Printable View
Wow!!! So everything he did pre-Diaz was just him before he reached his prime?Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_lang
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
I would say David Diaz.
I've said this before in another thread where we discussed his prime.
I said that to me Pac has had one of the longest primes.
I think it started since the MAB fight and it's still on today.
P4P is a gawdy marketing tool. Thats about it.
I think Mayweather is the most fundamentally sound boxer of the three. He also has the cleanest record with a big fat "0". I think thats THE only reason he fought JMM was for mythical p4p cred. I could flip a coin on Jones and Pac. Who's faced the best of his era and all comers....Manny for me. Jones jr on paper wipes deck with Benn-Eubanks etc etc....but...he didn't. Doing and talking about doing are different animals entirely. Then Mayweather who at times acts like he's more suited for some bad episode of 'The Jersey shore' then a professional ring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMickWow!!! So everything he did pre-Diaz was just him before he reached his prime?Quote:
Originally Posted by miron_langQuote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
I would say David Diaz.
I've said this before in another thread where we discussed his prime.
I said that to me Pac has had one of the longest primes.
I think it started since the MAB fight and it's still on today.
IMO
Fighters prime can be attributed to two things.
1. Technical Prime - Where fighters add techniques and adjust styles
2. Physical Prime - Can easily be described as fighters natural gifts like speed, stamina, remarkable chin etc.
I agree Pac's Physical prime came againts Barrera but his skills is still developing at that time which i think he reached againts Diaz with the addition of the consistent right hand and better defense.
When physical prime goes down hill of course everything follows. Roy is not as effective when his insane reflexes faded.
again just my opinion.
Yall must have forgot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnM...?v=UDWnMXzgeZo
Roy's 2 biggest wins in Toney and Hopkins > Pac's win over faded MAB, declining and catchweight Cotto and Floyd's win over Corrales and 147 Hatton.
Pacquiao's career in every aspect has eclipsed both of the other two's despite the fact I think mayweather is better. RJJ is one of my two favorites all time, but I don't see his career as great as these two, nor do I see him beating either one p4p. He was more talented than either, but they are nearly his equal in that regard, but they have far more determination and a much better work ethic.
If they were in the same weight class, I don't think either could win much over a few rounds against Roy Jones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Roy Jones is the most talented fighter who ever lived. And one of the fastest.
Pacquaio has begun to dominate larger opponents these last few years like Roy used to, so I can see some comparison to Roy.
But how anyone can think Floyd is better than Roy Jones I do not know...
I mean he had a close fight with an aging Oscar Delahoya, and he lost the first Castillo fight.
It's Mayweather for me. I think both Mayweather & Pacquiao have resumes superior to Jones, and all this talk about prime is very convenient, but let's face it, prime just means when someone wasn't losing. Mike Tyson was prime until he fought Buster Douglas. Donald Curry was prime until he fought Lloyd Honeyghan.
For me, he may have beat Hopkins but it was no more convincing to me than Mayweather's win over ODLH or Pacquiao's 2nd win over Barrera. His win over Toney is impressive, but other than those two fights the opposition is too weak to me. In contrast, PBF & Pac have fought a combination of Oscar, Hatton, Mosley, Corrales, Marquez, Castillo, Barrera, Morales, Cotto, Judah, Margarito, Gatti, Genaro Hernandez, Sasakul. That's 14 possible future hall of famers between them, with at least eight I'd consider nailed on. Each has fought at least five.
Granted Jones lost a lot of weight to fight Tarver, but so did Toney when losing to Jones, so you can't have excuses one way and ignore them another. Personally I see Tarver, Johnson & Calzaghe as the best fighters Jones faced outside of B-Hop & Toney, and granted he may or may not have been past it, he still lost convincingly to all of them.
He may be the greatest athlete out of all of them, but there's not enough to prove he's the best, and in a p4p match-up, I have to ask who Jones fought who was as quick p4p as either of these guys.
I find it hard to split the other 2. I think if they both retire today, Manny has the better legacy, I'd favour PBF in p4p and their resumes are similar imo. I think on the basis that I think Mayweather is the better boxer, I'd favour him.
1) Floyd
2) Manny
3) Roy
He beat Oscar(at the same age Floyd is now) convincingly, and Oscar did things in that fight that would have given Roy Jones Jr a very hard time. I mean Oscar comparatively has about the same size advantage Ruiz had over Jones in comparison to Floyd. He was roughly 20 pounds heavier and 2 and a half inches taller with each pound being a lot more important at smaller weights.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkIf they were in the same weight class, I don't think either could win much over a few rounds against Roy Jones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
Roy Jones is the most talented fighter who ever lived. And one of the fastest.
Pacquaio has begun to dominate larger opponents these last few years like Roy used to, so I can see some comparison to Roy.
But how anyone can think Floyd is better than Roy Jones I do not know...
I mean he had a close fight with an aging Oscar Delahoya, and he lost the first Castillo fight.
Also Roy's speed doesn't mean as much when he's breaking so many rules against a guy who is a minute amount slower. Floyd has a way better jab, he's naturally taller for his weight class, he has significantly better defensive skills, and he's a more well rounded fighter. I know how the fights turned out but ROy had some difficulties against Maccallum and Virgil Hill's jabs early, or Hopkins' in their first fight because they all moved in behind the jab, and Floyd is significantly faster than any of them.
Pacquiao and Roy Jones were able to dominate guys for similar reasons. They had a special blend of power and skill, while Pacquiao uses hardwork and output, Roy had a more skills and was more elusive, but they really look good against guys who can't keep up with them. Roy was intelligent and stayed one step ahead of his opponent, while Pacuqiao is always doing something and forcing his opponent to think, but Floyd doesn't to that, he lures his opponents into mistakes and then he strikes. It's the same reason why Hopkins never looked as impressive as Roy Jones because his style was more defensive, the two reasons I don't think Hopkins would beat a prime RJJ, however I believe are the reasons Floyd would. Hopkins would lose a frustrating fight like the second bout they had, but Roy would just be a little too quick and catch him with glancing punches and rack up points with semi-meaningless flurries sort of like Calzaghe(who I thought lost), but more convincingly. Floyd has the speed and jab, which are the two things He would use to frustrate Roy that Hopkins doesn't have, FLoyd would jab to the body or start landing to the head, and he's one of the few p4p who could land a jab upstairs on Roy, but he's so smooth and quick that even Roy couldn't react effectively to his jab. FLoyd would use that jab and speed to get inside where even though Roy was pretty, he wasn't as good as Floyd on the inside, and Floyd would do some damage. Eventually Roy who never trained as hard as Floyd would wear out and the fight would become increasingly one sided in Floyd's favor. Besides speed, and power in some ways Floyd just has too many advantages in every other aspect of boxing. Even Roy's power is based on speed and unpredictability to a large extent and Floyd would see everything coming at him.
We could throw 'Sweet P' into this debate aswell
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
When Roy got KTFO by Tarver in the rematch and by Johnson he was 35 and when he lost to Calzaghe he was 39, not exactly what I call prime. About James Toney losing massive weight, he just defended his IBF SMW title against Charles Williams 3 1/2 months before fighting Roy so I fail to see where Toney had to lose massive weight, unless his walk around weight back then was in the 200+ range like it is today.
Pac and PBF's overall resume is better than Roy as I have said in my first post, but Roy's 2 big wins against prime and undefeated James Toney and Hopkins is better than Pac's and PBF's 2 biggest wins against anyone. Toney and Hopkins weren't old, past their prime, shot, on the decline or at a catchweight or out of their comfortable weight range, which PBF and Pac has a habit of doing. He outclass and beat them fairly easily. Roy in his prime also doesn't have controversial wins where it's debated that he lost like Pac against JMM or PBF against Castillo in the 1st fight. So yeah, I'm going by that Roy was even more dominant than those 2 when he was the p4p king.
Roy was fun to watch but his wins are not as great. I think his biggest win is over James Toney at super middle weight. He fun a lot of undefeated guys but those guys were not A class fighters. I think Roy fought a lot of B class fighters. The Ruiz fight was a joke imo, and then he has a close fight with a 20-0 something Tarver. I dont even compare Roy to Floyd or Pac.
At the moment I say Pac but we should definitely see Pac vs Floyd.
Anybody saying pac reach his prime before lightweight is definitely just sticking up to the great fighters he beat up below lightweight. These are the same people who called him one dimensional but yet they are saying he was already prime?
Pac reach his prime above featherweight and p4p a welterweight Pac beats up Floyd and Roy.
For the people that are criticizing on Roy's resume compared to Pac and PBF, you guys are right that it's overall better than Roy's but to me I go for quality over quantity. Pac and PBF 2 biggest wins don't equal Roy's 2 biggest wins. Roy made 2 atgs looked like bums which were Toney and Hopkins. Name me the 2 biggest wins on Pac and PBF's resume that are close to a prime and undefeated Toney and young Hopkins? You can't. Those 2 were atgs and one was definitely in his prime, while Hopkins wasn't in his prime niether was Roy at that stage. Remember Roy is the only guy to beat Hopkins convincingly in his career.
RJJ won the Hopkins fight but to say he made him look like a bum is far from accurate. In fact, that fight was really disappointing on both sides. Not very impressive at all. They were fighting for a world title, then, but in 1949 (or 1939) that would have been a 6 or 8 round undercard fight.
Toney has long claimed that he was weight-drained for the Jones fight. Whether he was or not is immaterial, but it has the same value as RJJ's claims that he was drained for the Tarver & Road Warrior fights. Aside from that, I credit his win over Hopkins more because regardless of Hopkins being prime, I think he's a greater fighter. I don't credit a James Toney who struggled to beat a 35 year old Mike McCallum (lost imo), Reggie Johnson & Dave Tiberi (& he most certainly lost that one) as being any better than Oscar, Barrera, Mosley, Marquez or Morales. Pacquiao's first win against Barrera definitely trumps it imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldog
I'll give you that RJJ doesn't have that controversial loss, but in all honesty he didn't fight opponents to give him that much of a challenge, Toney aside, but was that (at the time) any better than PBF's win over Corrales or Manny's over Cotto. Was it any less a 50/50 matchup than those.
As I've said, I think Roy is almost certainly the greatest athlete in the history of the sport, but the best find a way to look great when they are not at their peak, such as Pac-MAB 1 or PBF taking Mosley's biggest punch and coming back at him. Roy doesn't have that moment for me. When faced with adversity, he didn't have what they had, which along with my reasons above is why I rate him below.
Anyway that aside, Roy is still a great, I think the problem is when it comes to 'discrediting' wins because someone was old/shot/outweighed/weight-drained. I think it's easy to make excuses but they still have to get in there and win the fight. Of all those fights, the only one where I would possibly give some part to that excuse is Pac-Oscar where ODLH clearly looked in no fit shape to be in the ring, but still Manny had a gameplan to beat him and there's no reason that he wouldn't have had some success against a younger, stronger version. All these guys are for my money better at their peak than any of those they beat (RJJ & B-Hop is debatable, although I'd side with Roy), so there's no reason they couldn't have done it.
* Oh and no way did RJJ make Hopkins look like a bum, c'mon you're better than that kind of reckless hyperbole GB ;)