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

The only rational way to evaluate fighters is to look at their entire careers. If you want to selective about which fights should count, then you can make the argument that Buster Douglas was the greatest heavyweight ever. Maybe if Shitaker pulled his head out of his ass and stayed off the cocaine, his career would have been different. Maybe if Shitaker knew when to call it quits, he would not have lost to Bojorquez. But, he didn't have enough sense to walk away when he should have, and now that loss is part of his official record. Too bad for his nuthuggers, Jones is unequivocally better on any unambiguous, unbaised, or clear standard. These are the fact, they are irrefutable.

 

In that case, Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Robinson rank well below Whitaker and even guys like Ottke and Calzaghe because of losses at the end of their careers. Robinson lost 15 times past the age of 35, Jesus what a bum! Right?

That's your logic, as I said, you're a joke, not to be taken seriously. I suggest you stop making a total fool out of yourself, and simply stop posting. Would do you good.

 

Roy was a phenom

Roy is higher.

 

Sugar Ray Robinson was never TKO'd by a journeyman and Shitaker never won a fight from 1997-2001. These are the facts. Any argument claiming that Shitaker is better than Jones can only rely on your demonstrably crappy opinion. Sorry kid, that's just the way that it is.

 

Whitaker broke his clavicle in the fight, have you even watched it? He broke it in the 2nd round and fought until the 4th when the doctors called it off because he was fighting with one hand. Are you that stupid? Your ignorance is mind-boggling. You're one of the most simple posters I've come across.

Whitaker fought only 3 times between 97-01 by the way(if you don't count the Pestriaev fight, which he won), most feeling he won the fight with De La Hoy anyway, despite being past his prime. Robinson lost 15 times past the age of 35 to nobodies at the end of his career. Does that diminish him? I guess you're not taking into account Jones himself getting KO'd by 2 B level fighters when past his prime. Your lack of sense and reasoning is unbelievable.

Again, Whitaker has the FAR better resume than Jones, that is perhaps the top criteria to judge by. On talent, you could argue Jones, maybe on dominance, though in his prime Whitaker was just as dominant in reality, considering neither were really tested. You've made a fool of yourself too often, just stop already. Your ignorance and stupidity seem to know no bounds, we get that, just stop trying to prove it.

 

But they are all unbeaten. And you rank fighters based on their record.

You list Ottke is hardly even decent. And he is unbeaten right?

Why such high emphasis on KO percentage? That doesn't make you a great fighter.

 

Because I don't buy the young Hopkins argument. He was 28, had a good amateur career and didn't lose again for 10 yrs. He was a different fighter when he beat Trinidad, but I don't think he was a BETTER fighter. He was a better strategist, but against Jones, he had more athleticism and speed.

And DLH can't be counted as a win. It was close enough to go either way. You and Sweet Scientist rank Nelson much higher than I do, and that's fine by me, but I don't have him ahead of Hopkins, and Toney is difficult to rank. At the time Jones fought Toney though, he was a stupendous fighter.

 

I'd take the Hopkins that beat Tito over the one that lost to Jones. Watching old Hopkins footage, he certaily looks more impressive against the lesser comp, but he did not have the ring savvy or experience of the more aged Hopkins. I'd say the Hopkins of the late 90's had it all together, but not the one of the early 90's. Still a very good win. I'd say it ranks alongside Nelson.

DLH may not be counted as a win, but the Chavez win was still better than any win Jones had. On top two wins, you could have them about even.

Why do you not rate Nelson highly? I think he's quite easily ahead of Toney.

 

I do rate Nelson highly, but not as highly as you two do I presume. Scientist ranks him quite highly. As for Toney, he beat some fantastic fighters, disappeared, then came back and beat some more very good fighters. That disappearance makes him hard to rate.

 

Roy Jones got KTFO for five minutes by a journeyman turned beltholder, I say that's a lot worse than quitting because of a broken clavicle.

 

:-(

sillyness

 

lmao@ Jones just doesn't have the skills like sweet peaatsch wow !!!..so you are saying a defensive slip & slidder has more skills than a guy who beat his opponents with an excellent array of offensive weopons?....man get out of here!!! RJJ never lost in his prime...remember he was 35? and just beat a HW:huh

:signs

 

I probably underrate Mike, but that's how I see it going against those guys. For the most part I think the fighters I picked are more skilled than him or have a combination of skill and other abilities that will allow them to get the better of McCallum.

But to be fair to Mike tough, I think he'd have close fights with pretty much everyone I picked to beat him, and I would give him chances of beating most of them as well. Someone like Hearns for example he'll have to knock out to win, otherwise he's going to lose on points and though I take Hearns to outpoint him, Mike has a decent chance of stopping him for sure.

 

I think KOing Hearns WAS the only way to beat him. He lost what, one fight by decision?

 

Whitaker never lost in his prime either. In terms of skills, I'd say Sweet Pea was slightly more skilled, Jones more physically gifted, so they pretty much even out. You could make the argument for Jones being more talented in his prime(in fact I would), but that's where the argument for Jones here stops. In terms of resume, clear edge to Pea. I can't see Pea out of the top 20, I can see Jones around #30, both a bit higher though for me.