It's my belief if Roy Jones Jr. isnt on your top 10 p4p all time list then you are just in denial. Here is a simple test.

Pick 3 fighters from 160-175 lbs from any era to that you'd put up against a Roy Jones from 1993-1996. Who would you bet the house on?

Well, I wouldn't pick anyone from 160-175 to beat a prime Jones to be honest...

How can he be ranked Top 10 P4P all time if he got Ked TFO twice in a row in his mid 30s (lacking beard and longevity) and do what he did in Tarver 3 (no heart)..?

He's Top 50.

At 175 alone, there is a deep pool. And none of them are cake walks for Jones.

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Sam Langford, Gene Tunney, Bob Foster, Billy Conn, Harold Johnson, Saad Muhammad, Mike Spinks, & etc. Sh!t, I think John Conteh could've beaten him. Then again, maybe Conteh flakes out.

And this isn't even looking at the middleweight class. And 160 is DEEEEEEP.

This is a STUPID thread.

He's talking about 1993-1996 Jones; You're talking about a Jones 10 years after that. I think all the thread starter is hypothetically saying is that a Jones during those years would have beaten just about everyone in an all time sense (arguable, but that's his argument). Jones being knocked out and showing lack of heart 10 years after that doesn't really pertain to the discussion IMO.

The thread starter is also saying the people that don't have him in a Top 10 is in denial, or blinded by hatred.

What kind of ignorant sh!t is that?

I know, I think that's a very biased statement and pretty ignorant.

My whole point is that when you look back on a fighter and rank them in a P4P sense or an all time sense you do so moreso from what they did in their prime - their skills and abilities at their peak. Talking about how they got knocked out after their prime or their lack of heart after their prime doesn't really matter because in a historical sense all hypothetical matchups are a prime vs prime fighter.

With what Roy accomplished in his prime and to think about how many rounds he actually lost in that prime, I would consider putting him in a top 10 P4P list, definitely a top 20 for sure.

No way Jones belongs in the top 10, top 20 maybe but I doubt he'll end up anywhere within the top 10.

You're searching for an argument again, Shots...the very title of the thread is "Roy Jones Jr. All-Time ranking"....the ATGs P4P are judged on EVERYTHING....an ATG has longevity and success after their prime...an ATG goes all out in a rubber match...

He was only 35 years old...he wasn't battle worn...and got CLEANED by two guys that supposedly weren't near his equal...

and just to entertain the subsidiary question pacco posed....I remember reading a Bert Sugar book "Bert Sugar on Boxing" where they had a pro critic roundtable on Jones and who would win hypothtetical matchups against him at Light Heavy....this was BEFORE they knew what Jones was really made of...

In confidence, they all agreed there were 2 guys that would beat Jones at his best....Billy Conn and Ezzard Charles.




Yeah...this thread is DEFINITELY some bullshit...

Well I guess we see things a little differently then. In your view if Jones had retired after beating Tarver then you'd consider his "greatness" to be greater. I personally don't think it matters, but that's just me.

Anyway the thread starter made 2 initial points. One was that Jones should be in everyones top 10 P4P of all time. Two was that he'd take a 1993-1996 Jones over everyone in any area from 160-175. I was responding moreso to the second point rather than the first with respect to your statement that Jones' losses, lack of heart etc were a factor. Jones getting laid out twice and showing lack of heart doesn't take away from any potential mythical matchups from 1993-1996. Hopefully that makes sense.

For me...if he would have retired after he beat Tarver, I'd probably have him about 10 spots higher....but when his career's finally over, and all's said and done, the guy's not as "great" as his biggest fans made/still make him out to be....

Thats the truth. There are so many that stand at least a 50/50 chance & guys like Conn, Charles & co would be more than that. That is without even scratching the surface of 160 which as Nob said is super deep.

This is an odd criteria. Emile Griffith was the King of split decisions, yet I wouldn't hold that against him when I look at his overall career. He also fought in one of the most competitive eras of boxing in his weight classes-he dropped several fights while winning some others-but it happens when your resume is that legit.

Would I rank Griffith ahead of Jones? I don't think it's automatic or anything & it's debatable either way, but I wouldn't look at it from the angle of..... which fighter lost more rounds in their respective primes.

When ranking them in the "historical" sense, it isn't always that black & white-it depends on the fighter. Many fighters do great things past their peak, while others only shine brightly for a short, short, time. Ali, Jofre, SRR accomplished some great things past their peak. It's more icing on the cake.

We need to remember that Jones' career isn't over yet. What do you think would happen if hypothetically, he crushes Tito, then faces the Calzaghe/Kessler winner, & knocks their arse out? Then he follows it by decisioning Pavlik after getting up off the canvas, & showing his "heart".

Many people would be SCREAMING that he is the GOAT.

lol...he would make Top 20 then...

This is a STUPID response. If this is your idea of objectivity and you'd bet the house that all of these fighters (plus a "DEEEEEP" list of middleweights) have a good chance of beating Jones then you are in deep denial AND blinded massively by hatred. As a matter of fact, youre just flat out lost and you'd be a broke ass dude betting on these fights. With this hypothetical question you've chossen the route of hiding in the obscurity of history. Bob Foster and Billy Conn??? WTF are you smoking? These guys couldnt beat James Toney.

Go criticize someone elses thread. You obviously dont have the mental capacity for this one.

The majority of athletes from the past can't a hold a candle to the modern day athletes. They may have been "tougher" and put up with a lot more in the sense of dealing with pain but if that was a superior characteristic then the fucking cavemen would have been some bad motherfuckers. Its called evolution. Records get broken for a reason. This can be applied across all sports.

Well my view is that you rank a fighter based on what they accomplish... so if they go on to accomplish more late in their career (win a few big fights, upsets, catch lightning in a bottle one last time etc) then that would add value to their overall ranking. Generally speaking most fighters obtain the majority of their accomplishments during or around their prime, but of course they could accomplish more later as Jones of course still COULD.

To answer the original ?....there is no one.

Most folks just caught onto roy on the tail end and was just waiting fight after fight for him to hit that downward spiral.

the crew that witnessed him from start to his prime for over a decade know damn well roy was unstoppable and I doubt there was a mofo on the planet at the time that could take him.

real talk here.

I'm sorry......... yes, I admit it. The response was made b/c I hate RJJ, & I am in denial. Human beings are evolving. How dare I bring up history.

As human beings, we will be able to run three second forties, & bench press 1,000lbs. by 2015 AD. In 2030, we will be able to fly like Superman. By 2050, we will all have X-Ray vision.

Evolution.....lol. Yeah, in a span of several decades, athletes have become mutants.

If RJJ does accomplish great things in the near future, it COUNTS, right? If so, then we can't completely discount what happened with Tarver & Johnson either.

I mentioned this several times on this forum, but there needs to be a middle ground with RJJ. No, he wasn't the GOAT, or SRR,or whatever...... but he wasn't a china chinned fake either. There is backlash due to him getting KTFO, but it should settle out after his days of fighting are completely over. After all, how high were people on RJJ after the Ruiz bout? It goes both ways.

I always thought Jones was like a Barry Sanders in football(American). Unique, freakish, & etc. But not the best or the greatest, but b/c what he did was so outrageous, some people can't help it but to view him as the greatest. He was a unique talent with tremendous gifts, that delighted fans, as well as piss them off due to some of his attitude/decisions.

IMHO, I don't hold those knockouts against him that much-It probably proved that he didn't have a chin of iron. But I also don't give him the credit some of you give for defeating Ruiz either. It's between 168-175 for me that carries the most weight (not as much for 160 due to hi short stay there) Don't get why some get so offended when he is viewed in the Top40-50 or so. That is ELITE company.

It's like, it isn't good enough for some RJJ homers. Top 50 fighter? That is INCREDIBLE. Some folks need to let their own egos go.

You critique me in another thread for saying your post was a oxymoron (which it most certainly was) yet here you are saying that Nob's response is "stupid" when it has a lot more thought, merit & credit than your inane ramblings.

There are a hell of a lot more dominant 160 & 175 lb champions who I consider better than Roid & Conn is certainly one of them.

Good post.

I hate the opinion of most arm chair fans that because something is new, that automatically makes it better. There have been mass improvements in sports diet and training throughout the years, but athletes have not improved to the point of being supermen. The thought that athletes of the past would simply not be able to compete with these new superbeasts is ridiculous, and actually quite ignorant. Especially in a sport like boxing, where there is very little area for scientific advancement.

Jack Dempsey used to rub pine tar into his face to make his skin more resistant to cuts, did that put him at an advantage over other well moisterized athletes? Of coarse not. In sports, there is only so far that the body can be pushed towards improvement. Fighters are probably closer to that point than any other athlete, but that's not a recent phenomenom. They've always been at the pinnacle of athletic perfection. Ali and SRR are two of the best athletes that the world has ever known, do you think for a second that they are any less athletic than the Klitchkos? Or Roy? Hell no.

But to answer the original question, Roy Jones between 1993-1996 was unbelievable. The few greats that were mentioned might've been able to match him, but I wouldn't bet the house against Roy...not when he was at his best.

I wouldn't say it's discounting what happened with Tarver and Johnson. Many GOAT fighters have been knocked out and by fighters viewed to be lesser than them. I'm just of the opinion that a fighter should be judged primarily on their accomplishments, not their few bumps in the road along the way. So if a fighter goes on to accomplish more after getting through a few bumps in the road I would say that helps their overall status and/or ranking.

Seeing how a fighter deals with adversity shows what they are really made of. Roy does two things when faced with adversity.

1) gets carried off on a stretcher or fights scared
2) starts speaking in teh 3rd person about how great Roy Jones Jr is.

Compare that to some of the other P4P greats & how they adapted & overcame adversity in the ring.

I don't disagree with you or anything.....but what about a guy like Duran? Who friggin' quit? He's judged "primarily on his accomplishments".... but man, that "bump" sticks out, don't it?

Duran's career is unique in that way.

There is really no argument you can make. Athletes have "evolved." Athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger, and have CONSISTENTLY improved year after year. That's a fact. All you have to do is look at ANY sport and it's the same across the board. Today's athletes are far more superior to the athletes of yesterday in every sport, including boxing. I'd hope that you are not that naive to think otherwise.

As for super humans benching 1,000 lbs, you dont have to wait until 2015. It started happening in 2004 and the weight has been increasing every year. History is good, but not when youre living in it!

I for one do not agree 100% with that statement. For example I would take Duran to put a whuppin on any current lightweight.

These are the simple facts & I will use the greatest athlete in history to show them. Remember you said ANY sport not me.

Donald Bradman is the greatest cricketer to ever play & his career finished 60 years ago.

Bradman still holds the following significant records for Test match cricket:

Highest career batting average (minimum 15 innings): 99.94
Highest series batting average (5-Test series): 201.50 (1931–32)
Highest % of centuries in innings played: 36.25%
Highest 5th wicket partnership: 405 (with Sid Barnes, 1946–47)
Highest 6th wicket partnership: 346 (with Jack Fingleton, 1936–37)
Highest score by a number 5 batsman: 304 (1934)
Highest score by a number 7 batsman: 270 (1936–37)
Most runs against one opponent: 5,028 (v England)
Most runs in one series: 974 (1930)
Most centuries scored in a single session of play: 6 (1 pre lunch, 2 lunch-tea, 3 tea-stumps)
Most runs in one day’s play: 309 (1930)
Most double centuries: 12
Most double centuries in a series: 3 (1930)
Most triple centuries: 2 (equal with Brian Lara)
Most consecutive matches to have made a century: 6 (last 3 in 1936–37, first 3 in 1938)



To put this in perspective with other sports think of it this way

In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score 43 points per game. For comparison, Michael Jordan holds the NBA record with an average of 30.1 points per game, while Ty Cobb's career batting average of .366 from 1928 still stands as the MLB high mark.

Both Cobb & Bradman are superior to any current or former player in their respective sports yet they played decades ago. How is this possible if modern athletes are "that much better"?

Bear in mind that Bradman never played against lesser teams like Sri Lanka & the like otehrwise his average would have been most likely 200+!

In short talent transcends timelines & innovations. If anything it shows that a talented performer from the past with todays training & tequniques would be even more dominant not less so.

As for boxing there are less people fighting today than 50 or 100 years ago so the talent pool has dwindled not expanded & hence it has become easier to win a title against far less potential opposition. 100 years ago boxing was one of the biggest sports & everyone tried it because if you were any good you made money. Now it is a long way down the list of professional sports priorities for high school students & really only the poor box seriously.

Why do you think there are so many 2nd & 3rd world boxers winning titles along with the "ghetto" Americans. Why would a talented athlete get paid peanuts unless he is a DLH calibre money machine when he can concerntrate on playing baseball, hockey or whatever & make guarenteed millions if he makes it to the majors?

Ask yourself those questions & have a serious think about it.

Holy Shit!!!!!!

I don't know why you assume I take the opposite stance, b/c I don't. I've heard people argue this, & I have yet to come across any concrete evidence proving this. The newer is better faction is gibberish to me, just as much as the older was better argument. And again, you think I am "naive". Blind. In denial. You spew all this, "I don't disrespct nobody on the internet until provoked" speech, but you are condescending in your very own thread.

If big, fast, & strong gives an athelete an advantage, then how come Zab Judah can't win a big fight? Why is Marbury nowhere near the player of Nash or Stockton? Hell, even Mark Jackson is better than Marbury, who was slow as hell.

I mean, looking at the current heavyweight division, you WANT me to think newer is better?

Looking at your logo, you think there is a better pass rusher today than LT? I don't see one. Look at Strahan & Toomer. They actually trained to get SMALLER through the years. You think Shockey is better than Bavaro? And I dislike the Giants, so this isn't some nostalgic trip either where I'm favoring the "old timers". And this was roughly twenty years ago. It wasn't that long ago.

I would have to agree. Its hard to compare fighters from diff times. I understand a lot of the crit he gets but at his best roy was the best I have seen with my own eyes.

This is exactly my thinking. Talent may transcend time, but as time goes on that talent coupled with modern training and supplement use makes for a better overall athlete. I think this is the arguement to a degree. This would be much more evident in a more physical sport such as football, basketball, boxing, etc. There are certain things that have been learned over time to give a competitor an edge over old techniques. Sure, there are people throughout history that have that special talent as STEVINSKI has pointed out. But as stated in the above quote. You take that specially talented individual and put them in the modern era with practicing all the health benefits and training, they will be better. This is what I take from athletes being better now-a-days. Talent varies from person to person. But today, people are stronger and more athletic than ever before.

I was around when the creatine boom exploded. At the time, many people thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now, many of the people I know that were on it regret taking that shite.

Are the kids/athletes today taking better, more effective things now? I coach some f-ball, & to tell you the truth, I can't say with a 100% conviction that they are. And with the recent influx of roids & HGH, it's making things more complicated than it should be. Many times, I think these supplement companies are eff-ing with the consumer, & are taking us for a ride. I mean, what are you supposed to tell some of these parents when they tell you Billy is taking Myoplex? There are some exercises & things that are clearly great for training that I didn't have, such as sprints with parachutes, some bow flex exercises to reduce stress on the joints, & etc. But "modern training & supplements" is REAL vague, man. There's substance there, but how much is the question.

Now if you want to talk equipment, I'd have a difficult time arguing that. But then again, I haven't had better sneakers than my old Hurraches......

I've seen kids with similar talent(10-15 years apart) go completely opposite directions, due to one reason or another. And for the kids that did well, I don't think much of it had to do with the "modern" training of the day.

I like to keep a foot in both doors. I'm sure many of you here work out, or still compete. For every "new" exercise or supplement you take, how many times have you gone back to what you did, or used before? This is a see-saw battle that isn't always charging ahead.

You make some great points. Thing can get confusing with the use of steroids and such. Even creatine. I used to use it, but the dehydration factor is bad. WHat I am thinking moreso of is the modern science of diet, excercise, and healthy supplements. Take a very talented athlete and set him up with a good modern strength and conditioning coach who knows his shit, and that is the athlete I am talking about. I also thing that in the sport of boxing, it is more common than ever to cut a signifiant amount of weight before a fight. This is not good. A fighter should fight at a comfortable natural weight. But the way these fighters want that weight advantage come fight time is hurting their performance in the overall scheme of things IMO.

Creatine isn't shit and it is still probably one of the best selling supplements in the world. Maybe the best actually. In fact, it has the most research out of any supplement supporting its benefits. It works and there are basically no risks provided you take the proper dosage and don't have some pre-existing condition that might be aggravated by it.

There's no question that most supplement companies are full of shit. However, if you take a look at the research, there are several things that can help athletic performance. Creatine for one, a solid multivitamin, a good antioxidant (vit e and/or c), amino acid/electrolyte drink, and a HIGH quality protein powder (not most of the shit people actually take). Most young athletes simply don't get the proper nutrition and supplements are a way to ensure they have what they need - before, during, and after competition.



Well the time period obviously needs to be defined, and 10-15yrs may not represent that huge of a change. But there is simply no question that there is a higher emphasis placed on weight training and supplementation today in high school and amateur sports than there was 10 or 15 years ago. I can personally tell you that if someone had shown me what I know now back when I was playing college sports it would have made a huge difference for me. But there are certainly other cases where this might not be the case.



Maybe not charging ahead, but I think we are always making progress. The thing that is somewhat unique about boxing is the weight class element. There are certain builds that have existed and will always be affective in a given weight class.

I think one of the main things today, as you mention, is the use of HGH and steroids which are widespread in the sport, even if no one wants to talk about them.

Heh-this stuff reminds me of the Parisi school.....

Personally with creatine, the results were mixed- I stopped doing it for several reasons. Getting stronger & bigger is good....to a certain point. I wouldn't say it doesn't help athletes, but it's best to know what they are getting into before taking it. It was sh!t to me & my teammates b/c it wasn't the way we wanted to go about in training. (granted, it also depends on the kind of program or routine they are doing)

Training & fitness is a weird thing. I've seen kids beef up over the summer, & while their weightroom numbers improved, their overall play regressed. Why? Don't know, but one plus one didn't add up to two. Or the kid that comes into camp in tremendous shape, but has a lacklustre year? It's odd, b/c the kid was better when he was fatter, & slower.

Other times, some athletes just don't respond as well as you'd hope, no matter how knowledgable the position or strength coach may be. It's the damnest thing. An example is...well, like Jermain Taylor switching over to Manny. Now, perhaps Manny is overrated anyway with his expertise, knowledge, or whatever. But looking from afar, it doesn't make sense, does it?

So if Joe Louis had today's modern science & fitness, you would expect him to be a heavyweight destroyer, right? You'd like to believe that, but like I said, strength & fitness, & coaching is an odd thing. Maybe Jack Blackburn knew which buttons to push.

Nice post Stevenski! Very informative.

The old school Hurraches were the goods. I prefer the high level Asics ones myself but I love old school Nikes. Just got some Jordan 3's not long back.

Back to Jones.

When you take a fighter that was undeniably the best of his era. Like right around 10 years. I don't see how that fighter could not be placed high on an all-time P4P list.

Yea, well you hit my soft spot. L.T. in my opinion is the greatest LB ever. I also believe that Bavaro was the better tight end, for now at least. But on the flipside, I dont know if I'd consider these guys truly old school. I see your argument though. It hits a little closer to home than the crickett stats that Steven put up.

As far a being condescending with the first post, youre right, I was. I have a hard time seeing a "great" not getting the respect he deserves for his accomplishments in the ring. I think if Roy had been a nice guy like De La Hoya then many peopke would be singing a different tune about him.

stevenski,

The old Nike sneakers seemed so much more comfortable-even the "Bo Jackson" sneakers were great. Asic running shoes are tough to beat though. Mizuno.

southeastpaw,

Is anybody actually saying RJJ shouldn't be considered an ATG? I think the argument here is how mind boggling it is for some of you to think he is, God forbid, a Top 40 or so fighter-a Top 40 fighter is not a scrub, or a borderline great. It's an ALL TIME fighter.

Or is it not good enough? The margin from Top 20 to Top 40 isn't that big, IMHO.

Sure it is when you have 20 other people ahead of you that shouldn't be there. I'll bet people would have a huge problem if Ray Robinson was ranked #6 on P4P list. See what I'm sayin?

You can see my point b/c it's something that is close to home, & you've seen it every Sunday during the fall. Lavarr Arrington & Jevon Kearse are bigger, faster, & stronger (maybe naturally, by modern training, or whatever) than LT, but what do your eyes tell you when you watch their footage?

Could LT have even been more dominating with the training methods of today? Maybe....if he even bothered showing up. But guys like him aren't productive when they stray from what they usually do- partying & cocaine.





How is RJJ not getting the proper accolades? I still don't get it: some of you guys make it seem like a "non Top 10 standing" of an opinion fo him is a slap in the face.

So that's insulting? Or are people being blinded by hatred, or in denial? What 20 or so fighters have you seen on lists that you considered were <Jones?

Sh!t, my all time favorite fighters don't even make my Top 10.

Here is ESPN's top 50 All-Time list:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Gene Tunney
17. Mickey Walker
19. Stanley Ketchel
20. George Foreman
21. Tony Canzoneri
22. Barney Ross
23. Jimmy McLarnin
24. Julio Cesar Chavez
25. Marcel Cerdan
26. Joe Frazier
27. Ezzard Charles
18. Archie Moore
28. Jake LaMotta
29. Sandy Saddler
30. Terry McGovern
31. Billy Conn
32. Jose Napoles
33. Ruben Olivares
34. Emile Griffith
35. Marvin Hagler
36. Eder Jofre
37. Thomas Hearns
38. Larry Holmes
39. Oscar De La Hoya
40. Evander Holyfield
41. Ted "Kid" Lewis
42. Alexis Arguello
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Pernell Whitaker
45. Carlos Monzon
46. Roy Jones Jr.
47. Bernard Hopkins
48. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
49. Erik Morales
50. Mike Tyson

I think that Roy should be ranked ahead of Forenam on this list. This list is a bit out of whack though for the most part. I also think it is a little insulting to Roy to have him behind Barrera and DLH. Not that they weren't awesome fighters, but Roy's accomplishments were more, and he ruled an era in which they were fighting. Just my opinion of course.

seeing where delahoya is on that list should immediately prove that this list is a pile of shit.

DLH over Jones, Hopkins, Whitaker, Mayweather?

Shitty list.

Unreal. Marciano wasn't that good...