p4p, legacy, and resume which one takes it? PBF,Pac, RJJ

So in terms of p4p, legacy, and resume when you look at all 3 who comes out on top? PBF, Pac, or RJJ? All 3 have held the p4p crown and has beaten some damn good opposition, along with who has the better legacy?

My vote goes to Roy. The man never lost a fight in his prime and was dominating nor was he in controversial fights where boxing fans have argued on the legitimacy of a win. I can't say that with Pac and PBF. P4P I say he was more dominating than both Pac and PBF and I say he whips them both in a p4p matchup. The only thing I will concede is that overall resume Pac and PBF is better than Roy, but Roy has a win over prime and undefeated Toney, not to mentioned Hopkins. People keep on saying Hopkins wasn't prime but guess what neither was Roy at the time when they met. Pac's and PBF's 2 greatest wins still don't equal Roy's 2 greatest wins. Not to mentioned Roy is the 2nd MW to ever win a HW crown.

A lot of people have said Pac lost to JMM in at least 1 of the 2 fights (some say both), and a lot of people have said Floyd lost to Castillo in their 1st fight. But prime Roy didn't have a controversial win like that. Key word here is prime if someone wants to bring up Roy's controversial win over Tarver in the 1st fight, that wasn't prime Roy. And the DQ he got over Griffin in the 1st fight was a great acting job by Griffin.

Discuss.

Hard one cos Roy did it with flair and cockiness and didn't lose legit!! And had all the belts, mayweather and PAC just fight for money.

I'd say Roy. But the winner or mayweather vs PAC will change that maybe. Someone quote me

Really good question! I'd have all 3 top 10 p4p all time! Can't split them.
If RJJ had've retired after the Ruiz fight, I'm pretty sure that most people would have him top 3 p4p of all time.

On paper, Floyd has one hell of a CV. But in his prime Roy was untouchable. More so than the others.

Pac is just a freak of nature gaining weight while keeping his speed and power. He may just keep going though, he'll be 80 at 20 stone.

I can't pick them. Not with any certainty.

As it stands right now and all of them never fought again, I just couldn't call it. Like someone said it might all hinge on PAC vs floyd if it ever happens

When Greb beat Tunney arguably twice and in the other three scraps they had, he never asked Gene to make 168 pounds. Nor did he when he defeated a number of promising heavyweights ask for any demands. Greb was not a big middle weight. And this was done during an era of 8 divisions. Now that’s pound for pound. I sincerely mean no offense to anyone in my first few posts on this forum but p4p today for me is an metaphor for favourite and in some cases mediocrity. Add Hbo and the like saying who will fight whom and then piggybacked by PPV, the term may even be quite meaningless.

Pac no question about it

p4p - If they ever fought. Roy Jones Jr.

Legacy,Resume - Manny Pacquiao easily

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

p4p - If they ever fought. Roy Jones Jr.

Legacy,Resume - Manny Pacquiao easily

---

easily how so? Jones has pretty much done the same thing as Manny, if anything it's more impressive given the drastic gaps between weight classes, both guys went up 40+ lbs and won titles, Jones skipped Cruiserweight completely and went straight to HW, his resume is as good as any others, and given how long he was dominant i'd say he's all around better than Pacquiao and Mayweather

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

So in terms of p4p, legacy, and resume when you look at all 3 who comes out on top? PBF, Pac, or RJJ? All 3 have held the p4p crown and has beaten some damn good opposition, along with who has the better legacy?

My vote goes to Roy. The man never lost a fight in his prime and was dominating nor was he in controversial fights where boxing fans have argued on the legitimacy of a win. I can't say that with Pac and PBF. P4P I say he was more dominating than both Pac and PBF and I say he whips them both in a p4p matchup. The only thing I will concede is that overall resume Pac and PBF is better than Roy, but Roy has a win over prime and undefeated Toney, not to mentioned Hopkins. People keep on saying Hopkins wasn't prime but guess what neither was Roy at the time when they met. Pac's and PBF's 2 greatest wins still don't equal Roy's 2 greatest wins. Not to mentioned Roy is the 2nd MW to ever win a HW crown.

A lot of people have said Pac lost to JMM in at least 1 of the 2 fights (some say both), and a lot of people have said Floyd lost to Castillo in their 1st fight. But prime Roy didn't have a controversial win like that. Key word here is prime if someone wants to bring up Roy's controversial win over Tarver in the 1st fight, that wasn't prime Roy. And the DQ he got over Griffin in the 1st fight was a great acting job by Griffin.

Discuss.

---

though i agree. Prime is a highly subjective term.

Floyd never lost at all.

Pac was 17 and 19 when he got kayoed and was a green triple double jab left straight fighter against Morales obviously he wasn't Prime then.

All three fighters never lost in their primes ;D

Griffin wasn't acting. he was hit while complaining to the ref. he was really hurt.

Roy Jones Jr. is still THE MAN. His legacy is above Pacquaio and Mayweather.

Its not just WHO you beat but HOW you beat them. And Roy Jones absolutely dominated and humiliated world champions. He made them look like club fighters.

He is the most dominant boxer of all time.

I think until PBF & Pac conclude or wind down you really can't tell...

If I had to put them in order now.
I'd have RJJ, PBF, Pac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

When Greb beat Tunney arguably twice and in the other three scraps they had, he never asked Gene to make 168 pounds. Nor did he when he defeated a number of promising heavyweights ask for any demands. Greb was not a big middle weight. And this was done during an era of 8 divisions. Now that’s pound for pound. I sincerely mean no offense to anyone in my first few posts on this forum but p4p today for me is an metaphor for favourite and in some cases mediocrity. Add Hbo and the like saying who will fight whom and then piggybacked by PPV, the term may even be quite meaningless.

---

:appl:
Believe me, no offense taken. You posted your opinion which is very valid and I agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

So in terms of p4p, legacy, and resume when you look at all 3 who comes out on top? PBF, Pac, or RJJ? All 3 have held the p4p crown and has beaten some damn good opposition, along with who has the better legacy?

My vote goes to Roy. The man never lost a fight in his prime and was dominating nor was he in controversial fights where boxing fans have argued on the legitimacy of a win. I can't say that with Pac and PBF. P4P I say he was more dominating than both Pac and PBF and I say he whips them both in a p4p matchup. The only thing I will concede is that overall resume Pac and PBF is better than Roy, but Roy has a win over prime and undefeated Toney, not to mentioned Hopkins. People keep on saying Hopkins wasn't prime but guess what neither was Roy at the time when they met. Pac's and PBF's 2 greatest wins still don't equal Roy's 2 greatest wins. Not to mentioned Roy is the 2nd MW to ever win a HW crown.

A lot of people have said Pac lost to JMM in at least 1 of the 2 fights (some say both), and a lot of people have said Floyd lost to Castillo in their 1st fight. But prime Roy didn't have a controversial win like that. Key word here is prime if someone wants to bring up Roy's controversial win over Tarver in the 1st fight, that wasn't prime Roy. And the DQ he got over Griffin in the 1st fight was a great acting job by Griffin.

Discuss.

---

though i agree. Prime is a highly subjective term.

Floyd never lost at all.

Pac was 17 and 19 when he got kayoed and was a green triple double jab left straight fighter against Morales obviously he wasn't Prime then.

All three fighters never lost in their primes ;D

Griffin wasn't acting. he was hit while complaining to the ref. he was really hurt.

---

Curious to know what you consider Pacs prime...
When did it start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Curious to know what you consider Pacs prime...
When did it start?

---

I would say David Diaz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

p4p - If they ever fought. Roy Jones Jr.

Legacy,Resume - Manny Pacquiao easily

---

easily how so? Jones has pretty much done the same thing as Manny, if anything it's more impressive given the drastic gaps between weight classes, both guys went up 40+ lbs and won titles, Jones skipped Cruiserweight completely and went straight to HW, his resume is as good as any others, and given how long he was dominant i'd say he's all around better than Pacquiao and Mayweather

---

Roy is great but he didnt tangle with so many other great contemporaries which is a little back slash i would think.

I take back the 'easily' part. But i think its a little clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Curious to know what you consider Pacs prime...
When did it start?

---

I would say David Diaz.

---

Wow!!! So everything he did pre-Diaz was just him before he reached his prime?

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 CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Curious to know what you consider Pacs prime...
When did it start?

---

I would say David Diaz.

---

Wow!!! So everything he did pre-Diaz was just him before he reached his prime?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taeth

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.

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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

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

---

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

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.

---

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.

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 ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

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.
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

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.

---

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 IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

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.

---

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 JazMerkin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

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.

---

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 generalbulldog

Yall must have forgot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?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.

---

Why must you once again denigrate Manny's wins here compared to the others?

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.