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

Are you serious?

When did Evander beat Mike?

1996?

That's almost 25 years ago.

The K's weren't even around then.

Of course opinions will have changed.

Any rational person will see past prime defeats for what they are.

Are you seriously telling me that if someone ranked Mike Tyson, that they'd look deep into losses against the likes of Kevin McBride.

The only reason why you're so fixated on Roy's losses is very simple:

Because you know that without those losses, the other factors to consider sees them being very close together.

 

he does it for all boxers in fact all sports. everyone does, just not u.

Or do you consider CHarles legacy tarnished because he spent the last years of his life being turned over unable to move in a nursing home too?

 

Yeah, I can't argue with that.

Just typical Floyd BS.

Completely unecessary, just like the C-W with Canelo.

 

The word you're struggling to find is:

CONTEXT

Of course Mike's post Spinks career where he lost to Evander have to be taken into account.

But not the ones over McBride and Williams, when he was only fighting for a cheque as he had no choice.

Of course Roy's losses to Tarver count against him.

But not the ones where he was losing to the likes of Enzo Mac at 46.

What's wrong with you?

Can't you distinguish between the 2 vastly different levels??

 

This tells us everything about the type of fan you are.

You can't comprehend why Duran is rated so highly by many, yet you have the gall to mention Floyd's exploits on Dancing with the Stars as well as his exhibitions fights.

 

Like anything else, it's all subjective.

You know I'm a huge fan of Roy's. Yet I have no issue with people picking Floyd here. The only thing that bothers me, is when you've got nuts claiming that it's Floyd by a mile and that it's a stupid question to ask.

That is just plain ignorance.

If you break each category down and Floyd comes out on top under traditional criteria, it will be close.

Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot who has no understanding of the sport.

 

I would agree with this! We all have biases which is why I like a criteria that rates on accomplishment, longevity, quality of opposition (not names), rankings mostly during prime years. Pre prime and post prime play a small part (very small). Hopkins losing in his debut barely hits my radar. Losing to RJJ pre prime (TBF both were) factors in more so because they were on the cusp of their primes.

I am not a fan of either guy, but have tremendous respect for both of them. Not sure why more boxing fans love to hate the competitors of the sport they claim to love? Oh well to each their own

 

Great post.

Honestly, when looking at Bernard's whole resume, I don't even give the debut loss to Mitchell a seconds thought.

This is what annoys me about Dubblechin.

Under the traditional criteria that is used to rank fighters, the results are pretty close for most of the categories.

 

Lol I agree with this as well (uh oh we are starting a trend). RJJ’s run of 48-1 at his best puts him in the argument of a top 10-20 ATG although for me I would go more along the lines of 25 (reworking my list so I can’t say for sure). But to argue against that is (not you asinine! To say there is no comparable rating of FMJ or RJJ is equally so.

Even though RJJ is past prime or at the tail end I do factor in 2 loses to Tarver and Johnson. But not the rest including Calzaghe/Hopkins they have minimal import or impact. I would say I pay attention to his resume it’s up to 2005. Anything after that is of minuscule importance. It was a tale of a fighter who loved to fight and fought for love of the game or being his identity and not knowing anything else. To count those later loses is ridiculous!

 

Great post.

Yes, we're worryingly agreeing a lot of late. Ha!

I agree with everything you've said.

It's not being biased or anything, it's just you know that they have no significance and are pointless.

When looking at Tyson, you have to absolutely factor in his losses to Evander, even though he was past his prime post prison. But losses to Williams and McBride? I honestly wouldn't give them a seconds thought. Mike didn't even want to fight at that point. He only did it because he had no choice at the time.

I'll be very interested in Dubblechin's response to who he thought had the better career between Floyd-SRL.

I still can't believe that he noted Floyd's appearance on Dancing with the Stars.

That was mental.

 

Jones had a better resume but Mayweather marketing himself way better.

 

Tyson was 22 after Spinks. Jones was 35 for Tarver II. See the difference?

 

I think he beat about 20 ranked fighters. Probably a similar number for Floyd.

 

These two were very similar talents.

I was afraid Mayweather would keep fighting until he lost it all at once and get KTFO like Jones did vs. Tarver.

But, it never happened.

I have to say Mayweather has the slightly better legacy because he quit when he was ahead.

 

Why does knowing when to quit enhance your legacy?

Is Jordan less of a basket ball player because of his stint with the Wizards?

I still (the 5th time) think FMJ edges this but it has nothing to do with late career RJJ loses. If the only thing that separates them for some (not all, I am aware) you have not built a good case for Floyd or RJJ there is substance to be evaluated and weighted apart from that. I was hoping this thread would go down that road as I was interested in learning and evaluating/contrasting them.

Instead we have seen nitpicked opposition and wins based on names rather than quality.