To the people who bash Jones' resume..

Orishaman... I done a little research on Jones resume about a month ago. I compared jones resume to Hagler, Hearns, and Ray Leonard, and surprisingly going by there opponents records at the time of the fight (for example Hopkins was 22-1 when they fought. Out of those four just listed Jones opponents had a higher winning percentage than Leonards, Hearns and Haglers opposition. Just out of curiousity who's your favorite fighter?

 

I don't doubted...now...it is an issue of qulaity of opposition and by that I simply mean this, better boxers that fight equally top competition are bound to ahve more loses on their record due to the simple fact they are fighting tougher opposition....RJJ opposition even though it mike look impressive record wiase , once you start digging into what the records mean, you realized that many...of RJJ opposition had these issues...

I will always rank SRL, Hearns, and Hagler way ahead of RJJ ...it is a fact....

Now, many of you guys think I hate RJJ, I don;t like him but I don't hate him...and I see that he was a great boxer no doubt but he was not ATG great..and that's the point I try to get across...Bert Sugar have him 88, ok I can accept that..but many on the Forum are taking top 40 material and he is just not there, not with the holes on his resume very the tougher opposition at MW, SMW and LW....the opposition I mentione earlier-Nunn, Jackson, Curry, DM, Benn...Gerald....

 

Its been awhile since I said this Am......but GREAT ****IN POST BRO!!!!

:good

 

This content is protected

:happy:happy:happy

 

deffo top 30 of all time for me.

terrific talent.

arguably the most dominant boxer ever.

and he just didn't dominate for a few short years either. :nono

shame he didn't know when to pack it in. :-(

i'd still like to see tito finish him for good though. :bbb :yep

 

There you go....saying "Fact" where there is only opinion.

 

Good post, I like Jones more now then I use to, but I thought the guy went after "paper belts" ratehr then trying to make the toughest fights possible. Still has a pretty good resume and, like I've always said, he is one of the most gifted fighters I have ever seen. :good

 

jones was a ledgend.

 

Nope ...chump... I was simply stating that putting SRR at the top of the MW list, is a fallacy, since he was good not great at MW, and his record CLEARLY REFLECTS THIS....so I was trying to tell you that if you are talking a weight class ATG, you need to show him where he was the best...not where you think he should be....atsch

 

Eubanks in an article of which he was interviewed basically said he turned down the fight. He basically said that he didn't want to fight him because he knew he would lose. It's in the Achieves.

 

For starters , he was past his prime when he move to MW, he was such a great talent that he still did great...but anyone who is anyone in boxsing will tell you that the greatness of SRR was at WW and not at MW.....sure he had great competion at MW but he also lost to some lesser competition...specially from 1955 on......

 

[yt]0o0c8fXHp-4[/yt]

 

awesome post amsterdam:deal

 

Some of the RJJ admirers can post a pic of him beating the opposition to a pulp but I can post a video of a beautiful 1-2 combo....come on this is a boxing Forum, not the Roy Jones Jr Admiration Society...

And you are wrong...I can care less about you wannabes boxing experts, ...I am a boxer and trainer and hang around boxing all the time with people that I respect their opinion far more that any wannbes on the internet, like you, and we all agree that even though RJJ resume was "good" not "great", he is not top 100 ATG.....

And the best example of that is Bert Sugar, who I mistankely taught he was not on his top 100, I was srong, yet he was on the top 90 ATG's at 88...88 NOTEVEN CLOSE.....SO DUDE YOU AND ALL THE OTHER CRONIES AT ESB THAT LOVE TO PRAISE RJJ GROW UP .....CHUMP:hi:

 

You got to love ESB even the huggers have huggers:rofl :rofl