RJJ or May. Who has the better Legacy? p4p ranking?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by surfinghb, Mar 10, 2019.


  1. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,123
    4,018
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    It was Mayweather, no questions asked.
     
  2. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,957
    6,602
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 20, 2006
    Well I picked Mayweather and still think that holds, but to me it is a narrow margin and one that could be argued either way without to much stretch.

    I think most would agree they are top 5 of the last 30 years? Perhaps I am wrong. I think most would agree they are both top 35 ATG’s with some/many placing them closer to 20 than 35. I still think May edges RJJ, but those who are counting and giving weight to past prime loses is unrealistic and if held as a universal criteria, many ATG’s would take a major hit in their rankings.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  3. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,123
    4,018
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    They all do take a major hit for their losses. Holyfield was listed by Ring as the third best heavyweight of all time after he beat Tyson. Anyone think he's still top three? After he lost to Byrd and Donald and Toney, etc.? Hell no. And he didn't get knocked unconscious over and over and over and over and over again like Jones did.

    Everyone balances the good times and the bad times. (Or they're not being fair to the fighters whose careers they nitpick to death.)

    That's the case with nearly all the top fighters, except with Jones. People seem to want to forget the last 16 years of his career ever happened. Probably because most stopped watching him after it got too brutal to tune in.
     
  4. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,434
    2,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah, I'm not overly concerned by past prime losses. If I was, Charles would drop heavily in my rankings for one.
     
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  5. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,123
    4,018
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    When was Charles no longer in his prime?
     
  6. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,434
    2,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Probably some time in the early 50's, but definitely by the mid 50's. That he was KO'd by Young Jack Johnson, Donnie Fleaman etc doesn't factor in the slightest when I rank him.
     
    Loudon and PhillyPhan69 like this.
  7. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,434
    2,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    And I'd choose Calzaghe's career over Charles's any time. Getting out rich and unmarked. But I'd have Charles way ahead of Calzaghe in the rankings.
     
    PhillyPhan69 likes this.
  8. 88Chris05

    88Chris05 Active Member Full Member

    706
    1,095
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 20, 2013
    Long post guys, I'll ask for your forgiveness in advance.

    I prefer Jones' peak, but Mayweather's overall career. In both cases it's marginal.

    Jones' very best wins (ie, top three or so) are arguably superior to Mayweather's, particularly if you factor in the sheer dominance of them. Granted, it's not as if Mayweather was only scraping close, contentious decisions or having to get up off the deck to win during his pomp, but Jones was making established, experienced fighters with world class credentials look like no-hopers who were in slow motion.

    To counter that, however, Mayweather has a deeper pool of very, very good wins underneath his best ones, albeit he was helped by the availability of attractive PPV fights against guys who had a big following or particular selling point, but whose abilities didn't quite match up with their media profiles (such as Gatti and Hatton). Jones didn't really have this luxury. Also, Mayweather simply strung it all together for a longer period that Jones and didn't hit the bricks when his pure speed and athleticism began to dim.

    Lump everything together, and Mayweather comes out on top in my opinion - but it's close.

    I guess a lot of it depends on how much you hold Jones' fall from grace against him, or at which point you deem his losses to no longer matter because there's nothing more to them than Jones simply being a decrepit shell. Personally, I hold nothing after 2004 against him - but I can't completely ignore those back-to-back knockouts against Tarver and Johnson which happened that year.

    I'm not saying that Jones was 'exposed' by either guy, of course, or that they'd have beaten a younger version of him. They wouldn't. A peak Jones would have completely stood Tarver and Johnson (the latter especially) on their heads. But that doesn't mean they don't still deserve credit for ending Jones' days a world class operator. Despite looking off-colour in their first fight, Jones' chin was still an uncracked one as of 2004 - Tarver didn't have the luxury of subsequent Jones opponents (such as Green and Lebedev) of knowing that Jones' chin was there for the taking. He went out and made it happen, essentially making the unthinkable a reality. Jones had slid past his best, but Tarver and then Johnson really confined him to the 'shot' category.

    As such, I can't completely give Jones a pass for those two defeats, especially as he'd outscored Tarver only six months earlier. He was slowing down, but I think Mayweather was visibly slowing down by the same age in 2012 / 2013, too. The difference was that Jones was left naked in the ring because he simply didn't have the same fundamentals, discipline and smarts as Mayweather to fall back on (not helped by cutting back down to 175, which clearly wasn't the smartest idea at that point).

    Like I said, on the balance of evidence it seems stupid to use Jones' defeats after Tarver II and Johnson as a stick to beat him with - they are no more important than the slew of losses someone such as Ezzard Charles had in the latter years of his career. But those two initial KO losses just allow Mayweather to get in ahead of him in my all-time rankings. But as I said, there's not a great deal in it. Two of the three greatest pound for pounders to have peaked within my lifetime, with Pernell sandwiching himself in somewhere.
     
  9. HerolGee

    HerolGee Obsessed with Boxing booted Full Member

    41,873
    3,827
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 22, 2010
    no, meaningless losses mean nothing.
     
    Loudon and Bokaj like this.
  10. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,123
    4,018
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    Let's say Ezzard Charles was no longer in his prime in 1952, after his fourth fight to Jersey Joe Walcott.

    Because news reports from the fourth fight on kind of paint him as not as good as he once was.

    Let's say he called it quits after failing to regain the title that night ... and his final record was 74-7-1. And Charles could boast he held wins over everyone who beat him in those seven losses, except for Ken Overlin, who he drew with.

    OF COURSE, Ezzard Charles would be rated higher if he retired with 7 losses instead of 25 losses.

    OF COURSE, Ezzard Charles would be rated higher if he retired after the fourth Walcott fight, which most at ringside and the commentators on television thought Charles HAD WON. (It was considered a bad decision.)

    OF COURSE, Ezzard Charles would be rated higher if he had basically beaten every man he fought as a pro and retired after losing a controversial decision.

    Whether you are aware of it or not, I'm sure you do rank Charles lower than you would if he hadn't racked up all those losses in the 1950s.

    Charles would be rated higher by everyone if he left after the final Walcott fight.

    HELL, Charles may be sitting at or near the very top of the heavyweight rankings if he had.

    25 losses impact a career ... when you could've easily walked away with seven - most of whom he also had wins over.

    Going out at the right time HELPS fighters and sticking around too long HURTS fighters, whether we are conscious of it or not.

    Lennox Lewis' career was greatly served by retiring on top. If he'd had a return with Vitali and lost, that would've hurt his legacy. If he continued to fight after that and got knocked out another six or seven times, or if he lost 25 times (like Charles), and he never avenged most of those losses, that would hurt his legacy, too.

    Going out on top and beating everyone he fought as a pro - whether everyone Lennox fought was prime or not - greatly enhances his legacy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  11. emallini

    emallini Boxing Junkie booted Full Member

    11,289
    2,454
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 16, 2008
    Does Duran getting beat up by Joppy count against Legacy?
     
    Loudon and Bokaj like this.
  12. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,434
    2,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    Short answer: No.

    I honestly don't factor in anything from post Walcott when ranking Charles. Well, maybe I'd give him a plus for doing so well against Marciano when he was past his best. Otherwise it's all about his prime run. His KO losses to nobodies when he was washed up means nothing to how I rank him.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  13. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,123
    4,018
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    If he'd won would it have impacted his legacy?
     
  14. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    31,328
    2,196
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 7, 2012
    You really are clueless.

    Seriously, your posts are absolutely cringeworthy.

    You're just another stat man.

    Dancing with the Stars?

    Fighting against other disciplines?

    Haha!

    Am I being trolled, or are you serious?

    Ha!

    Oh my.

    Did you celebrate Floyd's last win over the little kick boxer?

    Did you vote for Floyd when he danced?

    It's hilarious.


    Right, here we go then.


    Achievements:

    Both of their achievements are both very impressive. But it's more difficult for a guy of Roy's size to go from MW to HW, and then drop back to reclaim the LHW titles. So that is a bigger achievement than what Floyd did. The degree of difficulty is higher.


    Resumes:

    Their resumes are both impressive, but Floyd never beat a great fighter whilst they were prime. However, he does possess more wins with name value.


    Best singular win:

    Both impressive.

    Toney for Roy

    Oscar for Floyd

    Toney had weight issues

    Oscar was faded and had been inactive

    An easy win for Roy

    A tight win for Floyd


    Biggest risk taker:

    Roy went up to HW and back, and he had to burn muscle in order to drop back to the the LHW division.

    He fought dangerous fighters even when way past his prime.

    Floyd kept taking vacations when things hotted up, where he let guys like Cotto and Marg battle it out, whilst he was in a pantomime in the WWE.


    Level of dominance:

    They both dominated in their prime, but Roy never scraped by a guy like Castillo.


    To summarise:

    The only clear win for Floyd, is obviously his unbeaten record.

    He has his zero and he made crazy amounts of money.

    Good luck to him.

    He was never knocked out like Roy.

    Fair play to him.

    As you can see, apart from Floyd retiring early, they're pretty much level when you break everything down. So it's nowhere near the shutout that you think it is.


    Off topic, who do you think had the better career between Floyd and SRL?
     
  15. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,434
    2,386
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 4, 2008
    But that isn't really what you've being saying. The logic of what you've been saying is that Duran's ranking would be higher if he'd retired after Barkley, because then he wouldn't have all these extra losses, against Joppy for example.

    I personally couldn't care less about Duran's late career losses when ranking him. Benitez and Laing, perhaps, since he wasn't that past it then. But, if so, only marginally.

    Leonard losing to Norris and Camacho doesn't hurt his legacy one bit for me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
    Loudon likes this.


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement