Considering just how many fighters there have been in boxing's history, most of them earned their place there. I think any rated contender is probably worth mentioning, devon. Why shouldn't they be, because there are a seemingly insurmountable number of them in cases like Armstrong and Robinson? That's why they tend to be mentioned near the top. Hell, If you're fighting and consistently beating the top competition of your era, it's worth noting.
Good thread! just wanted to add pressure fighters didnt have much success against pete because he was a great body puncher...even though he was boxing and moving around he would constantly hit you to the body.
Not even close. Jones had decent skills as far as elite fighters go, but his athletic ability is what really made him special. Greatness being based on actual accomplishments, though, he doesn't even deserve a mention in this thread. Ray Robinson is the GOAT. :deal
no question there are many, many fighters who are more accomplished than jones but to totally dismiss a fighter who was the best of his era is wrong i believe. H2H jones is a tough matchup for any of the greats. no argument with robinson at #1 but i don't think he beats jones at middleweight. robinson struggled with turpin, not sure how he would have dealt with jones. boxing digest had jones #1 all-time in '97, not saying he's #1 but just understand how some viewed him in his prime. http://static.boxrec.com/wiki/9/9b/Sc00064da5.jpg
Right, so we should just say "**** all the lower weight divisions, they're all ****!" Honestly just **** off, I'm so sick of heavyweight dick-riding ****s like you, you ****ers aren't real boxing fans, just a bunch of closet homos who get off to watching big shirtless men over 200lbs.