Who was the better fighter, at his peak, p4p? RJJ or FMJ?

A prime Jones was the closest thing I’ve seen to an invincible fighter

 

I'm going with RJJ. I don't know much about the character, name and work of RJJ, but as far as I know there are no controversial wins.

 

RJJ was unorthodox, it's much harder to pick up the things he's going to do, to be prepared for what's to happen. Floyd was a perfect classic boxer-puncher, most boxers are taught classic cases from the very beginning, they may be outsped and outthought by him, but they already have learned the skills that are intended to neutralize or counter such things.

 

Jones was the more exciting to watch. Pressed the action. Scored the knockouts. Possibly more athletic too. But I think Mayweather had better defense and other fundamentals. There’s a reason why he lasted longer into old age… or I should say “ at the world level. “ Jones continues to fight on but he was basically finished as a world class fighter by about the age of 36

 

Corrales was the fight where I truly thought Floyd looked special, but you'd want him to perhaps separate himself a bit more from Castillo and an ageing DLH if you're going to compare him with peak Jones.

He did take care of business very well against Gatti and Hatton, though. But not quite the manner that Jones dominated in, I think.

As for his exploits at WW and SMW it should be said that he usually was the much smaller fighter. Jones didn't give up that amount of size except for when he faced Ruiz.

But Roy for me. He could both toy with an opponent using his speed and reflexes, and had the power to blitz him at any second. Even at LHW.

 

I voted RJJ.

I rank Mayweather slightly higher on my p4p list, but that takes into account longevity. He fought almost exclusively world rated opponents in world title fights between the ages of 21 and 38 and won them all, which is something I give him a lot of credit for.

As good as Mayweather was at his peak, and he was exceptionally good, I think RJJ at his very best, was even better, relative to their respective sizes.

 

This sums up my feelings on the subject. Likely a lot of other people's too, I imagine.

Floyd was a truly phenomenal fighter at his peak. I think it's sometimes lost because of his antics and how he only really became a global superstar above his best weight, but he passes the eye test with flying colours. I'm not sure anyone beats him at 130lbs.

 

Roy, I ain't never think of Floyd as "invincible". I thought of Roy as honest to God invincible. It was really crazy

 

Roy. Compare Roys fight with Toney and Floyds fight with Zab for example... "Floyd was not in his prime against Zab" someone will say, I don't know...

 

I'll go with Floyd. RJJ is the type to dominate guys more and look untouchable but his resume is a bit thin for me whereas Floyd has the style to win close fights. Kind of like how I'd consider Holmes to be a superior heavyweight to Tyson even though his wins are always going look less dominant.

 

Roy was near untouchable for a long time. And he was able to be so while being an offensive fighter. We won't see anything like him for a long time.

 

I back Floyd here.

The issue is that in between Hopkins and Tarver, who were either competitive or won, he didn't fight anyone special with the possible lone exception of Toney (in his last time seeing 168). And with that said, he still got DQ'd against Griffin and looked flat against Harding until Harding got injured.

So the aura of invincibility is based on what, beating a flat Toney, 98 Hill, and rematch Griffin?

Floyd has dominant victories over Genaro, Corrales, Judah, Canelo, and Pac spread out over decades, plus closer wins over Oscar, Cotto, and Castillo without any loses.

 

Roy Jones and it's not even close . .Both protected fighters but after seeing JLC beating up Floyd .. that answers the question...

 

Roy is the best Junior in boxing history.