In Johnson's case, 5 out of the 7 athletes he lined up against in Seoul have either tested positive or been strongly connected to doping. Even now, of the 25 fastest 100m times in history, only Usain Bolt's have (so far) not been tainted by positive doping tests. Likewise with Armstrong, over the period 1986 to 2007, of Tour de France winners only Greg LeMond has managed to stay clear of any strong doping connection. Although Johnson and Armstrong were the most infamous cheats in their respective sports, most of their peers weren't playing with a straight bat either. In virtually every major sport, the people who actually test positive are just the tip of the iceberg. There's no reason to believe the situation is any different in boxing. Positive tests for the likes of Jones and Toney should rightfully taint their legacy. However, equally as moronic as brushing it under the carpet is the outright vilification of these fighters and the suggestion that they would have been nothing without PEDs. Jones was indeed a cheat, but so were a lot of other world class fighters during that era, and other than the Ruiz fight it probably didn't make a dramatic difference in any of his wins. Anyhoo, Calzaghe clearly has the best resume at Super-Middleweight, while Jones clearly is the best fighter to ever compete at 168.
Correct me if im wrong this thread . Is asking who is the greatest fighter to fight at 168? I dont care how long a fighter stayed at the weight if he fought at the weight he is in this argument. The answer is roy jones jr. If u asked who has accomplished more at the weight then it ould be joe but he anit the best 168 fighter there are 4 or so that are better fighters than him.
Hearns and ray leonard fought at this weight too. Only they are not in the argument because its not at there peak
I'm with you anton. On accomplishments only, Joe is the best. But nobody was better than a 25 year old version of Roy at 168. I don't think anybody would have beaten him.
Anyone who counts joes wins over jones or hopkins at lhw in this thread are idiots. People tend to reflect on the jones win and say joe was better. The hopkins win was very debatable . Tho i give joe credit he fought great fight. The jones win is sweeped under the rug. Its like trevor berbick beating ali. Totaly means nothing. Roy was kod by danny green after this i mean come on. Do u say wow danny green was a great fighter. Nope. Im a fan of joe and im british but anyone who knows boxing knows joe would never have beaten roy at smw or lhw anytime between 96 - 2003
Why should fighters be judged by resume? There are plenty of fighter who retired undefeated who fought bums all there careers. U should be judged on how you preform at your peak and the fighters you face. Rocky marciano is he the greatest ever ? 49-0 no. Would he beat joe louis at his peak no. Would he beat ali no. Would he beat frazier or tyson no. Foreman no. Undefeated means nothing its who you beat and the way you do it
LOL, after settling for all the bums padding his early and middle career resume, Calzaghe fans would hype up anything they can get. I'm not saying that Calzaghe did not possess a style that would have carried him far in professional boxing. What I'm saying is due to his manager, FW, he wasted most of his career fighting Euro-bums and ducked out on fighting real champions like Benn, Hopkins, Jones, Toney, and a host of others. LOL, look how Calzaghe's most competitive fight in his prime is against someone like Kessler. Kessler would have stood no chance against a prime Hopkins, Benn, Jones or Toney. Yet, he went toe to toe with Calzaghe. And then there's Lacy. LAMO!!
Greatest smw are jones calz ward toney froch. Froch resume at smw is better than joes. Do i rate him better nope. Same with roy and joe.