Best Ever!!!!

[amat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbAZm927zco

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.

[jon09]

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.

[ICB]

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.

[Master]

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.

[The Fightfan]

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.

Who Charlie or Roy Jones

[The Fightfan]

[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.

[JonesJrMayweather]

[quote=The Fightfan;772611]

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.

The same could be said about everybody else...

[ICB]

[quote=JonesJrMayweather;772640]

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.

The same could be said about everybody else...

Not Pernell Whitaker

[JonesJrMayweather]

[quote=ICB;772644]

The same could be said about everybody else...

Not Pernell Whitaker

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.

[Kel]

Tell me in one sentence why he was the best ever. I'm curious as to what your answer would be.

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)

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.

[Violent Demise]

Tell me in one sentence why he was the best ever. I'm curious as to what your answer would be.

Cuz his name is Roy "Muthafukkin" Jones

[Andre]

Reminded me of a gunslinger who could relax and wait for the other man to draw and still beat him to it.

[Majesty]

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.

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?

[JonesJrMayweather]

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.

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?

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??

[ICB]

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.

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?

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.

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.