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

I said objective, you state in your own post that this is all based on your opinion. You further state that your not counting Whitaker's loses. So, Unified Rules don't apply to him?

How about this...

Wins in major title fights (IBF, WBC, WBA, WBO):

Jones 21
Whitaker 19

Ideally, boxers should seek to win titles, right?

 

Of course then statistially and objectively, Whitaker won a higher percentage of title fights compared to total fights than Jones. He was also stopped less times and never endured a losing streak as long as Jones. He won a major title earlier on in his career than Jones and unified titles earlier on in his career than Jones. He also held Lineal titles, two in fact, something Jones never did.

Numbers need context. Just naming statistics gets you no where because who is to say which statistical accomplishment has more value than the next?

 

In that case, you're not taking into account that among those were wins like Kelly, Gonzalez, Harmon, Harding, Telesco, Frazier, Byrd, etc. I'll take quality over quantity any day.

My ranking of the two is based on resume and accomplishments, how much more objective can you get?

 

What criteria are you using for quality? Your opinion?

 

OK

Nope, Jones never went 4 years without a win

Documentation?

Documentation?

Absolutely agree. There is no doubt both fighters are generally regarded as great fighters. Given that, Jones has won a higher percentage of his fights, Jones won more fights, Jones won more title fights, Jones KO'd a higher percentage of his opponents, Jones KO'd more of his opponents, and Jones is the only boxer in history to win both the middleweight title and the heavyweight title. But, if for some reason you want to decide the Whitaker is somehow better, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

You know how to look up fighters careers don't you? Jones won his first title in his 22nd fight, Whitaker his 18th I believe. Jones didn't unify a title until LHW, Whitaker in his 20th fight, before Jones even won a title. Whitaker was the lineal champion at both 135 (unified all 3 titles) and WW where McGirt was world champion.

Jones never went 4 years without a win? That isn't relevant to what I said. Whitaker never lost 3 fights in a row, was never KO'd 2 times in a row, and was only stopped once due to injury.

Jones is not the only boxer to win the MW title and HW title. He was the first in 100 years, but not the only. He however, didn't win the Lineal title at either weight.

Now, tell me why the statistics you named have more value than the ones I named? In reality, It is easy to point out in the case of uniformity across the eras, that Jones never held ANY World titles, just ABC titles, and Whitaker held two World titles. Titles are not championships. If you are going across the board using statistics with no context, these are the kinds of problems you encounter.

 

I gather from your post that winning titles at an early age is your criteria for comparison. I happen to think winning fights, and more importantly winning title fights, is a better criteria. And, I have a suspiscion that about 99.99% of the boxing world would also agree that winning title fights is a good measure of a boxer.

 

No. I am simply point out statistics without any context as you have, using objectivity only and statistics only, and staying fair across the board. And you just proved my point.

You are using your OPINION to decide which statistics carry more weight than others. So you too are being subjective. Why does KO% matter. Wins are wins right? How they win and whether it is better than someone elses win is subjective. You are only being objective right?

As for winning titles. Like I just said, you keep saying objectively. Well if we are rating fighters throughout history, then we must do so using the same criteria using the SAME statistic. So Roy Jones Jr, my fav of all time, never held a World Championship. Whitaker held 2 World championships. (Going across the board and through the eras, the Lineal Championship is the ONLY constant one, ABC's showed up later) So if that is your measure, and you want to stay consistant, Whitaker is the greater fighter. Even using ABC titles, while Jones won more, Whitaker won a higher percentage compared to his overall fight count.

 

Common sense.

You realize you have not had a single coherent argument since we've started, you've just tried to criticize other people's, and when proved wrong, you find some way to twist it. Try coming up with an actual argument for Jones.

I find it laughable that you consider my argument subjective when everything you've come up with has been based on your off the wall opinion, such as trying to argue(or at least discredit my argument) that Jones has a better resume.

 

You consider winning 2 more title fights in 10 more overall fights a better indicator of greatness than who you fought during your title reign? I happen to think that about 99.99% of the boxing world would disagree.

 

If we'd be talking of natural talent rather than accomplishment....Jones is easily top 5 and Whitaker is a few ranks ahead also !!

As far as accomplishments go...I give it to Jones by a few ranks based on the fact he won in 4 weight classes and beat a heavyweight after starting his career as a middleweight !

 

Seriously, I don't think Kid Gorgeous knows anything else.

 

Whitaker won titles in 4 weight classes as well, and had a better overall resume.

 

And beat a better fighter for his belt in his fourth weight class than John 'the hugging man' Ruiz.