Where does RJJ rank P4P?

:thumbsupi never thought i'd ever here you say that about a black guy thats still alive.

 

Very funny Pachilles - is this a hangover from the fact that I think Harry Wills is criminally over rated

 

very true.

 

this is a great point. jones is my favorite fighter ever. in fact, i'll go so far as to say i love the man. he's arguably the most talented fighter to ever step in the ring. his skill set was unmatched. can you imagine if ray robinson would have put both hands behind his back and then ko'd someone? we'd have to listen to the old timers tell that story over and over again. since it's jones, it was no big deal since he was fighting a bum.

his resume is not as bad as some critics make it out to be but there's no way it can compare to other P4P greats. so the problem is where do you rank him? i'm not a fan of long P4P lists. i think it's ridiculous when someone lists their 46th greatest fighter ever.

jones was the best of his era. his fighter of the decade award confirms that. because of this and his skill set, i think he belongs on the highest level of the P4P hierarchy.

sorry i didn't even answer the question. if i did a top 10 P4P list, it'd probably change every hour or so. too many things to consider. if i had to name a #1 guy, it'd probably be langford. too many big wins and could have been champ in so many weight classes.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97KoGnbjVGA[/ame]

 

So did Foster.

Monzon dominated a mediocre Middleweight division and people constantly fellate him.Ditto Hopkins (unless you rate him highly for picking on ex-welters and jnr middles,who all his biggest names were).

Jones is the best I've seen in his prime in my time watching boxing and he compares favourably on film with virtually any great fighter you care to name.

I don't think I've seen any fighter whose resume is assessed as critically as Jones or whose best performances are downplayed as much.The fact is he beat numerous world champions,dominated a division he wasn't that physically suited for and won a heavyweight belt against a man who whilst terrible to watch,was one of the decades more successful big men and much bigger than Jones himself.

Where that places him p4p I don't know but he deserves a fairer assessment than he currently gets imo.A lot of other fighters careers wouldn't look so good if they were judged like Jones is.

 

I think Foster's division was slightly better and he was more dominant over his competition in terms of producing devastating knockouts, but I'm not even convinced he'd do better than top 45.

Not yet looked at the career of Carlos Monzon, and have seen very limited footage that it's not even worth me commenting. You may be right.

Of course, but that isn't the extent to my criteria and I don't think it should be the extent to anyone's criteria. "They look the best on film" and therefore he's the GOAT. Not on my watch, I'm more interested in who they fought and Jones' resume is more comparable to a Bernard Hopkins than a Sugar Ray Leonard.

I'd sooner listen to those are critical of Jones' admittedly sub-par opposition rather than those who have him listed at top 5. Outrageous.

Roy Jones is comparable to a Michael Spinks in terms of greatness, not a Willie Pep or Ray Robinson. Unfortunately we have those claiming he is top 10 material based on how flashy he looked beating on the likes of Clinton Woods and a green Bernard Hopkins. A great fighter, for sure, but nothing on his win column suggests to me he should be anywhere near a top 10.

 

I'd say the two go hand in hand. If you're that skilled and that great then it should reflect in the opposition you have fought and defeated. Jones has a number of respectable and very good wins, but nothing to separate him from the likes of other great Light Heavyweights in my opinion. He spent a rather long time at that weight, and the best opponent he fought would win a trilogy over him. Hopkins wasn't quite the fighter he'd later developed into although still a very good win admittedly, and are there are any doubts regarding James Toney's physical conditioning on fight night when he fought Roy? Never came close to making the Super Middleweight limit again.

 

It´s a tricky one. I don´t do lists anymore because they seem pointless given the change of boxing over the time. Lists by era probably make some sense. By era I don´t mean soemthing like the 90s or such but a bigger scale like the "pioneer era" (from the 1880s to the late 1910s, self-explanatory I think), the transitional era (basically the 20s, the time where boxing became rulewise what it was for it´s classic time and the modern styles and techniques became the norm), the classic era (from the late 20s/early 30s to the early 80s, boxing in his prime with some ups and downs) and the modern era (from the early 80s up to now, boxing on a downward curve due to rule change (15 to 12 rounds, headgears and such stuff in amateur boxing, alphabet organisations) and the vanishing interest of the public in the mecca of boxing - even so you have to factor in boxing to become more international). Those are not clear cut dates but fluent passages too which makes it even harder.
It´s hard to compare fighters out of these eras with each other. The only fighters I think that can be compared with fighters from other eras are those of the transitional period.
So, in Jones case he was unlucky. During his time boxing was on his way down, less rounds, more divisions, more belts, less talent. He never had the chance to built up a resume to compare to that of the classic fighters. It´s partly his fault, he could have done better if he would have faced all the best opposition available. But even then his resume wouldn´t have lived up with the fighters of the past.
And resume is what you have to go by mostly IMO. It´s the most objective, convincing criteria out there, only achievements/accomplishments can compare there. With longevity/experience and how one reacts to adversitary make up the rest of my criterias. I firmly believe you can´t rank fighters based on skill, ability or talent. That´s highly subjective andvery much depends on what you like.
In his own time however, he ranks with the very best. He is Top10 at least, probably Top5. But overall? Compare his resume even with guys like Lou Ambers, Kid Chocolate or Jake LaMotta and it just doesn´t really compare - even so it´s not his fault.
So, is Jones Jr. an atg in the big picture? In term of the whole boxing history? I don´t think he ever proved it because he never had the chance to. Do I think he would be if he could have proven himself? Yes, I do but that´s not exactly an objective criteria, is it?

 

Roy Who?

 

You can only beat what's there at the time though.Look at the Klits.Absolutely dominant over a weak division but how can we rate them compared to Ali who struggled at times against a very,very deep division.Eventually we have to take a leap of faith and assess them on the performances they did deliver and the qualities they did display.Jones is impressive in this regard.

Well Monzon did what he had to and while not all that impressive to look at,was brutally effective against some decent but hardly Earth shattering competition.Same as Hopkins.

Your criteria is your criteria and I appreciate that,resume is very important as well.But sometimes a fighter is so gifted compared to his contempories that you have to take them at face value and give them points for their gifts that they display.Jones scores high with me for that.

I agree anyone ranking him top 10 have definately got their hand on it but his detractors go too far imo.Just wait how long it takes for someone to bring up garbage men and cops never mind that he fought and beat nigh on 20 (I don't know the exact figure) past,present and future world champs.His resume has some glarring ommissions but is healthy and hardly sub-par.

Fair points for sure and I'd actually have him below Spinks as well.He was a modern great but can't be ranked with a Robinson or Pep (although Pep's resume isn't close to Ray's either) although to be fair boxing is fought under different conditions now.Huge multi-fight network contracts,sponsorships and endorsments have got us to the point were fighters careers are moved faster,feature less fights and leave fans debating as many fights that haven't happened than actually have.
Take Jones as a case in point.Once the HBO and Nike deals happened the tendency to take the easier option happened.Prior to 1995 he was beginning to build a decent resume but once the big dollars and contracts came,the pressure came to keep his "0" and keep his name viable.Hence he and his managements willingness to take fights with fighter A) a decent fighter who he'd figure to beat for decent money ahead of fighter B) a huge threat who could give you hell for not much more money and could potentially jepordize your contracts.A bad loss now can be ruinous to a caeer but back in Robinsons and Peps day a loss was a hiccup or learning curve.
It sucks but it's how it is today sadly:-(

 

Nobody argues them in the Top10, 20, 30 or even 40 p4p of all-time though.

Belt holders are not world champs. :nono

Yep, see my first post in this thread. Times changed thus it´s pointless to compare them - even so I did a bit in the end.

 

I appreciate posts like this that don't assume that boxers of yesterday are automatically better because they had 600 fights and on paper have a much better resume.

We have to acknowlege that circumstances and boxing has changed (and not for the better) when we do lists like this,thus making p4p lists even harder to accurately do.

Well played:good

 

Hopkins ofcourse would be slightly below the Great Carl Froch :yep

 

easily top 20 the worst thing he ever done was going up to heavyweight it knocked the **** out of him coming back down to light heavy .

 

Power Puncher, if you think I'm about to get in debate with you regarding Roy Jones Jr then you've been smoking some serious ****. You'd happily perform oral sex on Roy, let's be fair. :verysad