Help settle this Top 10 debate

[r.burgundy]

I could see that, yeah.

I just think Griffin's underrated, very good fighter IMO.

Virgil Hill was #1 at LHW at the time.

Woods is a good solid contender and a good win but me myself I'd lean on Hill over him.

Agree with you though all the wins listed here are good wins IMO.

griffin was a solid contender,but too physically limited to be a real impressive win for somebody who has a solid resume like jones

virgil hill was never really that good to begin with.he was always just a decent fighter.he lost to a washed up tommy hearns.roy is supposed to be destroy him.i think eric lucas is a better win that hill.i gave clinton woods the edge because of what he went on to do after he fought jones.

[Humean]

As for Roy Jones top 5 wins, hmmm, I'm not too sure.

Completely off the top of my head, I'd probably have;

1. James Toney
2. Bernard Hopkins
3. Montell Griffin
4. Virgill Hill
5. Antonio Tarver

Again that's entirely off the top of my head, but that's probably the five I'd have unless I'm forgetting someone.

That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Castro? Thalinga? Lucas? Reggie Johnson? Woods?

I think there is good depth to Jones' resume but apart from the Toney win there isn't the really fantastic top wins that other great fighter's tend to have had. Of course the manner of his victories and how he looked in them is a different story.

virgil hill was never really that good to begin with.he was always just a decent fighter.he lost to a washed up tommy hearns.roy is supposed to be destroy him.i think eric lucas is a better win that hill.i gave clinton woods the edge because of what he went on to do after he fought jones.

You can certainly question the version of Hill that Jones beat considering that Hill was 34 and coming off a defeat by Michalczewski ten months previous but to say he was merely a decent fighter is surely very harsh. This is a guy who was the WBA light heavyweight champion for, in total, about 9 years. Losing to an over the hill Hearns is hardly a great criticism of Hill

[r.burgundy]

Castro? Thalinga? Lucas? Reggie Johnson? Woods?

I think there is good depth to Jones' resume but apart from the Toney win there isn't the really fantastic top wins that other great fighter's tend to have had. Of course the manner of his victories and how he looked in them is a different story.



You can certainly question the version of Hill that Jones beat considering that Hill was 34 and coming off a defeat by Michalczewski ten months previous but to say he was merely a decent fighter is surely very harsh. This is a guy who was the WBA light heavyweight champion for, in total, about 9 years. Losing to an over the hill Hearns is hardly a great criticism of Hill

hill is a great win for hearns,but for roy its just a decent win at best.hill was extremely past it.as far as his wba title reign,who did he beat?

[IronDanHamza]

Castro? Thalinga? Lucas? Reggie Johnson? Woods?

I think there is good depth to Jones' resume but apart from the Toney win there isn't the really fantastic top wins that other great fighter's tend to have had. Of course the manner of his victories and how he looked in them is a different story.



You can certainly question the version of Hill that Jones beat considering that Hill was 34 and coming off a defeat by Michalczewski ten months previous but to say he was merely a decent fighter is surely very harsh. This is a guy who was the WBA light heavyweight champion for, in total, about 9 years. Losing to an over the hill Hearns is hardly a great criticism of Hill

Yeah, all good shouts and all good solid wins. There's more to that list aswell of good solid contenders he beat.

I think that long list of good wins aswell as the Toney and Hopkins wins are a great resume. Especially with the ease he managed to do most of it.

[BennyST]

One fighter that has not been mentioned yet, but definitely should be in the Top 10 in my opinion, is Jung-Koo Chang.

The Korean prodigy burned out quickly due to his early peak and lack of dedication, but he was an excellent fighter in his prime and maybe the most underrated of all the great fighters from the 80’s.

Chang was a swarmer that stylistically reminds of a young but less technically developed Roberto Duran. He had superb speed of foot, good hand speed, a great defensive radar for a swarmer and was excellent at blending his offense and defense simultaneously.

In his prime, he used his great foot speed to close the distance quickly and maul on the inside. With his defensive radar, he slipped punches instinctively while seamlessly integrating his offense to the maximum. He could also box at range, although in an unorthodox manner.

Because of his reliance of his physical gifts to make his style function properly, he struggled badly when his partying lifestyle and Benitez-esque overall lack of dedication started to take a toll on him. He never got the technical schooling which is required to being able to stay at the top when your body starts to betray you, but this was most notable late in his career and in his comeback.

Chang was a natural with bad training habits, not a gym-rat like his countryman Myung-Woo Yuh, who didn’t have nearly as many physical gifts as Chang, but succeeded because of his discipline and dedication to his craft.

Overall, Jung-Koo Chang is one of the biggest natural talents that the sport has ever seen, but because of his weight (light flyweight) and nationality (South Korea) he doesn’t get the recognition he deserves.

Chang is among my all time favourite fighters. Some of his wars were simply incredible. His fight with Katsuo Tokashiki in particular is, without doubt, one of the very best lower weight fights of all time and up there right next to Gonzalez/Carbajal I.

Other fights like Kittikasem and Ohashi were great fun too.

Great, great fighter at his best though. His three round destruction Hilario Zapata was epic. Just ran through him as revenge for their first match, which he lost by SD very closely. Hard fight to score.