Whitaker or Jones? Who should rank higher on a p4p list?

And Sanderline Williams...but that's it. Nobody else comes close to contending.

 

Look at Michael Nunn's performances leading up to the Toney fight and tell me again what a fantastic boxer he was. He beat a past his prime Donald Curry from which you can't glean much, was made to look downright average by little Marlon Starling, and put up a pathetic effort against Iran Barkley. Quite simply, Nunn was a very good fighter, but got WAY overrated because of the Kalambay KO, which he couldn't repeat in a month of Sundays.

As for Johnson yes he was very good as well, but if Toney wants to rate above the very good fighters of the sport, and stake a claim to greatness, he has to beat the Reggie Johnsons. I don't think he did.

Kudos to Toney for beating Jirov and McCallum, two of his best wins.

 

I think Toney gets overrated largely due to his aesthetically pleasing fighting style. The way he can stand in close flat footed and make subtle shifts of the body and put in counter shots is great to watch. But at the end of the day, his many fans have to come to accept that Toney was lazy in lots of fights and could get outworked and outscored by some great, some good and some average fighters - even in his prime.

 

Anyone can pick someone apart. Nunn won his fights, which is what he was supposed to do. I don't think he was overrated at all actually. I think by some here he is quite underrated. Whether he could KO Kalambay again isn't nearly as relevant as the fact that he did, and I don't think he looked as bad as you do. I also felt Toney beat Johnson, who was a very good fighter in a deep and talented division where he couldn't stand out.

 

Ramirez "beat" Whitaker as much as Holyfield "drew" with Lewis or Escalera "beat" Everett.

 

Roy Jones Jr

 

Nunn won his fights but the way he won them is relevant. It showed that Nunn was a flawed fighter, and wasn't all he was being made out to be after the Tate and Kalambay victories.

This was reflected in the KO Magazine p4p charts, where he had at one stage been as high as 4th, but that was of course before his lacklustre performances leading up to the Toney fight, which saw him drop down to 8th, and after the Toney fight he was banished from the p4p rankings altogether, never to return to them.

Toney arguably won the Johnson fight, so if you think he did that's fair enough. I didn't, but it was a close fight and you could make a case.

 

I don't think he looked as good as he did before, but not bad by any means. He didn't drop in the Ring rankings. As for him being a flawed fighter, I didn't feel that was the case. Nunn perhaps wasn't there mentally, which I believe is what he said, however so did Jones after the Tarver fights and I don't believe him. What lends credence to Nunn is that he looked great in the Toney fight boxing and moving. He seemed up for the fight and was putting on a great performance against a fighter who was good enough to draw and defeat McCallum. The problem is, you don't rate Toney highly or Nunn, so you won't feel the same way. I do rate them both highly, so I see it in a different light.

 

What I think the Starling and Barkley fights exposed were that Nunn had lapses in concentration in fights and when he did he could get tagged. He never had an air tight defense and if you could walk through his slapping combinations he was vulnerable to getting nailed in his upright stance.

He did box well against Toney but I think most boxers who keep their distance and have good movement would box well against Toney because Toney is lazy with his footwork and often expects the other fighter to come towards him so he can slip and counter, which is what he does best. In any case, Nunn had a few concentration lapses in the Toney fight and James made him pay for it.

You're right though that I don't rate Nunn and Toney that highly, and that is driving my views.

 

It is also true that I rate Jones very highly (not as highly as Whitaker) so in comparison, I may rate Toney higher than necessary to make him look better since he is one of Jones top victories.

Not had many occasions to interact with you. Outstanding work Sweet Scientist. Perhaps if more like you spent time in the General Forum, it would upgrade the boxing knowledge of those who frequent here. You certainly have given me perspective.

 

I rate Jones highly (not as highly as some others do around these traps) but my ranking him highly has more to do with what an outstanding talent he was and how dominant he was in fights more so than any single wins. The Toney and Hopkins wins are his best wins, but Jones' greatness lies more in that fact that he pretty much easily defeated everyone he came up against than it does on any couple of wins.

Kg, you're one of the few general forum posters I'd even bother to have a conversation with really. If I venture onto the general forum it's usually just for a troll (as they say, when in Rome do as the Romans do) and I save my best thoughts for the classic boxing section. I've noticed that you are a good poster though and that's why I'll intelligently interact with you.

The level of ignorance pretty much keeps me from opening up too much here as everything pretty much tends to descend into farce. I'd rather spend my energies elsewhere. I congratulate you for having the fortitude to put up with the general forum though and trying to talk logic to the many posters here. Your work would be appreciated in the classic forum I think, and I'm surprised you don't venture there more often. Maybe you're more into the current scene. That's fair enough if you are.

I may sound arrogant in saying what I just said, but I'm just being honest.

 

Its Jones, he will be up there in people's lists in a few years after he retires.

 

jones in his prime, whitaker had a better defense

 

You seem to have lost track of my initial point. Declaring one fighter better than another based on your subjective analysis is ridiculous. So, now we are in agreement; the only productive way to compare fighters (other than having them fight each other) is to use an objective criteria. So, unless you can think of an objective criteria in which Whitaker compares favorably to Jones, you'll have to accept that your favorite fighter has simply accomplished less.

 

What? My entire criteria is based on resume and accomplishments, and in that basis, Whitaker holds the clear advantage.

Whitaker's resume: Chavez, Nelson, McGirt X2, Vasquez, Ramirez X2, Haugen, Pineda, Mayweather, Hurtado, Pendleton, Nazario, Lomeli, Paez, Rivera X2

Losses to Trinidad(shot), De La Hoya(robbery in most opinions, I consider it a win).

Jones's resume: Hopkins, Toney, Hill, Tarver, Ruiz, Griffin, Woods, Trinidad, McCallum, Johnson, Sosa, Malinga

Losses to Tarver X2(past his prime), Johnson(past his prime)

So, if you look at the fact that Jones beat 2 ATG's in Trinidad and Hopkins, and not take into account that the Tito win was about as meaningful as Pazienza's wins over Duran, then he has 2 ATG's, 3 if you include Toney.

If you take into account that Whitaker by most accounts won the De La Hoya fight even when past his prime, than that adds to his total. 3 ATG's for Whitaker as well, including 4(5 if you include DLH) wins over fighters than were top 10 P4P at the time. Jones fought one, and that was against Toney.

So, under what criteria involving accomplishments does Jones win?