Whitaker has much the greater resume for me, Jones' is a little shallow in comparison. Whitaker has fought a more consistent high level of opponent. Jones was possibly more obvious in his domination as far as his manner of victory at his peak, Whitaker was more subtle. Possibly Jones here. Weights, Jones in 4, Whitaker in 3. Not a huge factor for me to be honest, its more important who you fought in them. Longevity, easily Whitaker. He was making young De La Hoya look like a clown in the ring when he was way past peak. I can't ever imagine him getting KTFO as Jones has done, at any point. This is fairly clear for Whitaker considering these factors.
With hindsight, its easy to down play that victory for Roy over Ruiz but I wonder just how many people truly believed it was possible before it happened, I know I didnt, I expected Jones to get KTFO. Ps. Toney also was a great fighter but Jones beat Ruiz much more definitively than Toney + he was the 1st guy who started at MWT to win a HWT title in a 100 yrs, those stats dont lie no matter which era your from. In fact, its this very achievement that might just give RJJ the edge in this RJJ/Pea debate.... might. :thumbsup
As far as pure H2H ability at their peak weight there is nothing in it. They both compete with anybody from any era, period. Greatness is different though, and considers all these factors. The answer to the thread can only be Whitaker.
I have no probs with anyone picking Pea as its super close, just look at the votes. I regard primes & ability every bit as much as resume & achievements where as most posters dont. I think if both were the same age then most would regard Jones as the p4p no1 for the majority of their careers tho Whitaker would also be at points too, there would be debates & it may actually be Jones more flashy style that gets most votes as its so hard to split them in most other ways.
That's why Roy just shades it for me. Also, although Whitaker has a deeper resume, I think Roy's is getting unfairly dismissed as trash here. It's a close enough debate for me that it's no big deal when someone picks Whitaker, I just don't get why some Whitaker fans have to talk down one of Roy's best wins to make their point look stronger. If Pernell won a belt at 168 over a fringe beltholder, it'd a hell of an accomplishment no matter what the circumstances were.
Now I know you're one of those people. It was one of the best LHW eras in the history of the sport. The best aside from the 40's/50's. Among Spinks's conquests were Dwight Muhammad Qawi, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Marvin Johnson, Yacqui Lopez, Eddie Davis, Vonzell Johnson, Mustafa Wassaja, Murray Sutherland, etc at LHW, along with Holmes and Cooney at HW.
Does the possibility that Roy roided taint the victory at all for you? For whatever it's worth, even if Roy did win legitimately, I don't think his win is better than Whitaker's over Julio Cesar Vasquez. Vasquez was easily a better fighter than Ruiz, who only had one real virtue, hugging, and fought in a fight where he wasn't allowed to do it. Probably wouldn't have made a difference even if he was allowed to hug, but Ruiz is just a lower calibre guy than Vasquez. And let's not forget that when Whitaker fought Vasquez, Terry Norris had lost to the worse than average Luis Santana by disqualification. Had Vasquez fought Norris at the time by the way, I think Vasquez would have flattened him.
Both were two of the best fighters of this era, and so damn unbeatable in their prime. However I pick Sweet Pea based on his resume.
There is probably little doubt that these are the two best by most measures. I have them very close to even. Whittaker has a bit better resume, but overall, I rank Roy's achievements as superior. And I think he was more dominant and more exciting to watch. Finally, I believe he had more natural boxing talent. Both guys had unorthodox styles. I wouldn't argue it too hard, but I lean towards Roy. If he pulls out a victory tonight, it's probably not even debatable any longer. I might even redo the thread.