark?
It's a very hard question to answer.
It's extremely difficult to compare fighters from different weights, who peaked in different eras.
Floyd has the unbeaten record and he has more named fighters on his resume.
Roy's fall from grace was shocking, but I think he took on the bigger challenges in his career.
Both dominated with ease in their prime, but Floyd had a significant reach advantage over the majority of his opponents.
Their best wins are probably:
Floyd - Oscar
Roy - Toney
I think it's close, but many posters will hold Roy's past prime defeats against him, especially as some of them were ugly.
Mayweather by a longshot. He retired undefeated the most financially successful fighter of all time and a household name. He'll likely end up having more wins over Hall of Famers than Jones.
Roy Jones has fought for 30 years, and he hasn't been very good for the last 16. So, basically, he's been an average to below average fighter for longer than he was even great.
Roy Jones should've retired nearly two decades ago. He's all but destroyed his legacy.
Floyd at 130 and Roy at 168 is a wash.
Roy vs Ruiz and Floyd vs Clenelo is a wash.
Roy’s run at 175 and Floyd’s run at 147 we’re both meh...another wash.
When Roy was at his peak from 168 - heavyweight there’s only one fighter who Roy wouldn’t have been favored over and that was Lennox Lewis. When Floyd was at his peak from 130 - 154 there were there were always other fighters that were perceived to be legit threats ( not at 130 ).
Roy’s talents were such that fans and some commenters speculated that he was in the same realm as SRR, SRL etc. Floyd always had to tell others that he was. Roy takes this.
Roy had a tough fights with Griffin ( Griffeth? ) and Tarver; Roy granted them rematches and Tarver iced him spectacularly.
Floyd had tough fights with Castillo and Maidana; Floyd granted them rematches and showed he had another level. Floyd beats Roy here.
It is tough. And to add, different posters have different criteria on weight of what is important. For instance resume, activity, being battlle tested, fighting other very good/great fighters while they were in their prime as well(which is me) vs maybe someone who puts more weight in eye test, level of dominance of opposition, fantasy H2H, etc ..
You lost me at Ruiz and Canelo are a wash. Canelo is the biggest star in the entire sport right now and is likely going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. And you're comparing him to John Ruiz?
It is very difficult.
Under traditional criteria, they wouldn't rank really high due to their resumes. But on a H2H basis, you could certainly make a claim for them to be up there with the very best fighters of all time.
You do understand that at the time Floyd fought Clenelo that he wasn’t the fighter he is now, right. An older, far more athletically gifted, ring savvy veteran, already a HOF lock, moving up in weight to fight someone who possessed a belt, an age weight advantage and absolutely nothing else going for them. Those are the similarities. Plus Floyd made Clenelo fight him at a catchweight. I’m obviously not talking about how Ruiz and alvarez’ careers turned out after.
You do realize beating Canelo Alvarez and beating John Ruiz isn't "A WASH," right?
And you realize Floyd Mayweather was 36 years old when he fought Alvarez, and when Jones was 35 he was already losing every round and getting his head caved in by guys like Glen Johnson, right?
I don't think it's as simple as the above.
Financial success shouldn't really come into play here.
You're really looking at: the quality of opponents, their dominance, their longevity, the manner in which they won, the risks they took, any disadvantages they were faced with etc.
Roy's losses look extremely bad. But we know that it wasn't because he fought better competition. We know it's because he had a huge ego, and he tried to defy father time by trying fight the same in his 30's and 40's, as what he'd done when he was in his 20's.
Floyd has the zero, but he fought much less than Roy did, where he didn't put his body through as much.
If Roy had retired after Ruiz, they'd both have had 50 fights each, and it would be very hard for people to decide. Whilst you can't simply ignore Roy's losses, they have to be put into context.
For all of Floyd's greatness, I still see his very best win as being over Oscar. Although Oscar was faded, he was taller than Floyd, he was heavier than Floyd, and he had a bigger reach than Floyd. I think it was the only fight that Floyd had, where he was completely outsized.
Although it was a great win, was it vastly superior to Roy's win over Toney?
Floys has wins over more named opponents that Roy, but he never fought a great fighter who was prime. When I look at Floyd's resume, I just think that he had more 'Hill' type calibre wins than what Roy does.