Who would have been a favourite over PRIME RJJr at 160 + 168lbs

Honestly, nobody.

Roy was hardly losing rounds back then, let alone coming close to losing a fight. The first fight he had that was close was Griffin, and he would of won, if not for being DQ'd.

 

Interesting. I don't think Joe could pressure Jones effectively over the course of a fight, and I don't think Calzaghe could ever match Roy's mastery of angles. To me, Joe lacks the attributes to fight a contrast with Roy, and given that Jones is so good at what he does, I think a contrast is just about what it would take for someone to be favored against him.

But I'm not knocking Calzaghe, who based on accomplishment is No. 1 at 168 in my book. And if he can beat Kessler, that will only cement his claim further.

 

Not counting Ray Robinson?

Personally, I wouldn't favor anyone. Hearns could outbox him, I believe, but Roy has the power and speed to make Hearns go all wobbly on his stilts. He never had that good a chin. Hearns could catch him coming in and end it as well, but I don't favour him. Either way, the fight would be over within eight rounds, I think.

Hagler has the best shot at 160.

Ray Robinson, though, peaking? You have to give it to him. Jones was wicked hard to catch, but there's a reasonably weak chin waiting there for you.

 

Robinson, Hagler, and Monzon would have been his biggest challenges, but Roy could beat all 3 as well. As 168, Roy is close to unbeatable.

 

No way, Ray was moving up to 160 to fight there, Jones was just staying there until he grew into his frame. Jones too big, too fast for SRR.

Does this mean Jones is greater then SRR? By no means.

 

No way, Ray was moving up to 160 to fight there, Jones was just staying there until he grew into his frame. Jones too big, too fast for SRR.

Does this mean Jones is greater then SRR? By no means.

I find myself agreeing with your astute point. I was wrong and you were right.




Yes, that's pretty much all. Sometimes you're just wrong. >.>

 

That's just how I feel, everyone has their own opinion though. :good

 

A shutout? A green Hopkins, well before he reached his peak, was able to take 4 rounds off him. A more experienced Hopkins would've done better, and Hopkins doesn't even have a great style matchup. Jones's alleged invincibility at that weight is based on two wins, both against opponents who don't match up well against him. You had an out of shape Toney who regardless Jones is an absolute stylistic nightmare for, and a green Hopkins who was at least 3 years away from becoming an elite boxer.

A prime Marvin Hagler would beat Jones at 160, because he has the style to do it, with his relentless, effective pressure and iron chin, Jones never fought any A level pressure fighters in his career. Two toughest matchups for Jones would have always been a relentless, top level pressure fighter with good power and a good chin, and a top level tall, rangy, boxer with an excellent outside game, he never fought those types of opponents

 

I know, and it makes sense. I hereby steal your opinion from you and make it my own.

Don't let anybody tell you SRR could beat Jones, folks. Just too light, too light I say.

D...did it work?!

 

If you are going to add in certain factors then you need to add them all in.

Hopkins had an amateur career, not as extensive as Jones, but 100 fights is plenty. He was not peak when he fought Jones and took 4 rounds off of him. Jones however was not peak either, and was allegedly fighting with one hand half the fight. You cannot mention Hopkins greeness without mentioning all factors in play. Out of shape Toney has always been a bad excuse. He was no more out of shape than he had been at 168 before and he was dominant. He had just fought 3 months prior.

Hagler always has the best shot to beat Jones at 160 (that shot diminishes greatly at 168) and for my money, Michael Nunn had the 2nd best shot. I would favor Hagler over Jones....I wouldn't favor Nunn, but I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Well, Jones was much closer to his peak than Hopkins was. Hopkins was definitely a late bloomer. I'm curious when you think Jones's peak was simply because Toney was undoubtedly his finest performance, fought Hopkins in 1993 and fought Toney towards the end of 1994 so there wasn't all that much time that elapsed between those fights. Meanwhile Hopkins didn't really become an elite level fighter until years later

 

They are completely different. Joe can't do what Roy does, Roy can't do what Joe does.

 

hagler and hearns would be the first that comes to mind. i would also give nigel benn and julian jackson at least a puncher's chance, esp. jackson, who P4P was one of the hardest punchers ever in boxing. but, even all of those guys would be at best even money. i don't think any of them would've been favored to be jones.

 

Hopkins was only considered a late bloomer because he lost to Jones back then, simple as that. If Jones hadn't been around Hopkins would have been champion back in 1993 and probably had the longest reign at 160 ever.

If B-Hop had moved up to 175 and taken on all comers for 7 years like Jones did, and moved up to heavyweight and won a title, then I suspect his career would have been washed up at 36 like Jones was.

 

I think it might also have something to do with his life and death struggle against Segundo Mercado a few years after fighting Jones, an opponent that he would have dispatched without much effort with around the turn of the century. Hopkins progressively got better every fight following the first Mercado fight and peaked in the late 90's/early 00's