Who ranks highest in the ATG list? roy jones, hopkins or calzaghe.

but why is joe in thi poll? surley that should be james toney.

 

Why are you mentioning a bum like Calzaghe in the same sentence as all time greats like Hopkins and Jones?

Calzaghe beat a washed up RJJ and was given a gift decision vs Hopkins that no competent judge would have given him

 

Surely a wind up?

If not, you need help.

 

Joe was the man in a WEAK division.

Roy was considered THE BEST fighter in the world for 9 years.

Roy was THE man across the whole of boxing.

Huge difference.

Let me tell you this for the hundredth time.


Statistics NEVER allow for circumstances.


Compare their best wins.

Joe - Eubank, Reid, Kessler, Lacy and Hopkins. (You can't include Roy, after Joe had said that Roy was shot, the fight was pointless and he'd be disappointed to take the fight)

Look at how Joe performed in those fights, and then look at what his opponents had done previously, what they went onto do afterwards, and where they were in their careers when Joe fought them. Also, look at where Joe was in his career - age, number of fights had etc, when he fought them. Evaluate all of the circumstances.

Then do the same with Roy.

Roy - Hopkins, Toney, Hill, Griffin, Tarver and Ruiz.


IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

 

bailey,

Everybody knows that while Joe was prime, it was weak. Only in certain years was it stronger than today.

Roy was seen as the best fighter in the world in many people's opinion. Fighters, fans, promoters, network execs, trainers and sport writers etc.

Again, he was universally recognised as the pound for pound number 1.

Circumstances.

I would absolutely love to have an in depth and objective debate with you regarding this.

I tried before but you never really came back.

I promise that I will be fair, and I'll give you my reasoning behind my opinions.

Bellow is my criteria for analysing wins. I want you to tell me if there's anything that you don't agree with, and if so, why?

1. Look at said fighters opponents, and access where they were in their careers at the time of the fight.

2. Look at what they'd achieved relatively prior to the fight.

3. Look at what they went onto achieve afterwards.

4. Look at all of the circumstances involved. (Making weight, age, no. of fights etc)

5. Look at the manner of the victory.


Do you agree with the above?

I'm sure that we could add more.


Roy's wins. (Not in any order)

Hopkins - Hopkins hadn't achieved a lot. But he was 28 years of age, and in his physical prime. After losing to Roy, he didn't lose for another 12 years. Whilst preparing for his rematch with Roy in 2010, he said that in his opinion, Roy had been the only person to have beaten him clean. Also, Roy was only 24, in his first big fight, and he'd injured his right hand, but wouldn't pull out of the fight.

Toney - Toney had trouble making weight, but at that stage of his career it was nothing new. In my honest opinion, the outcome of the fight wouldn't have been any different if he'd have been 100%. He underestimated Roy. No other fighter beat him like Roy did.

Hill - Hill had recently lost to Dariusz M, but he'd also recently beaten Maske, and would go on to knock out Tiozzo in a round two years later. He was past his best when Roy fought him, but Roy was the only guy to knock him out in 57 fights. Also, it was done with a devastating body shot. That's what makes it a great win in my opinion. The manner in which Roy won.

Griffin - Griffin hadn't achieved much, but he was a good fighter who was trained by Eddie Futch. He had two very close fights with Toney afterwards, and he'd caused Roy some problems in their first fight. I rate Roy's win knockout over him very highly. The main reason being the manner of the victory. The uppercut isn't that common in boxing. There's not that many uppercut knockouts in boxing. You don't see them often. There's been many great uppercuts throughout the years, but what made Roy's so special, was that it was a LEAD uppercut. The fighters weren't up close, and it wasn't set up with anything. I've never seen any other fighter throw a lead uppercut like that. Not only was it a beautiful shot, it was also in the very first round. So in my opinion, that was a spectacular win.

Ruiz - John Ruiz wasn't a great HW. But he was a top 5 guy, who outweighed Roy by 4 stones naturally. He'd had recent wins over Evander, who although was past his best, wasn't completely shot. Which was proved by his robbery against Valuev, who'd caused Haye problems. Roy at that stage was 34 years of age, and he'd fought 50 times. You to have respect that Roy signed the fight, and they were no other LHW's knocking on Ruiz's door looking for a fight. Roy won easily. He dominated him from start to finish. James Toney gets lots of credit for beating Jirov because it was an exciting fight. But Roy doesn't get the same credit, because it was boring to many. Roy in my opinion would have gotten much more credit, had he have struggled and won in a more exciting fight. If Roy had've fought Ruiz in his 20's, I wouldn't have been as impressed. But seeing as though he was 34, having had 50 fights, I think it was very impressive and tops anything that Joe did.

Tarver - Tarver was a good fighter. He was a southpaw who was a stylistic problem for Roy. In my opinion, it's one of Roy's biggest wins, probably top two or three because of the circumstances involved. If Roy had've beaten Tarver earlier, then I wouldn't have been as impressed. But if you look at the circumstances involved and look at where Roy was when he won, it's a top win. Roy was nearly 35, and he'd had 50 fights. He'd also dropped back from HW in a short space of time. He was 196 against Ruiz with a low body fat percentage, and had to make 175 for the weigh in against Tarver. He burnt through actual muscle for the only time in his career, and we saw how it affected a much younger Chad Dawson in 2012. Tarver was also unbelievably motivated whereas Roy wasn't. Roy wasn't at 100% both physically and mentally for the fight. He was exhausted after 9 rounds, and nobody had seen him like that before. The last three rounds were fought on an empty tank. He had to dig deep and come through adversity to pull off the win. All things considered, along with the Ruiz win, it tops any win of Joe's in my honest opinion.

Over to you.

 

Good to know only 20% are idiots...

 

Why do you rate Hopkins over Jones?

 

Joe beat only 2 really good fighters at smw - reid and kess, and the reid one was debatably a loss or draw. So that's one clear but close win over a pretty good smw.


**** for a 10 year reign.


but that's not to say there weren't a few fairly good others, Bika, is one. Lacy was a VERY good puncher if nothing else. BUt that's it.