***The Top 50 Wins Of The Decade, 2000-2009***

:good

 

Great list m8

 

Yes, I did consider them mate, but both just missed the cut for the Honourable Mentions section. My belief in the value of Casa's win over Katsidis took a real hit when Katsidis lost to Juan Diaz. I still think it's a cracking win, and would most definitely have been included in a top 100. In fact, it's probably as good as a few of the wins in my honourable mentions section. I rate JMM-Casa a little bit lower than Casa-Katsidis, on the basis that I fully expected Marquez to win, that he didn't actually dominate as I expected him to, and that Casa looked noticeably shopworn in that fight. Don't get me wrong, it was a very solid win, but not quite of the Top 50 standard in my own opinion. Thanks for your other comment amigo :good

 

I disagree. Many of the top fighters in those weight classes are Asian, so the fact that he fought most of his career in Asia is not the same as if a welterweight or a light-heavyweight had done the same thing. I find it hard to argue over Wonjongkam's credentials, he has multiple wins over Naito, took the zero of the highly rated Koki Kameda, took the zero of Hussein Hussein, went undefeated from 1996 til 2007, and made 18 consecutive defences of the WBC title. As far as flyweights go, he is an A calibre fighter. Having re-watched the Kameda fight this week, I think he is a cracking fighter, great ability.

I can't really refute this point like I refuted your last one though, this is a solid point, it's just a difference in opinion between you and I where your p-o-v is every bit as legitimate as mine. As I said in my opening post, I don't claim infallibility here, all I'm doing is giving my opinion.

On paper, you can certainly make a strong case for John Ruiz being a better fighter than Vassily Jirov, as he does have better names on his record.

I look at it like this - by the time that Ruiz fought Jones, he had lost to a couple of journeymen, went 1-1-1 with a pretty much shot version of Holyfield (who would lose 3 in a row not long after to Byrd, Toney and Larry ****ing Donald ffs!), and done not much else at all. After Ruiz fought Jones, he beat a dispirited Rahman who hadn't won in his last 3 fights, beat a well past-prime Golota (who was stopped in 1 round by Lamon Brewster in his very next fight), then got whipped by James Toney, and beaten by Valuev and Chagaev in his next 2.

To merely list the names on Ruiz's record does not tell the full story. I have seen a hell of a lot of him, and I've never once been impressed by his abilities. He did get wins over some decent comp and he was by no means a D-class fighter, but personally, based on what I have seen of them both in the ring, I definitely believe that Jirov was a better fighter and a tougher opponent.

And the circumstances and manner of either fight backs that up I think. Basically, there are two schools of thought when it comes to evaluating performances in the ring. The first would be that if a guy wins a fight handsomely then there can be nothing said in respect of that fight except praise for the winner. The second would be that if a guy wins a fight handsomely then you look at the performances of both men, and consider why the fight turned out that way. I place myself in the second camp. You may look at that fight, and say it's all about Jones's brilliance, but I look at that fight and consider both the performances of Jones and Ruiz, and say that Ruiz was absolutely woeful. He did not use his size and strength, he did not make things difficult for Jones as someone with his obvious advantages should have, he was dreadfully inept in every way, it was a cakewalk.

For example, I think Floyd Mayweather's win over Jesus Chavez is a better win than his win over Philip N'Dou, even though Floyd is a much bigger man than Chavez whereas N'Dou is probably the bigger man in the ring vs PBF - and also even though both Chavez and N'Dou utilize similar tactics. Both try to overwhelm Floyd with volume punching, but Chavez does so intelligently and shows good defensive and offensive capabilities, whilst N'Dou is incompetent by comparison, his punching technique is dire and his punches are wildly inaccurate. Against Chavez, Floyd has to change tactics, has to adapt and move up a gear to get the win. Against N'Dou, Floyd stays in his comfort zone throughout and picks N'Dou apart very easily.

Now both of those wins are good solid wins, and please don't for a minute think that I do not think Jones-Ruiz is a great win, I obviously do or I wouldn't have placed it where I did, but I look at those fights and see Jirov having all the advantages over Toney (younger, fresher, in better shape, bigger, longer reach, faster, fitter), and Jirov using the right tactics to beat that version of James Toney (volume punching, outworking/outhustling him, setting a high pace), and yet Toney grits his teeth, undergoes some grim rounds, but after a severe test he shows some fantastic skill and ability to pull out the win. I then look at the Jones-Ruiz fight (which is in all fairness a blatant cherrypick fight. Jirov was the #1 cruiser at the time, Ruiz was most definitely not the #1 heavy at that or any other time). Ruiz plods around after Jones, seemingly with no gameplan at all, and is very, very easily outboxed. Jones takes no real risks, just stays on his bike, uses the one unbeatable advantage he has (speed), and coasts to victory.

No matter which way I look at this, I prefer Toney-Jirov. Toney had to give more and show more to get that win. It's a similar scenario to whether you prefer Hearns-Hill or Duran-Barkley as a win. Hill is a better fighter than Barkley, lhw was further from Hearns's starting/prime weight than mw was from Duran's starting/prime weight (175-147=28, 160-135=25), but Duran was the one facing the more significant disadvantages, and Duran was the one who had to give more and show more during the fight to get the win.

JHMO :good thanks for the comments mate, the list was created to stimulate debate like this

 

Yes, but every subsequent Jones performance (and the 1st Tarver-Jones fight before that) showed that the real Roy Jones was gone. Tarver was the lucky man in the right place at the right time. Had Glen Johnson fought him that night, he'd have been the one to get the shocking 1st KO of Jones, Roy was there for the taking.

 

I wish.