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

Not really. Only one fighter brings that up here (Sam Langford). I don't really have any other old timers favourite over Mike. Unless of course, you think the guys from the 40's,50's, 60's etc. are inferior to guys from the 80's. In which case, it is an old vs new discussion, but one without much merit imo. But hey maybe that's just my take on what is a genuine debate. Without getting into it (I can probably be less bothered than you can) do you think fighters from the 40's, 50's and so on inferior to fighters from the 80's onwards?

 

No, but I think there is enough of a gap in generations to make an honest debate on it. I typically don't debate it at all because of this. Both sides will have points, both sides will think the other is without merit, and both sides will probably have some merit to their arguments.

From the 70's onward, I am ok in making what I feel is an informed decision on fighters and how good they truly were. From the 50's on down, I feel that there is enough merit on both sides that has been discussed ad nauseum that I simply refrain. The 60's is a very gray area for me.

 

Fair enough. I'm one that doesn't really see much difference between the 40's-80's period, but I guess it is debateable. I'm pretty sure though that if people watched the best fights of that time and compared them to the best fights of the 80's and onwards, they wouldn't have a demarcation point through a certain era in that time span. Maybe they would though. I shouldn't be presumptious there.

 

its 100% true, confirmed by hbo

 

I don't doubt that but, I would give Jones a chance whereas I don't give Whitaker much of a chance against Hearns, Robinson or Leonard. Additionally, the list would probably be shorter for Jones.

 

Whittaker wasn't his best at WW and Jones wasn't his best at LH.

 

Depends on your outlook really. Additionally, I feel there are more great WW than great LHW, so this would need to be factored in.

 

True but, how many others did it? The first in a 100 so years says a lot even though it wasn't the undisputed belt.

No, I just couldn't be bothered writing so much but, I generally rate someone higher if they can score rather than defend better because that's what scored you points. If you look at Robinson, Hearns and Leonard, their offensive abilities far out weighed their defensive skills and they are generally regarded as the best of the best. Having said that Jone's defence wasn't exactly micky mouse either though it relied heavily on his physical abilities.

I just named ones that had a great chance at beating Whitaker, there could be more. Well, I based it on ability because it wasn't Jones's fault the greats weren't around but, maybe they were except that they looked amateurish against Jones. I could be wrong but, I thought Jones at some stage unified the belts. So, that gives him some credibility. Who do you think at Lt Heavy had a better than 50% chance at beating Jones?

 

After Roy Jones retires a few years later he will be ahead.

 

anyone who puts RJJ over Whitaker on an all time list is out of their minds.

 

don't exaggerate.

 

He unified all the belts but one, which was DM's. But DM was lineal champion too, while Jones was Ring champion. Jones would most likely have been favored over him. It must be noted that DM held all the belts but the WBC and was stripped of the IBF and WBA before Jones won them (from other fighters, it must be mentioned he didn't win them vacant)

 

The guy isn't exaggerating, i agree 100%. Jones has him p4p in speed and power but everything else is clearly in Whitakers favor, skill, defence, resume, chin, absolutely everything that makes a great fighter.

Jones just doesn't have the skills and the resume to be placed ahead of Sweet Pea. Jones was an athletic freak, that is what allowed him to keep winning (not always convincingly despite what some huggers will tell you).

Jones had average skills and could not fight on the inside against anyone as strong as him, Whitaker could stand in front of fierce punchers, guys much bigger than him slipping and ducking shots while letting off quick counters without ever getting flustered or fazed one bit.

Anybody who has Jones ahead needs to start learning about the sport of boxing.

 

Jones jr.. Whitaker was great but not quite up there with Jones.

 

The highlighted parts are not true. His skills were elite level, though not as good as Whitaker's. His footwork, ring generalship, accuracy, placement, selection, head movement, etc were all top notch. These are all skills, and they are not part of athleticism, though they can be enhanced. He fought well on the inside against most fighters, but chose to keep a distance where his speed gave him a great advantage.

Jones won convincingly in every fight he was in until Tarver 1. Griffin 1 was his closest fight, and he was DQ'd so it wasn't a win. Can you point out a close win for Jones prior to Tarver 1?