best ever!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpW7aHOkAQ
Printable View
best ever!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpW7aHOkAQ
Tell me in one sentence why he was the best ever. I'm curious as to what your answer would be.
Because ya'll musta forgot (echo) forgot..forgot..forgot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel
With all things considered no one in history beat their opponents by a wider margin. (kind of difficult to sum it up in a sentence)
Man, ya'll gotta make to "Hook Town." 8/15/09
I'll be curious to see the PPV numbers for this!
People are always going to argue against any fighter of recent claiming to be the best ever. But RJJ in his prime was certainly something special. Very special.
When I used to make "Greatest Ever" lists, I would just go off of what they did. It was much easier for me just to judge specifically what a fighter did and rank their accomplishments against each other. "Best Ever" was different, more pertaining to talent and ability in the ring. Because of the less fights we have these days, it's hard to make the case for many recent (post 90's) fighters to really be in the top 10 of greatest of all time. When you rank the best ever though, the most talented and skillful fighters in the ring, it's easier to include guys like Roy Jones Jr., Floyd Mayweather and Pernell Whitaker.
Kel seriously, how many guys had the talent of Jones? A prime Jones was simply electrifying. List 10 fighters who were definitively better and more talented then Jones in the ring. Sorry but I think holes will be picked in any list you make because the simple fact of the matter is that if Jones Jr. isn't the best ever (I don't think so) he is definitely at least in the conversation.
I no longer do "Greatest Ever" lists, because I think it's foolish not to include the talents of a fighter when ranking them on the greatest ever lists but I can't find an appropriate balance. I can see the argument that Jones Jr. isn't a top 10 "Greatest Ever" fighter because on paper his record really isn't anything that blows anyone else on the ATG list away. However, the thread title is "Best Ever" and I don't really think that's that outrageous of a claim.
BTW - I may be the only person who really differentiates "Best" and "Greatest" like I do but it seems to make enough sense to me.
Roy Jones Jr. is the most talented, fastest and most athletic boxer of all time.
Great fighters even, they lose FIGHTS.
It was rare for Roy Jones to lose a ROUND.
Well he's no Ottke, but he was pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Charlie Z hasn't lost an exhibition sparring match yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
He even knocked out a black fool with a bodyshot.
i think roy jones is the most naturally gifted fighter to ever grace the sport, and charlie zelenoff is the biggest wanker to ever walk the earth, what an asshole
i'll tell you in one word:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel
Swagger
;D
Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
I was more amused at the picture's on the wall. What the fuck were they?
Just subtle reminders that Charlie's doing all this in his parents' house.Quote:
Originally Posted by The FightfanQuote:
Originally Posted by amat
I was more amused at the picture's on the wall. What the fuck were they?
He is one of the great ones of this generation defiantly. Alot of the opponents he beat were either past present or future belt holders or contenders even after he beat them easily which means something. The only thing about Roy is the fact he should have made better career choices after the Ruiz fight like a Cruiserweight belt and not dropping back to a division he already conquered. Its a shame now that his skills are eroding now he wants to take chances, but in his prime he would shrug off going to another fighters country to fight them or he would not show up to a press conference to promote a fight, now he dresses up like a stupid pirate to promote a C lvl fight. What he could have been was a legend an icon now he seems to be a great fighter staying way past his expiration date and it is diminishing his standing because this is what people except hardcore boxing fans will remember.
As much as i love RJJ i felt his career in a way, could of been much better. There was atleast 10 fights that could of been made, which didn't happen for whatever reason that would of made his legacy, x2 better.
Now a fighter like Pernell Whitaker for example, took on the best and never avoided any fights. Plus i find him more entertaining because he was in more dramatic fights.
You do not need words just watch the fighter beat the best fighters around of his generation. Even the fighters he did not fight most do not think they would have beaten him. Having beaten BHop and James Toney is class enough but the way he beat Sosa, Tate, Paz, Hill et al says it all. The best I have ever seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon09
Who Charlie or Roy Jones
[quote=ICB;772337]As much as i love RJJ i felt his career in a way, could of been much better. There was atleast 10 fights that could of been made, which didn't happen for whatever reason that would of made his legacy, x2 better.
Couldn't have agreed more.
[quote=The Fightfan;772611]Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
The same could be said about everybody else...Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
[quote=JonesJrMayweather;772640]Not Pernell Whitaker ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The FightfanQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB
The same could be said about everybody else...Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
[quote=ICB;772644]Touche..he's the only one that I was considering putting either next to jones or tied, but roy got the nod because of how much more dominant he was.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherNot Pernell Whitaker ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fightfan
No doubt he was 'shit hot' in his prime but he should have fought the best guys available at the time, I think he fought too many beatable opponents......like Floyd Mayweather. That's the only real beef I have with him regarding greatness. We all know he was capable of beating anyone at his best. He is the only guy to beat Hopkins in clear fashion that I have seen (never saw his first loss). By the way, if anyone knows where I can find Hopkins pro debut can give me a pointer.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweatherQuote:
Originally Posted by Kel
With all things considered no one in history beat their opponents by a wider margin. (kind of difficult to sum it up in a sentence)
Cuz his name is Roy "Muthafukkin" JonesQuote:
Originally Posted by Kel
Reminded me of a gunslinger who could relax and wait for the other man to draw and still beat him to it.
Wouldn't more dramatic fights means he showed more weakness? Because when you are one sidedly dominating divisions I always considered it a compliment he didnt have a "Frazier" or something because it just went to show how dominant he was doesn't it? But analysts what they really wanna see is a fighter lose. I really don't know where the theory a fighter needs to be truly tested to be considered great. Why? Can't a fighter be just as great if he dominates anyone and is unchallenged? Just my opinion. I like Whitaker as well and him and Roy traded spots at 1 p4p didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajestyWouldn't more dramatic fights means he showed more weakness? Because when you are one sidedly dominating divisions I always considered it a compliment he didnt have a "Frazier" or something because it just went to show how dominant he was doesn't it? But analysts what they really wanna see is a fighter lose. I really don't know where the theory a fighter needs to be truly tested to be considered great. Why? Can't a fighter be just as great if he dominates anyone and is unchallenged? Just my opinion. I like Whitaker as well and him and Roy traded spots at 1 p4p didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
That's exactly what it was..roy dominated so thoroughly that no one can accept that he beat more top ten opponents, champs and future champs than any one yet he somehow managed not to fight anybody????????
I never said Pernell Whitaker was better because he was in, more dramatic fights. I just said thats why i find him more exciting, because not only could he put on a beautiful boxing exhibition, avoiding punches in a exciting fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MajestyWouldn't more dramatic fights means he showed more weakness? Because when you are one sidedly dominating divisions I always considered it a compliment he didnt have a "Frazier" or something because it just went to show how dominant he was doesn't it? But analysts what they really wanna see is a fighter lose. I really don't know where the theory a fighter needs to be truly tested to be considered great. Why? Can't a fighter be just as great if he dominates anyone and is unchallenged? Just my opinion. I like Whitaker as well and him and Roy traded spots at 1 p4p didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
He also could stay on the inside and brawl in a skillful way, which he did quite a few times at Lightweight. I mean his fight with Roger Mayweather was great, and so was many of his other fights. And i think the difference between RJJ/Pernell Whitaker.
Is that when Pernell Whitaker slowed down, he showed he was not only a flashy defensive fighter. He showed what he was really made of, in his fights with Felix Trinidad, Diosbelys Hurtado, Wilfredo Rivera 2.
And lastly you said why does a fighter need to be challenged, to prove he is great ? because boxing is more than just about skills. Its about what you have on the inside aswell, skills is only part of the package. And that was never really proven with RJJ, we don't know how he would of reacted in a really tough fight, that answers question's what you have on the inside.
And im sure had he took a few more risks, we would of found that out but we never did. He fought some good opposition but i can't help thinking, it could of been a much better career, there was atleast 10 names as i said that would of made his legacy alot better as i said earlier.
Yeah but if your skills are good enough shouldn't you not have to show your heart? cause with the right skills you wouldn't be put in that position. Having to dig down deep just shows you deal with more adversity. If you dominated everyone and were never tested that wouldn't make you any less of a fighter all it does is answer the question on whether if you needed to dig deep could you, in my opinion couldn't a truly great fighter not even find themself in that position? It sounds more like a 'fan want to know' rather then the fighter proving it themself. If someone fights 100 times and dominates a weight class and never has to dig down deep it doesn't mean they are a lesser fighter then someone who does, it just means they were so good they never put themself in a position to have to. I think thats just a case of 'fan wants to know more' about a fighter rather then their greatness themself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBI never said Pernell Whitaker was better because he was in, more dramatic fights. I just said thats why i find him more exciting, because not only could he put on a beautiful boxing exhibition, avoiding punches in a exciting fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MajestyWouldn't more dramatic fights means he showed more weakness? Because when you are one sidedly dominating divisions I always considered it a compliment he didnt have a "Frazier" or something because it just went to show how dominant he was doesn't it? But analysts what they really wanna see is a fighter lose. I really don't know where the theory a fighter needs to be truly tested to be considered great. Why? Can't a fighter be just as great if he dominates anyone and is unchallenged? Just my opinion. I like Whitaker as well and him and Roy traded spots at 1 p4p didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
He also could stay on the inside and brawl in a skillful way, which he did quite a few times at Lightweight. I mean his fight with Roger Mayweather was great, and so was many of his other fights. And i think the difference between RJJ/Pernell Whitaker.
Is that when Pernell Whitaker slowed down, he showed he was not only a flashy defensive fighter. He showed what he was really made of, in his fights with Felix Trinidad, Diosbelys Hurtado, Wilfredo Rivera 2.
And lastly you said why does a fighter need to be challenged, to prove he is great ? because boxing is more than just about skills. Its about what you have on the inside aswell, skills is only part of the package. And that was never really proven with RJJ, we don't know how he would of reacted in a really tough fight, that answers question's what you have on the inside.
And im sure had he took a few more risks, we would of found that out but we never did. He fought some good opposition but i can't help thinking, it could of been a much better career, there was atleast 10 names as i said that would of made his legacy alot better as i said earlier.
The logic of proving how great you were by being in a close fight is the dumbest shit I've ever heard...And the whole he has to have heart to be great is subjective loser BS. Gatti had heart against floyd, but floyd floyd's heart was bigger IMO because it takes heart to go out there focused and whoop his ass round after round knowing he wasn't on his level.