https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/27544941_2042276569389406_1703880205917819377_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=ce99a87a72f109bfc4263bfa8674e2fa&oe=5B0FF718
do we only factor in the "prime" years? are we supposed to ignore the almost 15 year reign of being mediocre/bum status?
im confused here.. it seems when guys like ali, robinson, louis, leonard, duran, tyson and chavez are judged people just erase all the losses out of the equation because they were not "prime" anymore.
so do you rate guys like jones in totality of the entire career or do you just focus on the "prime" years? what is your method here and where do you place him historically?
Definitely top 20. Only prime or near prime years count for me but if he had adapted his style and overcome adversity past prime Roy would be much higher on an ATG list.
Easily top 25 of all time, anyone who disagrees needs to get they ass beat
I'll second that. Despite the relative thinness of talent in some of the divisions he competed in, he was the consensus number one p4p by such a wide margin and so much better than his opposition for nearly a decade that I would would conservatively put him between 15-20 all time.
im confused here.. it seems when guys like ali, robinson, louis, leonard, duran, tyson and chavez are judged people just erase all the losses out of the equation because they were not "prime" anymore.
so do you rate guys like jones in totality of the entire career or do you just focus on the "prime" years? what is your method here and where do you place him historically?
What's to be confused about? It's all Boxing history man. Know the stories of the fighters and it's pretty obvious right?
I always rate prime. When they were at their best.
I rate Jones 2nd best of all time right behind Robinson. Pep was good, but if they were each others size, Jones would catch him.