Who was best p4p: RJJ and Duran?

Its a hard for me to call RJJ imo will in time be given the respect he should. Jones like Duran is a one off but at the same time completly different. I love Durans style and and all out balls to wall style. And with out doubt a master of defence. Jones for me is possably the most gifted boxer full stop. As for there records Duran takes it just but I can not knock Jones I dont understand the haters who else was he supposed to fight Benn Eubanks Collins all would have been great fights to watch but imo all would have lost badly to Jones.

I would say jones just takes it but Duran is one of the great legends of boxing for who he is and not just his record.

 

1. I agree its 1 of the best wins ever and a true masterclass. But I also think Leonard either wasnt at his absolute best or he fought the wrong fight. In a way Duran-Leonard is similar to Mayweather-Castillo where Mayweather made adjustments in the rematch (I had Mayweather winning both but you get my point).

Its a shame we didnt have the same Duran in the rematch. Or did we have the same Duran and he couldnt handle Leonard when he sticks and moves?

In a way Durans legacy has in a way gone up from Leonard beating him. Because if Duran beat Leonard again and Sugar Ray faded into obscurity the win wouldnt look quite as good.

2. Out of Charles/Moore/Tunney, the only fighter I see beating RJJ is Charles

3. I suppose its horses for courses, but if RJJ had done a Byrd and skipped MW/LHW and gone to HW and he only had wins over Toney and Ruiz it wouldnt look as impressive as having wins at lower weights against Toney/BHOPs. And I dont rate Byrd that highly but you get my point. I was actually going to start a thread about fighters that would have a greater legacy fighting in lower weight classes

4. Honestly I don't know the ins and out of Toneys weight making for RJJ. I'm just sceptical Toney is in worse condition against RJJ than he was in his previous bouts. He knows RJJ is a bigger challenge, doesnt he train harder and get into better shape thus making weight easier? We have to remember, excuses are 2 a penny in boxing, its hard to find a fighter who lost who doesnt have an excuse

5. Agreed

6. Yes 168 is a young division but I'd fancy him at catchweights over Hagler/Monzon/Tunney/Moore/Greb......we have to remember allot of the Charles and Moores fights were around 168 so its nto hard to match them up. Prime RJJ certainly chews up Calazage, I'm not looking forward to Calazage beating a shot RJJ and claiming he was always better :barf If RJJ pulls that 1 off, it would be a wonderful end to a career

 

Its like this: Jones has the greater physical talents, but Duran is the greater fighter. He had greater skills and was the better boxer. Duran was also the greater warrior with that said I rest my case.

 

this is the clearest case of ownage I have ever seen in the annals of this forum. I think its probably one of the best arguments I have read. you sir have some talent keep up the good work

 

Many Jones' fans out here force me to offset their embellishments with criticism. Jones should not take his place among the elites -the top 10 or 12 guys ever- and the argument here is that he doesn't belong up there. There are quite a few strong arguments that support that and I present them. If that is "lingering negative" then so be it.

I apologize if I came off like you were an instigator. I meant it good-naturedly. However, I'd like to test your belief that Jones has a good argument allowing him to challenge an Ali or a Duran in terms of greatness.

To begin, what objective measures to you use to discern the best of the best? I see that you would offer "dominance". But what else?

 

He started this thread referring to it in a head to head sense of P4P more than anything. At least what I got from the initial post, though he did word it somewhat oddly.

 

Forgive me for not reasoning this out, but I feel the answer is so obvious explaining would only give the original question more credit than it deserves.

Duran was not just the far better boxer, but he's proven his mettle time and time again. There is no question what-so-ever as to where he belongs.

Jones was a juggernaut of athleticism. In my opinion, he wasn't anywhere near as good as Duran. Leaving my personal feelings out of it, regardless of wether he was on the same tier or not, Jones hasn't proven his class to the extent that Duran did.

You prove your case by fighting the best. All of them. Of differing styles and mental make-up. You overcome their strength, their will, their skill. I feel Jones is often given too much credit for annihilating good contenders -- he didn't always fight the best when he could and should have, opting to fight lesser men that did little to elevate his already impressive status.

I still have Jones as a top 35 ATG, because he was that good. But Duran is a solid top ten, and for some even a tentative top 5. They are a world apart.

 

Jones is much more talented and skilled than Duran. The bottom line for me is that to do the type of things Jones does in the ring is light years more difficult to do what Duran does. Speed an obvious advantage for Jones to make things easier. And Duran's ring generalship and defensive capabilities are up there with the very best as is his obvious attribute, attacking. But I'm afraid that talent and skill alone don't make you an elite ATG.

Duran was skilled as well, but his longevity and the ability to comeback from setbacks secure his placing over Jones. Duran's career had everything. It was a roller coaster ride than suddenly got more rocky after 1980.

 

--That is an excellently-reasoned post.

"Tested by fire" can mean coming back from adversity, and in that sense Vinnie Paz should be elevated for breaking his neck in a car accident. But I see it more as fighting serious guys -established guys. Duran -Leonard, both ways. It applies even if you blow the guy out -Hearns-Duran. Tyson-Spinks.

Hagler is in my opinion the best MW, but I don't put him in the top 10 elite all-time category. Why? Well, he faced good competition and was a Dominant but he didn't defeat a Monzon or a Greb. His best wins were against smaller guys.

....
If you measure greatness using as a pivot one standard: "performance in the ring" than Jones must be very, very high. Perhaps as high as Robinson. But closer looks change things. The details change the picture. Consider other factors such as frequency of fighting (SRR is criticized for losing to Turpin... how many know how many fights he had that year?), level of competition, record, & era.

 

Whole lotta shaking going on! That's about as good a summary as it gets.

And you make a good point about "overcoming".... Points should be given to the guys who overcome odds -who are outspeeded, outexperienced, outpowered, outskilled, whatever, but they win anyway: Established fighters who enter the ring as underdogs and win anyway --that is something.

 

Robbi, please differentiate between talent and skill.

"Longevity" and "the ability to come back from setbacks" are not all that sets him apart from Jones. I would not consider the second standard as a standard at all. "Dealing with adversity" is perhaps a better way to put it, and Jones falls far behind Duran there anyway.

How was Duran's career a "roller coaster ride" before 1980?

 

I see Charles combination, speed, range, solid basics being excellent foil for Roy. Charles would miss more than usualy but Ezzards combination throwing and fast compact shots would land more than anyone else. Charles speed of foot means he can give Roy extra problems too.

 

DM a top 25-30 lightheavyweight of all time was around in his prime and LINEAR CHAMPION, jones could have fought him. I understand jones reasons refusing to fight in another country cause of the Seol debacle, but STILL