Names like Vaca Sosa and Gonzalez only look bad because Roy dominated them.
Vaca was coming off wins against once champions like Mark Breland Quincy Taylor x2. Vaca also gave an ATG Terry Norris a pretty good fight losing by split decision. The fights I mentioned before clearly shows he was quality fighter and stiff competition
Sosa beat the former light heavyweight champion Prince Charles 2x before fighting Roy and had given Toney hell at middleweight, he even beat Glen Johnson a couple years after losing to Roy.
And as said before how can you on one hand complain about him not fighting Dariusz but then not give him proper credit for beating the guy who beat Dariusz. No its not the same as Roy beating Dariusz but it shows that Gonzalez was clearly a solid fighter and stiff competition.
"LOL yeah I knew you would come in to this thread with something ******"
Like I said though, please continue with it. I want you to.
Names like Vaca Sosa and Gonzalez only look bad because Roy dominated them.
Vaca was coming off wins against once champions like Mark Breland Quincy Taylor x2. Vaca also gave an ATG Terry Norris a pretty good fight losing by split decision. The fights I mentioned before clearly shows he was quality fighter and stiff competition
Sosa beat the former light heavyweight champion Prince Charles 2x before fighting Roy and had given Toney hell at middleweight, he even beat Glen Johnson a couple years after losing to Roy.
It doesn't look bad because Jones dominated them, it looks bad because it can also be done with every single fighter I listed. All you did was fluff his resume and have ignored that it can be done with others as well.
And as said before how can you on one hand complain about him not fighting Dariusz but then not give him proper credit for beating the guy who beat Dariusz. No its not the same as Roy beating Dariusz but it shows that Gonzalez was clearly a solid fighter and stiff competition.
I didn't bring up Michalczewski, you did. But since you brought it up, how is Gonzales beating a 35 year old fighter with 20 title defenses make him a great win for Jones? That must make Spinks a great win for Tyson because he had beaten a ripe for picking Larry Holmes. Gonzales is a decent win, but its nothing to fluff a resume with when trying to argue it's the greatest in modern history.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "modern" era in your opinion?
I didn't bring up Michalczewski, you did. But since you brought it up, how is Gonzales beating a 35 year old fighter with 20 title defenses make him a great win for Jones? That must make Spinks a great win for Tyson because he had beaten a ripe for picking Larry Holmes. Gonzales is a decent win, but its nothing to fluff a resume with when trying to argue it's the greatest in modern history.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "modern" era in your opinion?
Yes actually Spinks is a great win for Tyson because its more then winning its how they won.
Last 40 years or so since Ali and King rose to prominence
Oh and don't be so sensitive saying I knew you would come in to this thread with something ****** to say isn't an insult
Yes actually Spinks is a great win for Tyson because its more then winning its how they won.
And what about the quality of the fighter at the time of the win? Spinks was no longer physically prime with two shot knee's and while he was a decent heavyweight he was nothing close to the fighter he was at 175.
Last 40 years or so since Ali and King rose to prominence
Oh and don't be so sensitive saying I knew you would come in to this thread with something ****** to say isn't an insult
What was it than? If you can explain to me what was ****** about my initial post in this thread I'll be happy to apologize for my sensitivity. Everything you did in your first post with Jones comp, I can do that for every fighter I named.
What was it than? If you can explain to me what was ****** about my initial post in this thread I'll be happy to apologize for my sensitivity. Everything you did in your first post with Jones comp, I can do that for every fighter I named.
Spinks was still undefeated and retired as the legit heavyweight champion, man handling him like tyson is VERY impressive. I don't think their is another fighter who could have man handled Spinks like that.
De La Hoya definitely doesn't have a better resume than Roy Jones Jr.
Hernandez, Chavez, Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, Camacho, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao. Lesser names would be Vargas, Mayorga, Gatti, Carr, Gonzales, Leija, Ruelas. Not so sure about that Dan. He may not have beat them all, but he certainly fought a much tougher group of fighters than Jones did in my opinion.
[COLOR="Navy"]
Hernandez, Chavez, Whitaker, Trinidad, Quartey, Camacho, Mosley, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacquiao. Lesser names would be Vargas, Mayorga, Gatti, Carr, Gonzales, Leija, Ruelas. Not so sure about that Dan. He may not have beat them all, but he certainly fought a much tougher group of fighters than Jones did in my opinion.[/COLOR]
Couldnt the same be said of complete nobodies who have been brought in as opponents for big name fighters? If losses count on your resume the best resume of all time probably goes to a 23-44 fighter.
Spinks was still undefeated and retired as the legit heavyweight champion, man handling him likfighter who could have man handled Spinks like that.
You completely ignored my question as well as the question asking what in my initial post was ******. Jim Jeffries was undefeated when he lost to Jack Johnson. He may have always lost, but he certainly wasn't the same fighter he had been years before. The circumstances might have been different, but you get the idea. Spinks is a great NAME to have on his resume, and its a good win, but lets look at ALL the factors surrounding it.
Comment