Roy Jones and Mike Tyson, where should we really place them?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010.


Page 2 of 9
  1. Snakefist

    Snakefist Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,650
    3
    Feb 20, 2007
    Jones still fighting is irrelevant, as he is completely shot to pieces and has been so since 04. He is pretty much a fighter who is completely faded. If you had went into classic section, you would have seen many post with RJJ being discussed, that is his prime being discussed. When you judge boxers you judge them BY THEIR PRIMES, not when they are shot and fight on too long. Their careers are practically over at this point.

    Toney was a huge win, but I don't do this. I look at their whole careers. There was never going to come a time when Jones was going to be the underdog. Liston was extremely hyped up and for the most part, Ali was was disliked. Liston is more of a comparison to Tyson than ROY JONES.

    I dont have to take issue with Calzaghe threads. I am posting in this one. You are the one who is comparing Jones to a retired Tyson, in effect you are going about as everyone else is, that Jones has been done for a long time and we pretty much look at him as retired.
     
    Snakefist, Sep 24, 2010
    Snakefist, Sep 24, 2010
    #16
  2. AlisJab

    AlisJab I crush homers Full Member

    1,456
    1
    Sep 19, 2010
    Well, I don't want to argue about where you think the thread should be, that's up to your own judgement.

    Anyways, if we only judged fighters based on their primes though we would have to erase Ali's huge legacy win over a prime undefeated and unstoppable looking George Foreman, or all of Bernard's high quality victories past his prime.

    So it's a delicate balance here but I think you can agree that with my definition of a legacy fight, Roy Jones really only had one true "legacy fight" victory.

    Now I'm not saying that you should base a fighter's career on one "legacy fight" or we would have to discuss Buster Douglas. What I'm saying is the fact that these guys were so dominant, which is without question, let's take a look at the dominance and pick out the golden gem out of the dominance in which they climbed what seemed to be tough mountain to climb.

    Sorry for the analogies.

    Let me be more clear.

    So there's no question that they were dominant, but to separate two fighters's dominance don't we look at the quality wins, how many, and how they lost?

    Doesn't the Ali wins over Frazier and especially Foreman read much earlier on his resume than say his wins over a Shavers, Norton, Patterson, or Moore?
    (I agree Liston was slightly overrated and he had a "fear factor" to his abilities. That being said, Vegas lost a TON of money on Ali in that fight and Vegas usually doesn't base their books on hype.)

    "Legacy wins" to me are huge to a boxer's legacy and where they should be ranked. Especially in this day and age of cherry picking that we see going on.
     
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    #17
  3. MichiganWarrior

    MichiganWarrior Still Slick! Still Black! Full Member

    26,793
    7
    Mar 20, 2010
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3xop5PEwk[/ame]
     
    MichiganWarrior, Sep 24, 2010
    MichiganWarrior, Sep 24, 2010
    #18
  4. AlisJab

    AlisJab I crush homers Full Member

    1,456
    1
    Sep 19, 2010
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    #19
  5. AlisJab

    AlisJab I crush homers Full Member

    1,456
    1
    Sep 19, 2010
    A lot of people don't care about the quality of opponents? That's why Pacquiao and Floyd get away with what they get away with. (referring to the poll.)
     
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    #20
  6. Snakefist

    Snakefist Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,650
    3
    Feb 20, 2007
    Maybe if you asked the questions differently, instead of forcing someone to agree with your subjective opinion if they vote, maybe you'd get a better responses and a more varied poll. Because as it stands, it's a double negative, it's all your opinion that you think their wins are nothing special, at least not enough to be legends or even called Great, outside of one fighter. So to choose either option, is to basically agree with you and say they fought no one really.
     
    Snakefist, Sep 24, 2010
    Snakefist, Sep 24, 2010
    #21
  7. AlisJab

    AlisJab I crush homers Full Member

    1,456
    1
    Sep 19, 2010
    Well, I meant to put a 3rd option but accidentally clicked post poll. So my bad on that, but people can argue who the "legacy wins" were for these guys like we were discussing.

    For instance, Ali's biggest legacy win came past his prime vs Foreman in my book. People take Foreman and they throw him around era to era asking if the guys from other era's could beat him. Who out of Tyson's career will people say "could Wladimir stand a chance against Razor Ruddock" or etc etc. You get the point. I view my boxing historical comparisons with a very critical eye.
     
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    AlisJab, Sep 24, 2010
    #22
  8. Leonit

    Leonit Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,331
    4
    Jan 6, 2009
    To answer your question I think RJJ is an ATG and he makes the top 50. Tyson is not going to be in the top 100 of any respectful journalist or magazine. I miss him ass a fighter but he was stopped by the first HOF in his prime he fought
     
    Leonit, Sep 24, 2010
    Leonit, Sep 24, 2010
    #23
  9. Body Head

    Body Head East Side Rape (CEO) Full Member

    2,944
    1
    Nov 15, 2009
    how does Hopkins have more legacy defining fights in his career? When all Hopkins did most of the time was fight smaller fighters like the thread i started up yesterday i think.

    Roy's 5 biggest wins. James Toney, John Ruiz, Bernard Hopkins, Virgil Hill, Antonio Tarver. Not too shabby if u ask me.

    Hopkins 5 biggest wins, Antonio Tarver, Winky Wright, Kelly pavlik, Felix Trinidad, Oscar.

    All smaller fighters than Hopkins except for Tarver of course. Plus he fought Winky and Pavlik at a catch weight of 170....
     
    Body Head, Sep 24, 2010
    Body Head, Sep 24, 2010
    #24
  10. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    I think Roy should be classed as a ATG around the 90-100 region, he missed to many names to be considered higher.

    As for Tyson, I dont think his a ATG, but I would say he is definately a HOFer
     
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    #25
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,532
    21,915
    Sep 15, 2009
    i think had jones beaten michalowski, and retired after the frst tarver fight, people would rank him top 5 of all time.

    tyson on the other hand, his defining fight should have been holyfield. and he lost. that being said he kicked the **** out of the belt holders.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    #26
  12. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    I dont think so
     
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    #27
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,532
    21,915
    Sep 15, 2009
    he would then have cleaned out a division, as well as winning titles from middle to heavy. plus he looked nigh on unbeatable.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    #28
  14. general zod

    general zod World Champion Full Member

    6,744
    51
    Apr 7, 2010
    He doesnt have enough quality wins. The lhw division that he dominated wasnt exactly deep in talent either
     
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    general zod, Sep 26, 2010
    #29
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,532
    21,915
    Sep 15, 2009
    i think the one against dariusz is all he is missing. noone else could ave sgnificantly boosted hs legacy.
     
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    lufcrazy, Sep 26, 2010
    #30
Page 2 of 9