Top 20 of all times?

[IronDanHamza]

Roy has the better wins vs toney, hopkins, but other than that, the resumes are very close,, Johnson was a heavy so obviously he doesnt get the chance to say he was a multi-division champ like roy... roy has a slightly better resume, but overall they are very close

You're just repeating exactly what you said last time and not answering the question.

How do you work that out?

Their resumes are not close.

Laporte is the same level as as griffin, over the hill HILL, probably not better than the tarver win TBH
Camacho and rosario are better than any wins roy has besides toney or hopkins
Taylor was a great fighter, but a short shelf life,, but he was absolutely primed when he fought chavez,, Taylor is the same caliber as toney or hopkins, he just didnt have a long career, but late 80s taylor was as good as it gets, and it was a great win for chavez.. Taylor didnt have the longevity like toney or hopkins,, but beating taylor 90 is much better than beating hopkins 93 IMO.. Toney might be a better win, but as you know, i dont think that was the best version of toney

No Larporte is not. He really is not. Larporte lost to almost every good fighter he faced.

Meldrick Taylor was a great fighter? No, he wasn't.

On what Planet is Meldrick Taylor the same level as James Toney and Bernard Hopkins? Not on this one that's for sure.

Tarver beat roy's ass at the same stage, and pernell is much much much better than tarver....

let roy have 90 fights vs everyone on the block like chavez did,, i think vinny paz is the only guy chavez didnt fight from that era...
Like i said earlier, its the case of big win vs depth,,,, roy had the big win vs toney, chavez had year after year of beating top guys from 84-93 chavez was beating top guys,,, roy from 94-03 was beating lucas, byrd, brannon, frazier, griffin, del valle

I'm still not seeing what your point is here.

Chavez lost to a better fighter than Roy lost to. Ok??? Is there a point?

The thing is you're saying Roy Jones and Chavez are close yet Chavez is a lock Top 20 ATG for you and Roy Jones is no where near. Doesn't make any sense.

I don't have Roy Jones Top 20 but he's not far off and the point here is it's being said that Roy Jones is no where near Top 20 yet by your own accord Chavez (A top 20 ATG to you) is comparable to Chavez. Literally doesn't make sense.

We have Jimmy Wilde in a Top 20 ATG list who doesn't even come close to Roy Jones in any catergory.

We have Jack Johnson in a Top 20 list who doesn't come close to Roy Jones in any category.

[billeau2]

How do you work this one out?



How the hell is Juan Laporte the same level as Montel Griffin, Hill or Tarver?

Roger Mayweather is no better than those wins.

I don't think even think Camacho or Rosario are all that better than those wins, if better at all.

I don't think Meldrick Taylor is a "Great" win. What makes it a great win?

James Toney is a great win, a dominant win over a great fighter in his prime.

Taylor's a great win because he beat a good fighter and struggled badly?




Whitaker beat Chavez easily so I don't see the relevance of this.

Chavez lost to a better fighter? Ok..

Especially considering when Chavez fought a lot of those guys like Camacho they were past it...and the Meldrick victory was hardly absolute! I mean I am no Jones fan but the truth is that when he beat the guys he did in the early part of his career they were still basically in tact (although Mccallum and Hill were a bit past it if memory serves correct) and he won convincingly. So yeah Jones is better than Chavez.

jones against Johnson is tricky though...The heavies usually cannot match the depth of opposition of the other divisions. This is because there are more people that weigh between 150-190 than over 200 pounds, and more people compete to fight at these weights and you subsequently get more and better comp...it is really obvious in Thai boxing. Johnson had outstanding gifts but is best compared to other heavies...thats why I hate these lists! inevitably one winds up comparing apples and oranges.

[billeau2]

You're just repeating exactly what you said last time and not answering the question.

How do you work that out?

Their resumes are not close.



No Larporte is not. He really is not. Larporte lost to almost every good fighter he faced.

Meldrick Taylor was a great fighter? No, he wasn't.

On what Planet is Meldrick Taylor the same level as James Toney and Bernard Hopkins? Not on this one that's for sure.






I'm still not seeing what your point is here.

Chavez lost to a better fighter than Roy lost to. Ok??? Is there a point?

The thing is you're saying Roy Jones and Chavez are close yet Chavez is a lock Top 20 ATG for you and Roy Jones is no where near. Doesn't make any sense.

I don't have Roy Jones Top 20 but he's not far off and the point here is it's being said that Roy Jones is no where near Top 20 yet by your own accord Chavez (A top 20 ATG to you) is comparable to Chavez. Literally doesn't make sense.

We have Jimmy Wilde in a Top 20 ATG list who doesn't even come close to Roy Jones in any catergory.

We have Jack Johnson in a Top 20 list who doesn't come close to Roy Jones in any category.

I would defend the Johnson choice on the grounds that if you look at any heavyweight great with the exception if Ali, there were inevitably great fighters coming up to fight for the crown ( think Conn, Charles, Moore...bith Archie and Michael! etc) and a pausity of great fighters in the division when compared to other divisions. Therefore a great heavyweight could never face the comp that someone in a more loaded division faced. Which is why great fighters would come up to steal the belt!

Therefore to compare resumes with heavyweights is a hard sell. Even Louis who fought some great fighters never fought in a division as stocked as Conn who was a natural light heavy to lighter....Just something to think about.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

You're just repeating exactly what you said last time and not answering the question.

How do you work that out?

Their resumes are not close.

I dont know what to say to this,,, johnson pretty much fought everyone in his era, and so did jones,, heavy and lightheavy were not exceptionally deep during eithers reign, toney and hopkins being the difference for roy, johnson's best wins were vs smaller guys coming up

No Larporte is not. He really is not. Larporte lost to almost every good fighter he faced. so did alot of fighters on roy's resume,, please tell me the best wins for lucas, brannon, byrd, frazier, woods, etc

Meldrick Taylor was a great fighter? No, he wasn't.

On what Planet is Meldrick Taylor the same level as James Toney and Bernard Hopkins? Not on this one that's for sure.

Yes he was for a very short time,,, taylor of 90 was much much better than hopkins of 93,,, taylor didnt have the longevity and was shot very early due to his style but he was a great fighter in his prime, he just didnt know when to step off and back out,, he was always there to be hit no mater how fast his hands were,,, im not saying he had an ATG career or even HOF career, but i know you watched boxing back then, and there is no way you can say meldrick wasnt a great fighter at his peak from 86-90.... It was very short time period but no denying his talent at the time

I'm still not seeing what your point is here.

Chavez lost to a better fighter than Roy lost to. Ok??? Is there a point?

The thing is you're saying Roy Jones and Chavez are close yet Chavez is a lock Top 20 ATG for you and Roy Jones is no where near. Doesn't make any sense.

I don't have Roy Jones Top 20 but he's not far off and the point here is it's being said that Roy Jones is no where near Top 20 yet by your own accord Chavez (A top 20 ATG to you) is comparable to Chavez. Literally doesn't make sense.

Dude, i said many times on this thread or maybe the one on NSB,, but i have roy roughly around 25-30.... I have said this many times on NSB thread for sure and i will have to recheck if i said it on this one,,, Roy top 50 lock, and for me somewhere around 25..... I usually have chavez at 18-20... so in the whole history of boxing with millions of fighters, i have the guys roughly 5-7 spots difference...

We have Jimmy Wilde in a Top 20 ATG list who doesn't even come close to Roy Jones in any catergory.

We have Jack Johnson in a Top 20 list who doesn't come close to Roy Jones in any category.

I think it was this thread where i clearly said wilde isnt close at all,, i think i was responding to a lacedup and reubansonny debate... Johnson isnt in my top 20,, he use to be but i explained why i changed my mind on him over the past few months,, All these posts i have should be in the first few pages of this thread... Johnson is much closer to roy than wilde is IMO,,,

[IronDanHamza]

I dont know what to say to this,,, johnson pretty much fought everyone in his era, and so did jones,, heavy and lightheavy were not exceptionally deep during eithers reign, toney and hopkins being the difference for roy, johnson's best wins were vs smaller guys coming up

I keep seeing this. What does this mean?

Rocky Marciano fought everyone in his era. So did Muhammad Ali. Who ranks higher?

If two guys fight everyone, and one of the guys fights better fighters than who ranks higher?

Roy Jones resume is much better than Johnson's.

so did alot of fighters on roy's resume,, please tell me the best wins for lucas, brannon, byrd, frazier, woods

The difference is, those names aren't being touted as his best wins or even good wins.

You're touting Laporte as a win that's apparently better than anything Roy did other than Toney which is just ridiculous.

Laporte is no better than Clinton Woods.

Yes he was for a very short time,,, taylor of 90 was much much better than hopkins of 93,,, taylor didnt have the longevity and was shot very early due to his style but he was a great fighter in his prime, he just didnt know when to step off and back out,, he was always there to be hit no mater how fast his hands were,,, im not saying he had an ATG career or even HOF career, but i know you watched boxing back then, and there is no way you can say meldrick wasnt a great fighter at his peak from 86-90.... It was very short time period but no denying his talent at the time

I watched Boxing then and no he wasn't great.

He looked like he might have had the potential to be great. But as sure as hell didn't live up to it.

He was a very good fighter and was seconds away from beating Chavez but he was not a great fighter.

Comparing him to Roy's win over Toney is insane.

Dude, i said many times on this thread or maybe the one on NSB,, but i have roy roughly around 25-30.... I have said this many times on NSB thread for sure and i will have to recheck if i said it on this one,,, Roy top 50 lock, and for me somewhere around 25..... I usually have chavez at 18-20... so in the whole history of boxing with millions of fighters, i have the guys roughly 5-7 spots difference

But you also said he's not close to Top 20 and there's no way he's Top 20.

But Chavez is #15 on your list and admittedly comparable to Jones in your words.

I know that if Chavez is a Top 20 ATG then you have to consider Roy Jones amongst the same calibur, at the very least.

I think it was this thread where i clearly said wilde isnt close at all,, i think i was responding to a lacedup and reubansonny debate... Johnson isnt in my top 20,, he use to be but i explained why i changed my mind on him over the past few months,, All these posts i have should be in the first few pages of this thread... Johnson is much closer to roy than wilde is IMO,,,

I know you didn't say it but my point is that originally the notion of Roy Jones being amongst the Top 20 was considered laughable, then we have the likes of Wilde, Chavez, Johnson and Dempsey in a Top 20 list which is clearly ahead of all of them. The only one that's even arguable is Chavez.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

@irondan
I can't do the quote bubble very good so I will just break it down

1. Laporte win isn't the best win for Chavez, no doubt. But it is on par with most of Roy's wins besides toney and Hopkins.. Roy's career was basically fighting Laporte caliber fighters, guys that were ranked, maybe get their hands on a paper title, but lose every time they stepped up.. I wasn't really trying to tout him as a great win, I just think he is a better win than say Lou de Valle, Castro, etc

2 johnson and Roy fought in relatively weak divisions,,, very little separates them apart from the toney win.... Johnson didn't fight that one guy, i can't recall his name, and Roy didn't fight the other champs at 160, 168, or michlewski,,, both have very similar resumes in terms of talent faced... Roy can say he fought more champs but in reality, without the paper champs he fought one champ in toney,,, all the other guys were paper champs, and even the former champs he fought were way past it.. The champs that johnson fought were better than an old mccallum,,, Ruiz, griffin, de Valle, Reggie, etc would not be champs without paper titles so Roy's accolades look great but a lot of flash and little substance

3. If toney doesn't make a miraculous comeback at heavy and cruiser, his career would be very similar to Taylor,,, Taylor was just as good as toney, he didn't struggle and get get beat by drake thadzi, Dave Tiberi, griffin caliber fighters in his prime... Taylor was an Olympian, undefeated world champ,,, I don't see how toney was that much more accomplished than Taylor,,, yeah toney would comeback nearly a decade later and 50 lbs fatter and have some success, but that doesn't mean he was leagues above Taylor in terms of talent... TAylor 90 was a harder out than toney 94... If Tiberi and some lesser caliber fighters like merqui Sosa could take toney to the brink, I don't understand how you can clearly state toney was so much better than Taylor, when Taylor pretty much dominated everyone in his prime

4. I guess I won't make a big deal if someone has jones 18-20, I don't think he is clearly a top 20 atg,,, when you spend the majority of your prime from nov 94 to spring 03 and not fighting anyone of historical or modern substance it's hard for me to place u top 20.. Then throw in an incredible weak run at 160, where an unknown Philly club fighter turned out to be a great fighter a decade later, is your best win,, it's very hard for me to make him top 20,, weak resume at 160, ok resume at 168 with toney and nothing else, decent run at lhw but it was a pretty weak division and never fought main contender at 175 in michlewski, not that I blame Roy, it's just hard to say your top 20 with many glaring gaps in the fighters history when compared to guys like Benny Leonard, srl, etc

[IronDanHamza]

1. Laporte win isn't the best win for Chavez, no doubt. But it is on par with most of Roy's wins besides toney and Hopkins.. Roy's career was basically fighting Laporte caliber fighters, guys that were ranked, maybe get their hands on a paper title, but lose every time they stepped up.. I wasn't really trying to tout him as a great win, I just think he is a better win than say Lou de Valle, Castro, etc

Well you included him in a list of wins that are better than anything Jones did outside of Toney.

Like I said, beating Laporte is no better than beating Clinton Woods. Which isn't even one of Jones' best wins.

2 johnson and Roy fought in relatively weak divisions,,, very little separates them apart from the toney win.... Johnson didn't fight that one guy, i can't recall his name, and Roy didn't fight the other champs at 160, 168, or michlewski,,, both have very similar resumes in terms of talent faced... Roy can say he fought more champs but in reality, without the paper champs he fought one champ in toney,,, all the other guys were paper champs, and even the former champs he fought were way past it.. The champs that johnson fought were better than an old mccallum,,, Ruiz, griffin, de Valle, Reggie, etc would not be champs without paper titles so Roy's accolades look great but a lot of flash and little substance

I'll aska third time. How do you work this one out?

Compare their resumes and tell me which one is better.

It is clearly Roy Jones.

3. If toney doesn't make a miraculous comeback at heavy and cruiser, his career would be very similar to Taylor,,, Taylor was just as good as toney, he didn't struggle and get get beat by drake thadzi, Dave Tiberi, griffin caliber fighters in his prime... Taylor was an Olympian, undefeated world champ,,, I don't see how toney was that much more accomplished than Taylor,,, yeah toney would comeback nearly a decade later and 50 lbs fatter and have some success, but that doesn't mean he was leagues above Taylor in terms of talent... TAylor 90 was a harder out than toney 94... If Tiberi and some lesser caliber fighters like merqui Sosa could take toney to the brink, I don't understand how you can clearly state toney was so much better than Taylor, when Taylor pretty much dominated everyone in his prime

James Toney's a lot more accomplished than Taylor.

Taylor's best win at the time and probably in his career was Buddy McGirt and he didn't dominate that fight either.

He's not a great fighter. He's not even a HOF fighter.

4. I guess I won't make a big deal if someone has jones 18-20, I don't think he is clearly a top 20 atg,,, when you spend the majority of your prime from nov 94 to spring 03 and not fighting anyone of historical or modern substance it's hard for me to place u top 20.. Then throw in an incredible weak run at 160, where an unknown Philly club fighter turned out to be a great fighter a decade later, is your best win,, it's very hard for me to make him top 20,, weak resume at 160, ok resume at 168 with toney and nothing else, decent run at lhw but it was a pretty weak division and never fought main contender at 175 in michlewski, not that I blame Roy, it's just hard to say your top 20 with many glaring gaps in the fighters history when compared to guys like Benny Leonard, srl, etc

Ok, well that's not what you were saying before.

Either way I don't have Roy Jones in my Top 20. He's obviously not clearly Top 20 calibur but he's not far off.

And greater than a few of the fighters being mentioned.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Irondan


Not sure what u want me to say about johnson and jones resumes.. How does what work out?? Besides just cut and paste their boxrec pages, I don't understand what your asking... My whole point was that they are very similar resumes,, Roy beating toney is probably the best win, but other than that resumes very close in terms of talent faced...both eras where kinda weak in terms of serious top level contenders.. Johnson's best opponents were smaller fighters up in weight and jones feasted on paper champs and b level guys like Harding, Sosa,
Roy probably has slightly better resume, but not by much

[IronDanHamza]

Irondan


Not sure what u want me to say about johnson and jones resumes.. How does what work out?? Besides just cut and paste their boxrec pages, I don't understand what your asking... My whole point was that they are very similar resumes,, Roy beating toney is probably the best win, but other than that resumes very close in terms of talent faced...both eras where kinda weak in terms of serious top level contenders.. Johnson's best opponents were smaller fighters up in weight and jones feasted on paper champs and b level guys like Harding, Sosa,
Roy probably has slightly better resume, but not by much

My point is is their resumes are not close.

Not in talent faced, not in depth, not in any way.

Roy Jones clearly has a much better resume than Johnson.

[LacedUp]

My point is is their resumes are not close.

Not in talent faced, not in depth, not in any way.

Roy Jones clearly has a much better resume than Johnson.

Johnson has the best win out of him and Roy Jones, no?