IMO without a doubt it's RJJ. Freak of nature are the words that best sum this extraordinary fighter up when he was in his prime!
Printable View
IMO without a doubt it's RJJ. Freak of nature are the words that best sum this extraordinary fighter up when he was in his prime!
It's RJJ for me. His speed and power was unmatched.
Floyd got speed. But little power.
Manny just started becoming this freak of nature.
RJJ was so good, he makes his resume looks like corner boys. All the while, he was just mountains of talent above anyone he fought. But he's the one fighter that you can put in any era and he would probably defeat most if not all fighters around his weight division in their primes.
Can't really say that about PBF and PAC. I can't say for sure that either of them can easily defeat, if defeat . . .
SRL, Hearns, Pryor, Sweatpea, Alexis A, Meldrick Taylor, Hagler, Willie Pep and even a prime DLH and prime Tito
Roy.
He might not have titles in quite as many weight classes as Pac... but every one of them was a REAL weight class... no fucking about moving up 4 pounds and no catchweights etc.
He has damaged his legacy slightly in recent fights by going on too long... but prime for prime he was much more untouchable.
Honestly, I can't see RJJ beating Hagler, Monzon, Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, Bob Foster, Jake LaMotta...Beating Tony Thornton, Clinton Woods, Jorge Vaca, even a big, dumb slow guy like John Ruiz doesn't make you a superman. Its easy to look all-everything against guys that can't fight to begin with and then come into the ring trying not to lose too bad instead of trying to win. Against guys like those mentioned above he'd be fighting boxers that were skilled, used to controlling tough opponents, and they would definitely try to win.
The key to beating Jones was to punch when he was punching, which good fighters would do, and, bottom line, I believe Jones always had a weak chin and that he lacked the heart, should he find himself in a tough fight.
Maybe u right about his weak chin. He did go down once early in his career. But he showed heart and stop that guy(I think). He showed true heart and grit against Tarver in their first showdown. That's when he should have retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Anyway, Jones offense was his defense. No one could touch his chin. None of the 3 could throw combos like RJJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jones was a freak of nature. He had what I call third eye syndrome kind of like Barry Sanders or Wayne Gretzky. They know what you are going to do before you do. The key that you have described to beat Roy has a fundamental problem that is two fold. One, the opponent had no idea when Jones was going to punch and where it was coming from. Secondly, even if you could sense the “when”, he would have already landed.
Odd that you would mention the likes of Thorton, Woods and Vaca but leave out Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Griffin or his shut out of McCallum. He not only beat them but made it look pedestrian. Perhaps you’re right in that he always had a shaky chin but the problem is nobody was able to check it.
Theirs only two people on your list of guys to beat Roy that may have a shot and that’s Robinson and Hagler at 160 however I think he exploits Haglers plodding style better then Leonard did. Outside shot on Calzaghe at 168 but I see no other in the history of that division and most likely Ezzard Charles at 175.
Got to disagree there man. I think Bob Foster & Archie Moore would both only have to land once on Jones. I also think that most of the guys from further back had far more intuition for the game than almost any active fighters now (PBF, B-Hop & maybe JMM excepted). An example would be that Miguel Cotto is considered a pretty skillful fighter these days & yet Jake LaMotta had a similar style & was considered a brawler. The skill levels were definitely higher in the main. Saying that I'm not saying I'd say that any of those guys would definitely beat him, he's even match-up for anyone at his weight in history. I'd probably be pretty confident of Charles being able to beat him but that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitQuote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jones was a freak of nature. He had what I call third eye syndrome kind of like Barry Sanders or Wayne Gretzky. They know what you are going to do before you do. The key that you have described to beat Roy has a fundamental problem that is two fold. One, the opponent had no idea when Jones was going to punch and where it was coming from. Secondly, even if you could sense the “when”, he would have already landed.
Odd that you would mention the likes of Thorton, Woods and Vaca but leave out Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Griffin or his shut out of McCallum. He not only beat them but made it look pedestrian. Perhaps you’re right in that he always had a shaky chin but the problem is nobody was able to check it.
Theirs only two people on your list of guys to beat Roy that may have a shot and that’s Robinson and Hagler at 160 however I think he exploits Haglers plodding style better then Leonard did. Outside shot on Calzaghe at 168 but I see no other in the history of that division and most likely Ezzard Charles at 175.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinGot to disagree there man. I think Bob Foster & Archie Moore would both only have to land once on Jones. I also think that most of the guys from further back had far more intuition for the game than almost any active fighters now (PBF, B-Hop & maybe JMM excepted). An example would be that Miguel Cotto is considered a pretty skillful fighter these days & yet Jake LaMotta had a similar style & was considered a brawler. The skill levels were definitely higher in the main. Saying that I'm not saying I'd say that any of those guys would definitely beat him, he's even match-up for anyone at his weight in history. I'd probably be pretty confident of Charles being able to beat him but that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitQuote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jones was a freak of nature. He had what I call third eye syndrome kind of like Barry Sanders or Wayne Gretzky. They know what you are going to do before you do. The key that you have described to beat Roy has a fundamental problem that is two fold. One, the opponent had no idea when Jones was going to punch and where it was coming from. Secondly, even if you could sense the “when”, he would have already landed.
Odd that you would mention the likes of Thorton, Woods and Vaca but leave out Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Griffin or his shut out of McCallum. He not only beat them but made it look pedestrian. Perhaps you’re right in that he always had a shaky chin but the problem is nobody was able to check it.
Theirs only two people on your list of guys to beat Roy that may have a shot and that’s Robinson and Hagler at 160 however I think he exploits Haglers plodding style better then Leonard did. Outside shot on Calzaghe at 168 but I see no other in the history of that division and most likely Ezzard Charles at 175.
That’s cool. I think Spinks might have also given him a good go and perhaps a few guys from Murders row besides Moore like Burley. Greb also at 160. Langford would also be a tough fight from 160 to 175. Not many guys from the past would have the athletic ability or close to the same speed of Roy. Have to disagree generally speaking on the skill level of the past vs the present. What they did have back then was more heart and hunger. The interesting thing about Roy is that he never developed a jab. He did not need it which is incredible when one thinks about it. The only time he really used it was when he fought the Paz.
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers.
What about beating guys like James Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Virgil Hill and Mike McCallum?? All these were GREAT fighters and future hall of famers. You cannot knock a guy for being simply miles ahead of his competition! You cannot say he always had a weak chin either because we'll never know. He was that good that no one in his prime could touch his chin. That is the art of boxing, to hit and not be hit and Jones mastered that art!Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Why must you once again denigrate Manny's wins here compared to the others?Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldog
Wasn't Toney massively weight drained? And Hopkins still fairly green, compared to the technical king of awkwardness he would later become?
And didn't Floyd force Coralles to fight in a weight class he could no longer make? And didn't he force Ricky up to a weight class he was clearly not suited for?
I'm not criticising these fighters, or the fights, just highlighting the anti Pac bias that we have on these boards.
Knocking out Barrera and Miguel Cotto are MASSIVE wins and arguably more impressive than outpointing Toney and Hopknis like Jones Jr did.
Also Jones won a world title at heavy against a notoriously mediocre belt holder. Manny has beaten, nay destroyed the best fighters in the weight classes he has move up to.
You can argue about catchweights, but no fighter in history has moved the weight classes like Manny has, and destroyed the best the weight classes can offer.
Juan Manuel Marquez in 2008 is almost equal to Barrera and maybe even a little better than Cotto.
at end of 2007 before he fought Manny Marquez was ranked #3 pound for pound
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2007 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
at end of 2008 after he fought Manny Marquez was ranked #2 pound for pound
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2008 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003
at end of 2002 before he fought Manny Barrera was ranked #3
at end of 2004 Barrera was ranked #7 pound for pound
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2004 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
at end of 2005 Barrera was ranked #3 pound for pound
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: 2005 - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
These two wins are better than Toney And Hopkins.
Toney was ranked #3 pound for pound but after the loss to Jones he was never rated again.
Hopkins would later be pound for pound #1 but was just ranked #8 Middleweight at the time of the Jones fight. This would indicate that Hopkins was still developing at age 29.
Had Jones beat Hopkins after the Trinidad fight ( Jones was looking forward to fight Tito for the money) then it can be argued that that win plus Toney was better.
I don't know whether or not Toney was weight drain against RJJ or not, he just got outclassed and dominated in almost every round due to Jones style and athleticism. Since he was the bigger star than RJJ then, maybe he should have argued for the fight to be taken place at a few pounds north of 168? I just fail to see it as a sign of weight drain since he did just finish defending his IBF title against Williams in a good competitive fight 3.5 months before facing Roy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinToney 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 ;)
Of course RJJ didn't make Hopkins look like a bum but he did decisively beat Hopkins in that fight so long ago and that till this day no man inside that ring can claim. Even Hopkins admitted it himself that he thought he clearly lost.
The reason why I believe that RJJ's win over Hopkins and Toney are so much better than Pac's and PBF's 2 biggest wins is the status of the opponent and what they would do later in their careers. For instance some posters here like Miron Lang claims that Pac's win over MAB in '03 and JMM in '08 is better, but if one takes a look at it clearly, Toney and Hopkins with those defeats at the hands of Roy would later go on and do things that are extraordinary in the sport. Besides I feel that Hopkins is Jones greatest win because of what Hopkins would do later on in his legendary career and add to that he is clearly the better fighter in boxing history and is more accomplished than MAB in the sport, which would be Pac's biggest win. Corrales is usually cited as Floyd's biggest win but Hopkins is the better fighter more accomplished in the sport's history and is clearly an atg, Corrales is a hall of famer but not an atg and skill level isn't up there with Hopkins.
Look Floyd and Pac are great, I just feel that Roy is greater in that he was more dominant being p4p no. 1 and I felt that his 2 biggest wins were better than their 2 biggest wins. The only thing I would give those 2 is overall resume was better than Jones. If Jones had fought Benn, Eubank, McClellan, dariusz michalczewski, and Calzaghe earlier then his resume would be much better overall, but for various reasons it didn't happen, oh well.
Hey, there's no problems with different opinions bro. We all have 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldog
I personally see Jones a few rungs below PBF or Pac, who I think are about even. The only issue I really have is that of prime. For me, Mayweather hasn't been prime since about 2005/6. I think inactivity & bad hands mean he's no longer at his peak, although there could be an argument that the time off after the Hatton fight has rejuvenated him.
Let me just be clear, I don't think Toney lost because of weight or anything, my point is you can justify every lost if you want to. The simple fact is that in 99% of cases, the better man wins on the night because he is better. I don't diminish any of Roy's wins because of it, but I don't also overlook his defeats.
I disagree on him being the most dominant no.1, I think he had a lot of comp from ODLH, B-Hop, Mosley & PBF at various points while he was p4p. I think Floyd had less from 2004-2008. Pac has never been the indisputable #1 in most eyes, as there are always those who've said Marquez/Mayweather/Martinez should be above him.
I agree Hopkins was a clear win & better than that of Corrales in hindsight, but it was not dominant was my point. Corrales was made to look like a bum, but as he showed he still had plenty left afterwards. Barrera also had decent wins after the Pac fight, while JMM has solidified ATG status since the 2nd fight.
Anyway like I say, different opinions is all it is, it would be boring if they were all the same. I also suppose that it's very difficult to really assess this properly till they've all fully retired, and we're able to look at them all more dispassionately.
Spinks was one I thought about, but then I struggle to see how he would cope with Roy's speed. He did never really need a jab, but then I wonder how much of a hindrance that would prove when faced with someone with similar athleticism to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitQuote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinGot to disagree there man. I think Bob Foster & Archie Moore would both only have to land once on Jones. I also think that most of the guys from further back had far more intuition for the game than almost any active fighters now (PBF, B-Hop & maybe JMM excepted). An example would be that Miguel Cotto is considered a pretty skillful fighter these days & yet Jake LaMotta had a similar style & was considered a brawler. The skill levels were definitely higher in the main. Saying that I'm not saying I'd say that any of those guys would definitely beat him, he's even match-up for anyone at his weight in history. I'd probably be pretty confident of Charles being able to beat him but that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitQuote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jones was a freak of nature. He had what I call third eye syndrome kind of like Barry Sanders or Wayne Gretzky. They know what you are going to do before you do. The key that you have described to beat Roy has a fundamental problem that is two fold. One, the opponent had no idea when Jones was going to punch and where it was coming from. Secondly, even if you could sense the “when”, he would have already landed.
Odd that you would mention the likes of Thorton, Woods and Vaca but leave out Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Griffin or his shut out of McCallum. He not only beat them but made it look pedestrian. Perhaps you’re right in that he always had a shaky chin but the problem is nobody was able to check it.
Theirs only two people on your list of guys to beat Roy that may have a shot and that’s Robinson and Hagler at 160 however I think he exploits Haglers plodding style better then Leonard did. Outside shot on Calzaghe at 168 but I see no other in the history of that division and most likely Ezzard Charles at 175.
That’s cool. I think Spinks might have also given him a good go and perhaps a few guys from Murders row besides Moore like Burley. Greb also at 160. Langford would also be a tough fight from 160 to 175. Not many guys from the past would have the athletic ability or close to the same speed of Roy. Have to disagree generally speaking on the skill level of the past vs the present. What they did have back then was more heart and hunger. The interesting thing about Roy is that he never developed a jab. He did not need it which is incredible when one thinks about it. The only time he really used it was when he fought the Paz.
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers.
I generally see much better fundamentals from most fighters then, with much less of a reliance on athletic gifts (obviously many athletic fighters have excellent fundamentals such as Mayweather & Donaire). The only two modern fighters who to me really are throwbacks in that way are Hopkins & Glen Johnson. In fact, it is the Johnson fight which leads me to think that Roy would have struggled with someone who had all the little niggles to their game allied with serious hunger like they used to then.
I'm sad to say I've not really seen enough footage of Langford & Greb to really say they would beat Jones.
Pac's ascension in weightclass was quite unique because his power was a factor whether he is fighting guys his size or in a "catchweight" which in my opinion is negligible because at fight night they rehydrate and becomes functionally bigger than Manny anways except ODLH. For me yes the 8 weightclasses matter and so does the 4 lineal titles. Good thing is Manny is not yet done:cool: