At Their Peak, Who is the most Dominant Fighter Of All Time?

Ricardo Lopez!

srr armstrong 2 greatest ever also greb right now the klitschkos are pretty damn dominate

Sugar Ray? Tyson? Roy? RJJ - Moves like a featherweight and punches like a heavyweight

Roy has the best or second best resume of the last 40-50 years. But squares like you aren't knowledgeable enough to appreciate DOMINANT wins over guys like Thulani Malinga or Jorge Castro. Not taking the bait. I'm untrollable.

RJJ At his peak RJJ dominates ANYBODY P4P from any era. His speed, power, athletiscim and the way he was so unorthodox. Oh hell no. He doesn't dominate the ATGs. Dominates? Absolutely not.

Does beating one of the worst heavyweight "champions" of all time diminish the accomplishment? Funny thing is that Toney beat the same "champ." I don't care if Jones administered his steroids more effectively in order to beat the testing. James Toney is a 2X fighter of the year award winner, an ATG and a shoe in for the International Boxing Hall of Fame. Why would a fighter of Toney's caliber defeating a common opponent diminish that achievement?

Again, Roy Jones resume is mediocre. B-/C+ at best. But as I've stated in my other post, his level of dominance during his era cannot be questioned. Especially when seeing how he toyed with the #3 pound for pound fighter in the world at the time. Roy has the best or second best resume of the last 40-50 years. But squares like you aren't knowledgeable enough to appreciate DOMINANT wins over guys like Thulani Malinga or Jorge Castro.

I suppose that Floyd may deserve some mention, based on the simple test: who around his weight division does anyone see him losing to?

Does dominating numerous top 10 contenders in your division with 2 dominating wins over future hall of famers mean that you are on of the most dominant fighters in your era? Does being the undisputed champion at light heavyweight mean that you were dominant? Does winning world titles at Middleweight, Super Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight a sign of dominance? Or how about being the first middleweight champion to win a heavyweight title in over 106 years? I think so. I'm not going to defend his resume because it lags against other all time greats. But to deny this man's dominance in his prime is just hating. Does beating one of the worst heavyweight "champions" of all time diminish the accomplishment? Funny thing is that Toney beat the same "champ." I don't care if Jones administered his steroids more effectively in order to beat the testing.

Michael Spinks is up there.

henry armstrong. the man held titles in 3 divisions at once back when there was only 8 weightclasses and one champion in each. he should have held 4 but got robbed, that means he should have held half the titles all at once. also ali during his first reign, he was on a whole other level to everyone else and they were quality HWs. not like today but really good fighters and ali could do whatever he wanted with them. This. Young Ali was chinnier than old Ali (well probably more about balance & positioning) but he was sooo fast he dominated although old Ali did have a higher level of opposition. But Henry Armstrong was incredible. After leaping up from Feather to Welter (and beating an all time great in the process - imagine Gamboa beating Floyd) he then made something like 17 defenses in a single year. Amazing.

Sugarman Joe Louis Henry Armstrong .............................I don't need to compare them to others or what happened in common opponent match ups. I can simply watch them fight and see how strong their talents were and how minor their deficiencies were. I can step into their thought proccess when they react to punches and movement. Knowing Methods and Techniques is how you evaluate talent not who won this bout or lost that one. Everything isn't winning and loosing if you box enough times your gonna loose if your competition is strong. My three choices all come to take the lead then make adjustments. All of them can win via knockout with either hand. All of them are very difficult to Stop!! None of them will loose their heart during a bout. All come in great shape and are willing and able!! Being a solid boxer is great but if you don't bring a punch with you in the pros your in for a long haul!! Gotta punch! Ray

in the sense that others "dominated" better competition that roy jones you have a point but you can only look spectacular against whoever they put in front of you. charles is a good nod and one, if not the of the best ever LHW, and somebody i would pick to beat jones. going with the LHW theme, another fighter whose name i have not seen listed is gene tunney. dominant. in his prime he had the D with loughgran, and other than that his only issues were with harry greb. and finally, i have not seen mention jack johnson. with his style and his size compared to other men of his era (the standard by which one is considered dominant,) he was a very rough go. he was big enough to stay at range and score, strong enough to knock his opponents out, and if they got close enough block shots or he'd hold. Yes, but Roy fought in what, even given the recent hot run, is probably the most dense and exceptionally talented time at 68 since the division came to be as we know it. The business of boxing meant names like Byrd and Thorton while King and Warren had the rest of the best of the division locked up (and Roy wasn't easy to work with). Toney was a great performance (as was malinga, maybe his most underrated) but the dreck that came for most of 95-96, before Light Heavy, makes it hard to even justify a peak dominance 'relative' argument. He fought what was put in front of him but he had fine dining available and too often went for the McDonald's value menu.

No, but I dont class any of them in the same level of dominance of the aforementioned three, which is the question we are asking here isn't it. I could argue all night at the end of the day it's just my opinion, bu i think it's supported by a fair amount of facts. I'm just not into swallowing hype, as you say Jones as around a C for resume, which considering the amount of fighters around that people wanted to see him in with he DIDN'T fight, makes him questionable. You can cite business reasons, but theres no way Jones would have been paid less to fight the Benn's, Mclellans, Eubanks etc than many of the chumps he did fihgt, and if he was an absoloute shoe in to completley dominante all of them with a 0% chance of losing, he would have done it for the glory. Risk/Reward, The only explaination is that Jones didn't think the risk was worth the reward, hence THERE WAS RISK. I agree to an extent. He managed himself and wanted more money for riskier fights and its possible that he priced himself out a few times. Perfect example is when he was asking for 60/40 against Bernard Hopkins who was #1 p4p coming of the win over Trinidad. But my point is, there are instances in his career where you could measure his level of dominance. He toyed with the #3 pound for pound fighter in the world and comfortably beat Hopkins which eventually became one of his top 5 wins. He also knocked and comfortably beat some very solid and highly rated contenders like Virgil Hill, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson Eric Harding (who was just coming off of a victory over Tarver) and Julio Cesar Gonzalez. Yes, he has some names on his resume that didn't belong in the ring with him. But to label his entire resume as "bums, cab drivers and sheep herders is incorrect". He made some solid contenders look like bums.

Ali, SRR, RJJ, Tyson. Those four had aura.

During his peak run, Ezzard Charles was another who belongs. From 1944-51, he lost only one HOTLY disputed decision and laid waste to one of the finest eras of Light Heavies ever before winning the Heavyweight title and having a solid reign there. Based on who he beat in that run, Charles is up there with anyone. I think he beat better fighters in his peak run than Robinson, in their time. I love Roy but he just doesn't have the depth of resume to belong in these conversations. I know how his fans felt about him but it just takes WAY too much conjecture. If you want to play the relativity game one can fuss into an argument, but objectively weighing it out, he doesn't sniff the convo. in the sense that others "dominated" better competition that roy jones you have a point but you can only look spectacular against whoever they put in front of you. charles is a good nod and one, if not the of the best ever LHW, and somebody i would pick to beat jones. going with the LHW theme, another fighter whose name i have not seen listed is gene tunney. dominant. in his prime he had the D with loughgran, and other than that his only issues were with harry greb. and finally, i have not seen mention jack johnson. with his style and his size compared to other men of his era (the standard by which one is considered dominant,) he was a very rough go. he was big enough to stay at range and score, strong enough to knock his opponents out, and if they got close enough block shots or he'd hold.

Even though his peak was shorter than most, Tyson for sure. He won fights just by looking into opponents eyes during the final instructions. He would have KO'd Ali...

During his peak run, Ezzard Charles was another who belongs. From 1944-51, he lost only one HOTLY disputed decision and laid waste to one of the finest eras of Light Heavies ever before winning the Heavyweight title and having a solid reign there. Based on who he beat in that run, Charles is up there with anyone. I think he beat better fighters in his peak run than Robinson, in their time. I love Roy but he just doesn't have the depth of resume to belong in these conversations. I know how his fans felt about him but it just takes WAY too much conjecture. If you want to play the relativity game one can fuss into an argument, but objectively weighing it out, he doesn't sniff the convo.

It is though. Boxing is a proving ground, you didn't fight a guy, you didn't prove anything. Theres no way Buster Douglas can beat Tyson, he's a bum, Tyson could beat him 1 handed, who did Douglas ever beat, Tyson has every advantage. I could go on and on. It's one of many factors. It's a flawed theory because there are numerous fights throughout history that were not made: You say: Boxing is a proving ground, you didn't fight a guy, you didn't prove anything. Kosta Tszyu never fought Oscar De la Hoya or Floyd Mayweather Mosley and Mayweather never fought Alexis Arguello never fought Roberto Duran Felix Trinidad never fought Terry Norris or Ike Quartery Lennox Lewis never fought Bowe. Did all of those guys "not prove anything?" because of who they didn't fight? And I don't care about why the fights didn't happen. All that matters in the grand scheme of things is that fact that they didn't. Again, Roy Jones resume is mediocre. B-/C+ at best. But as I've stated in my other post, his level of dominance during his era cannot be questioned. Especially when seeing how he toyed with the #3 pound for pound fighter in the world at the time.

Dominance is achieved by beating everyone at the top of a division something Roy Jones never did. Well if that's the one and only factor you look at in evaluating dominance more power to you.