Roy Jones: Was he the best ever?

Thats a myth.

 

You didn't really give much of a case for Hearns at all.

Duran was arguably the best Lightweight of all time, the best fighter of the 70's, and one of the most skilled, dominant fighters of the era, all of this accomplished before moving up to face the bigger opponents. When he did, he just beat the 2nd best WW of all time. After that, his career started to get quite inconsistent, as often happens with a fighter past his prime, but the fact that he had great success at WW with wins over guys like Palomino, Cuevas, and Leonard, at 154 when well past his prime against the undefeated Davey Moore, and at 160, when by all accounts he should've been shot, he beat Iran Barkley(same guy that twice KO'd Hearns).

His greatness is based on his extreme dominance and skill in his prime, but a lot of his legacy is also based off of what he accomplished when past his prime, always defying the odds. If you want to get into who had the better resumes, we can do that too, but I'd assume you wouldn't argue that Hearns has a deeper resume.

A defensive guy? I should end the debate here and just say "You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and I don't have the time to educate you" but I'll give it a shot anyway.

By pretty much all accounts, these two are considered among the top 4 defensive fighters of all time, often as the top 2. Not much seperates them in that regard. The bit about Pep winning an entire round without throwing a punch is a great boxing story, but just that, a story. Some choose to believe it to romanticize Pep, most realize how ludicrous it is.

As far as winning 229 fights in 14 years, it was more like 24 years there chief. What do you base your rankings on? Quality or quantity? Whitaker never even sniffed a loss in his prime, whereas Pep was beaten by a guy like Sammy Angott. As far as best wins, Sandy Saddler and Chavez rank right around each other in P4P ATG terms. Difference being, Whitaker dominated Chavez, Pep lost 3/4 to Saddler.

Pep had more fights, a lot more, but in terms of dominance of their era and quality of opposition, they were pretty much equal. Pep's skills and dominance are often what rank him among the very best, not his resume, as it's not on the level of a Charles, Moore, Robinson, Greb, etc at all.

They were very similar fighters for their time, except that, while Pep had trouble with the rougher styles like Angott and Saddler, Whitaker was often at his best against them, with guys like Nelson, Chavez, etc.

To be fair, I have no serious problem with someone ranking Pep above Whitaker, but I'd be curious to see how many others you'd rank above Whitaker.

 

Roy is not the best ever, but has a case to be in the top 10... definitely ahead people like pernell whitaker, bernard hopkins, james toney, and others around or in his era.

 

Ok as it can't be proved either way i retract that, but even if it was hearsay it's still an oaccomplishment that the rumour would be started as people would have to believe you were that good.

 

If you'd like to argue and analyze who would win a match between the two, I have no problems doing that, as I've argued it many times before. I see no advantages Mayweather holds, only advantages, both skill-wise and style-wise, for Pea.

Pea holds the edge in workrate, has a better jab, and fights out of a southpaw stance(which Mayweather has admitted to being troubled by). What advantages does Mayweather have?

Floyd often takes quite a few rounds to figure out his opponents, and against Pea, a fighter with so many immediate advantages, that would most certainly be the case, a lot moreso than with a guy like Judah. Even if Floyd were able to adapt to Pea's style at some point in the fight, he would only then be on even terms with him, because he simply holds no advantages like he did against guys like Hoya, Judah, Hatton, etc. He'd lose the early rounds and at the very best be even throughout the last few rounds, which isn't going to win him the fight on points, or even come close. And I hope you're not assuming he'd stop Whitaker.

I gave you a half-assed response right here, I'll admit, if you wish to respond, I'll get into more detail as to how exactly I see the bout going down.

 

Roy is definitely one of the greats, his skill can't be denied.

 

Definitely not ahead of Whitaker, but definitely ahead of the other two.

You don't have a clue about Whitaker, you've proven this, why must you insist on commenting about him? Go out and get educated and then come back.

 

advantages floyd has: smarter fighter, better defense, quicker hands....

= i don't see whitaker winning the fight, i think he's lose something like 116-112, thats just giving him early rounds, because you are right in stating floyd starts off a little slow

 

Better defense? Not a chance. Smarter fighter? Not at all. More cautious yeah, but that doesn't make him smarter. Quicker hands? More explosive maybe, but not as fluid, nor is his workrate anywhere near what a prime Whitaker's was.

Whitaker easily takes the early rounds, and IF Floyd starts to adapt later on, he'd be too far down on the cards to catch up. I have a hard time seeing him adapting to be honest, because he simply holds no advantages.

With a lower workrate, he's not going to land more punches on a man many consider to be the best defensive fighter of all time, and with a constant southpaw jab in his face(an admitted weak point for Mayweather), it's likely he'll be hit more than he ever has been as well. Those two things don't add up well for Floyd. Bottom line, you're not beating Whitaker by pot-shotting, because quite simply, you're going to get countered on every turn, outworked, and your connect percentage will be at an all time low.

 

One of the best ever.

Hate me for this statement, but imo he's the only one to really beat Toney.

 

high work rate is not the key to beating floyd... it hasn't worked, ask hatton and de la hoya... better defense for floyd definitely... floyd took a knee, he's never been knocked down... whitaker has gotten caught... so floyd has a better chin as well... floyd and whitaker are great counter punchers... my guess is whitaker would be the aggressor and yes... he would lose by getting pot shotted and take more punches than he has ever... and mayweather's strength is very underrated... i wouldn't be surprised if whitakers eyes swelled shut like gatti's and fight was stopped early! there is no key to beating floyd, look at his record? look at whitakers... enough said!

 

People i rank above Whitaker in p4p all time, this may not be all of them as i wont sit here all day thinking of them, in no particualr order

Ali, Ray Robinson, Ray Leornard, Thomas Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Henry Armstrong, Harry Grebb, Joe Louis, Floyd Mayweather Jnr, Sam Langord, Archie Moore, Benny Leonard, Sandy Saddler, Carlos Monzon, Rocky Marciano, Eder Jofre, Julio Cesar Chavez, Ezzrd Charles, Gene Tunney, Benny Leonard and of course Willie Pep

Im sure there are more but like i said im not going to waste too much time on thinking of them.

 

the special one- good list! you and i seem to have similar views on greatness... i don't know why some people think whitaker is so great

 

:thumbsup

 

An older, slower, past his prime De La Hoya was beating Floyd over the first 7 rounds with his high workrate, and when he was using the jab. When DLH started to tire late, like he always does, Floyd took over. Pernell is faster and has a better jab than DLH, do the math.

Whitaker is a risk-taker, unlike Floyd. Floyd relies on going into a shell when faced with fire and pot-shotting out of it. Whitaker was a showman, and most of his KD's were due to being off balance from the angles he dodged punches at. Also, Pernell has fought much more dangerous opposition than Floyd, so it's no shame that he's been under fire more. A better chin? Floyd has been rocked just as Pea has, again, most of Pea's KD's were due to his balance. He often got directly up and laughed after getting KD'd. He was rarely actually hurt.

Both great counter-punchers, one of them throws a lot more punches, has a better jab, and fights as a southpaw. Who holds the advantages here? Hmmmmm. Considering an old De La Hoya was beating Floyd for 7 rounds, and B level Judah was winning for 4 rounds, I find it hard to believe Pea would be so easily countered and pot-shotted, being as he was both more skilled and had far better defense than either of those guys.

Really? But Pea's strength in fights like the Vasquez fight(a guy who would've beaten Mayweather to a pulp) and the Chavez fight(where he outfought Chavez on the inside) was not underrated? Getting bulled into the ropes and relying on pot-shotting doesn't count as strength in my book.

Look at their records? Alright, let's look.

Whitaker's wins:
-Chavez(better than any win on Mayweather's resume by far)
-McGirt X2(top 5 P4P fighter when Pea beat him, making him also a better win than any on Mayweather's resume)
-Vasquez(the most ducked 154 pounder of the era, far bigger than Pea)
-Ramirez X2(a fighter on the level of one of Floyd's biggest wins in Castillo, difference being Pea shut him out)
-Nelson(all time great, easily ranks above any fighter Floyd's beat other than DLH)

Mayweather's wins:
-Castillo X2(many consider the first fight a robbery)
-Judah(B level fighter)
-De La Hoya(old, nowhere near the DLh that a past prime Pea should've gotten the Decision against)
-Hatton(overrated fighter, but a top 10 P4P at the time, so no complaints here)
-Corrales(same with Hatton)

Pea's opponents were far more dangerous, as well as higher ranked at the time he beat them.