Better Fighter in History -- Roy Jones Or Floyd Mayweather?

Floyd: ‘of course I’m better than Roy Jones, why would you even ask that?’

Add a poll dawg, i'm curious who will get more votes Done.:boxing:

Rjj wanted greatness more doing the unthinkable by being heavyweight champ from lmw. Floyd not so much so, just happy to retire undefeated but not worry too much how he went achieving that. Not giving advantages away if at all possible. RJJ is greater Hugh I like your posts...I'm going to disagree with you here. Roy was greater imo so, that is not my issue. Roy going up to fight Ruiz was the same basic mentality as Floyd fighting bigger, less skilled guys at catchweights. Ruiz was easy pickings, and a very weak low hanging heavyweight fruit. beating Ruiz was not a sign of Roy's greatness imo, as opposed to Roy's dominance against Toney for example.

Add a poll dawg, i'm curious who will get more votes

for people saying floyd is a better boxer...based on what? beating weaker competition for longer? that seems to be your argument cause when you look at their best wins....its not close. could floyd ever dominate toney or hopkins? he never even fought guys with those styles so how do we know? does he get fantasy points for not doing it? he should have lost to castillo when he was in his prime. you think a slow predictable fighter like that gets close to beating prime jones? i think you are placing entirely too much emphasis on longevity but where is the quality? boxing is not about averages. basically what you are saying is that vince carter is better than jordan cause vince played longer. stop Yup. People don't want to be consistent regarding what is held against a fighter. When a fighter does fantastic later on...You give it to them. So...We can say Hopkins later career state made him even better when comparing him. This is because the fighter obviously was able to compete at that level longer...hopkins was beating up guys like Winky Wright and pavlik... That should count. However when a fighter is obviously not competing at that level any longer, it should not count against him. The reason for this is simple: It is a feat of skill to remain competative as one ages, while it is not a lack of skill when one is not able to remain competative at the same level... Looked at another way, doesn't it show how great a fighter like Foreman was, to become an old champion, and a fighter who could win at the championship level at an advanced age? On the other hand, when Louis lost to marciano, it does not compare to the Louis who could fight at the championship level. I make this point to support Daggum because the Jones who fought later was doing so as a vocation, and was not the same calibre fighter and there are reasons why this should not count against him. Floyd should be compared to a prime Jones...if people want, use a prime Floyd and either way Jones was a lot more skilled, fought better competition based on when he fought the people he fought. Roy was more dominant, and was not so much as touched when he was on his A game.

You leaving out the fact that Floyd was usually the smaller fighter in a lot of fights & didn't have the physical attributes other fighters have. #48 was good but not as great as everyone makes him out to be & the same goes with these old fighters. You notice I post on certain threads cuz I jump on the Bullsh*t going on in social media & you think its "white fighters"? Don't be mad at me that fighters like lil g gets all the fake praise. Doesn't supporting hyped fighters get boring for you especially since they hype ones always end up losing? Not really. Most fighters lose. I was a fan of Finito Lopez and Joe Calzaghe I don't consider them to be better than Chavez, Whitaker, Jones, Hopkins. Great fighters that had multiple losses. Not every fighter that suffers a defeat is trash or was overhyped. I'd never suggest that Ali was over hyped because he had losses. Most fighters lose if they face great fighters in their primes multiple times unlike Mayweather, Lopez, Calzaghe who never faced one great fighter in their primes. So in your opinion the only fighters that are good in history/not hyped are - Calzaghe, Lopez, Marciano, Ottke, Ward, Mayweather and Charlo (who's down nothing fyi)? You basically implied that but I'm sure you'll twist this one too and it will be the white fighters that are the exceptions and still be fake.

As a boxer RJJ by far. As a businessman and matchmaker Floyd by far. Historically i rate a fighter by asking myself "who will you remember throughout the years? " Therefore fighters like Pacquiao and RJJ will long be remembered for what they did and how they changed the sport. Floyd was a great technician with a master business plan. He lost his first fight with Castillo and was very smart at managing risk (picking opponents at the right time).

Rjj wanted greatness more doing the unthinkable by being heavyweight champ from lmw. Floyd not so much so, just happy to retire undefeated but not worry too much how he went achieving that. Not giving advantages away if at all possible. RJJ is greater

The likes of Muniz, Chiaverini, Ranzany, Kayule, Shields, Lalonde were certainly good fighters. Not great. But he did fight four absolute all-time greats in Benitez, Hearns, Duran, Hagler so I think that trumps quantity especially given the timing of those matches. Floyd fought two great fighters - Marquez and Pacquaio. Marquez came up too far in weight and was considered a useless mismatch coming in (just moved up two weights and then moved up two more i.e they were 4 or 5 weight classes apart just 2-3 fights prior) and Pacquaio who was washed up and in your opinion a garbage fighter anyway so Floyd really didn't have a great win or fight a great fighter. That counts. A LOT. I notice you only post in threads sucking off your celeb crush and bashing white fighters. That doesn't get boring? You leaving out the fact that Floyd was usually the smaller fighter in a lot of fights & didn't have the physical attributes other fighters have. #48 was good but not as great as everyone makes him out to be & the same goes with these old fighters. You notice I post on certain threads cuz I jump on the Bullsh*t going on in social media & you think its "white fighters"? Don't be mad at me that fighters like lil g gets all the fake praise. Doesn't supporting hyped fighters get boring for you especially since they hype ones always end up losing?

Roy Jones was better. Jones was "Fighter Of The Decade" like Pacquiao floyd was "Fraud Of the Decades", ducking and cherrypicking

its amazing how the same ppl that rip floyds resume apart dont give jones the same treatment. well let me give roy equal love.. hopkins was NOT prime in 1993. toney was weight drained (lost 46lbs in SIX WEEKS.) ruiz was the sorriest heavyweight in the division. mccalum was a damn fossil. the first griffin fight proves prime roy was not unbeatable. he was ALWAYS trash fighting off the ropes. john "the beast" mugabi would crack roys glass chin at 160. mediocre tarver executed the blueprint that griffin laid out. but tarver is given zero credit because of roys "massive weight loss". he dropped 15-18 lbs in EIGHT MONTHS. he weighed in 175 for tarver and was 185 fight night. not drained. in rematch roy looks great round one then gets iced in round two. still tarver gets no props. if we give tarver zero credit because of roys weight issues then why give roy full credit for beating toney? knocked out cold by journeyman glen johnson. again with the montell griffin blueprint. from 2004 - 2018 roy was essentially a journeyman/bum. from 1993-2003 he was supposedly the best ever. 10 years on top (with a weak resume) 14 years at the bottom of the barrell. 📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌 this post is just to prove how effortless it is to take ANY career and rip it to to shreds. if you agree with most or all of it then why haven't YOU posted this before?

The answer is Floyd. You can split his career in half, and still have two HOF careers.

Roy Jones Jr is the greatest fighter of this generation. what generation?? they were from to different ones

in 75 fights for Roy Has a record of 22-3 (14 KOs) in world title fights. Has a record of 19-9 (8 KOs) against former, current and future world titlists. In 50 fights for Mayweather-Has a record of 26-0 (10 KO) in world title fights. Has a record of 23-0 (9 KO) in lineal title fights. Has a record of 24-0 (7 KO) against former or current world titlists:

I remember I watched a video where Nazeem Richardson broke down why Floyd and B Hop were greater than Roy. He said that because even when they had lost a step they were still able to compete and win fights at the elite level because they truly knew how to "fight." Nazeem said when Roy slowed down a lot of the holes in his game were exposed. The guy couldn't slip a punch properly, couldn't catch a punch properly or counter properly. Which explains why he's been knocked out so many times in his twilight years. Floyd is the better boxer and has the greater legacy.

Floyd: 130, 135, 140, 147, 154. vs John Ruiz? LOL Floyd is T.B.E. *************** naw...

Roy went through a stretch of facing some weak oppostion. Then he got knocked the **** out....multiple times. Thats counts against you.

or in other words quantity over quality...hmmm no. so you are saying floyd is greater than leonard cause leonard was only a top fighter for a couple years in reality. hmmm pretty sure leonard has 4 wins better than floyd but leonard lost to norris and camacho when he was old and floyd didn't so floyd "wins" the marathon. pretty sure Leonard wins the fighting and beating better competition portion of boxing. so did jones. buster Douglas best win is better than Lennox Lewis best win is buster a greater fighter than Lennox? gtfoh. this is a thread about floyd and Roy. not floyd and Ray leonard does Roy have a better resume than floyd? nope

But isn't the point that even though Floyd fought heavy punchers after 35 he was not even dropped? Nah this post wasn't really comparing to Floyd, my first post was comparing Roy to Floyd. My point is loads of greats have fought on too long, taken L's against guys who they wouldn't when they were younger but rarely do people say 'they relied on that athleticism, couldn't keep up once their athletic gifts faded' but for some reason with Roy this comes up a lot even though he didn't start taking major L's until post 35 which is fairly common for the greats who fought before him. Yeah he was a freak athlete, but imo you have to have a very good boxing IQ/skills to execute that athleticism at world/elite level. Not saying he had amazing IQ but i think it gets slept on because of how flashy he was.