Robinson vs. Jones: Who's better?

x10

 

Game, set & match :good

 

Roy would have stopped Robinson at 160 quite surely.

 

I agree.

Jones is more hurt by the era he fought in here than anything else. Boxing had doubled up in terms of divisions (8 to 16) and titles (2 to 4). How many were considered the legit champion and how many mere titlists? Did Jones beat more world champions than Harry Greb too, really? I already know you consider Roy Jones the Greatest Fighter of All-Time by a looooooong shot. It isn't even remotely close as far as your concerned, which is why I mulled even getting involved in this thread.

Out of the ten Hall of Famers Robinson beat, I rate Graziano last amongst them, probably.

I think simply because LaMotta wasn't mind blowing athletically or a varied technician doesn't mean he wasn't great. He was effective at what he did, had wins over Marcel Cerdan, Holman Williams, Fritzie Zivic, Tommy Yarosz, Bert Lytell, Robert Villemain, Jose Basora, Bob Satterfield, Laurent Dauthuille and oh yeah, the only guy to beat Ray Robinson in his first 130-some odd fights. Four of the five times Robinson beat him, he was at a distinct weight disadvantage and the fifth time he beat him for the Middleweight Title and became the only guy to stop him at 160. His W resume is better than Bernard Hopkins.

Fullmer and Basilio both achieved enough in their time to earn their HOF credentials, but more than that is Robinson beat them when he was well past his best. He was six years Basilio's senior and nine years Fullmer's with so many more wars, fights and mileage on his odometer. These are actually two of his best wins because of that. The way he recaptured the title from Fullmer is one of the sport's most legendary moments.

Yes, Kid Gavilan had exceptional athleticism, skills and ability, was Robinson's immediate successor, actually had a better reign and is a Top 3-5 WW all-time and really nothing short of that.

Before his retirement, he had won it, lost it and won it back. It wasn't until returning from a nearly three-year layoff that he actually started losing - to very good/great fighters - on any type of relatively consistent basis. His ability to keep winning it back, from age 35-37, is only a credit to him. The losses mean even less than Jones' post-Tarver II defeats, only Robinson still had numerous achievements to collect.

Okay.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

He barely lost a round in his prime. It's really not his fault he made good fighters look lesser than their capabilities. Take Reggie Johnson for example. Damned good fighter, B- level at worst. Roy Jones shut him out and did whatever he wanted with him, taking his title.

No one seems to give a damn.

 

I don't deney that he clowned some fighters who nobody had any business clowning, but why couldn't he take that ability and run with it?

If he had gone after the toughest opponents he could get into the ring, then he could have built a better legacy, even if he picked up the odd loss.

He chose to squander his talent when he had it, and only started going after the most dangerous opponents when it was too late, and he was becoming a name to grace their resumes.

 

Well the Dariusz fight would have been nice, but Dairusz turned down a career high payday to stay in Germany a few times.

Of course Roy Jones could have had a better legacy, it's still a good legacy regardless. This can be applied to a number of fighters.

 

Wow, outstanding post. Whilst I think that Jones would beat Robinson H2H at 160, and that Jones is comparable to anyone talent wise, to suggest that Jones' resume even compares to Robinson (let alone argue it's better!) is ridiculous beyond belief.

 

The risk he'd need to assume to accomplish that would see Him getting stopped before Robinson.

 

Jones should not have been aiming for a "good" legacy, with his level of talent.

He should have gone after the records of some of the historic p4p greats.

He gave us a flash of that when he beat John Ruiz.

 

This is not about running down Roy Jones, my boyhood hero.

But compared to Ray Robinson? Jones' career sees him way behind there.

In a fight between them at 160 I'd expect the much heavier Jones to use his fleet feet to win a decision. But stop Ray? Pull the other one, Robinson was nails and Roy would know he was dangerous and pick him apart safely.

Jones is the best fighter I've ever seen on film but there's a lot of **** opponents he took on that add nothing to his legacy even though he dominated them.

 

Got there before me :good :deal

 

All points aside, that article is crap. It also somehow has Trinidad in there, which makes no sense.

Off the top of my head and in random order, these guys were better than Paz and Trinidad:
Tarver
Ruiz
Griffin
Hill
Hopkins
Toney
Gonzales
Harding
McCallum
Johnson

 

Roy is levels above any fighter at MW Robinson KO'd. Roy could have Ko'd Fullmer and Turpin as well in a round of his choosing, certain of it.

Ray had a puncher's chance sure, but his willingness to mix it up would have gotten himself stopped by a guy with the countering ability of a Jones jr.

This content is protected