Who is the better boxer? RJJ or JMM

the answer is easy and its jones...(disclaimer: i am a bit of a rjj hugger)

but the reality is a bit more complicated i would think. rjj never had a real need for a gameplan b/c he was such a gifted athlete/boxer. jmm on the other hand has to/had to rely on his gameplan heavily and feel many of his opponents out and adapt on the fly. yes jones is the better of the two and one of the best period, but that fact shouldnt trivialize how good of a tactician jmm is...just my opinion.

 

lets have yet another catch weight fight and lets see!! Seriously though, jmm is a great fighter in THIS generation, roy in his prime was a great fighter in ANY generation.

 

This is a stupid question...Jones all the way.

 

Not KO, Id favour them in close fights tho.

 

should have clarrified. jmm has better names on his resume. does he have better wins? no, not really. Jones has two all time greats that he's beaten in their prime. marquez might have one in barrera, might because he scrapped by in a VERY close fight against a very faded version. jmm may have fought better, not beaten better. his performances in those show his limitations, even in his prime. jones had VERY few if any weaknesses in his prime. his performances, even against lesser competition show vastly superior skills

 

a lot of people say that when trying to discredit roy, you're not the first

 

hopkins wasn't in his prime, was still green. hopkins was a better fighter when he fought calzaghe than jones.

 

Man Jones would have DOMINATED that version of Hopkins in his prime.

 

haha, the hopkins argument has been done a lot in this jones threads. look at hopkins other fights from that era. he might have been shy of his skill peak but physically he was DAMN close and a ****ing beast. the hopkins of 2001 would have been called too old. roy wins against any hopkins before the ruiz fight

 

I am a Marquez fan, but objectively speaking Roy Jones was a better fighter at his peak and unless JMM beats Mayweather then he will always be ranked below Roy. Marquez is a true great, but Jones was extra special, the Fighter Of The 90s.

 

Jones was "better" in terms of his fundamental effectiveness and mental and physical invincibility at his peak. Marquez is a much much much tougher nut overall however, and has weathered his setbacks far far far better than Jones - who folded like a house of cards after his first real defeat. Marquez has always been excellent, every day of his career. Generically, I cannot say the same for Roy Jones.

 

jones was an athletic gifted phenom with talent you just cant teach.

but in terms of overall boxing skills i gotta go with marquez.

 

Jones is better than JMM no doubt but JMM is a better technical boxer.

I take it you mean who is the better boxer as in who is the better prizefighter? The fact is that the word boxer has been perversed and its hard to gauge what people mean by it.

 

I'm a little confused on the question to. Better boxer as in boxing skills or better boxer as in overall career?