"Greater Fighter" you asked. That along with your own comments answers the question. RJJ was one of the ATG fighters, he had supernatural speed, reflexes, skill and power. RJJ was a "fighter" in the oldest and truest sense of the word. Floyd is an ATG in his own right and both are 1st ballot IBHOF inductees but Floyd doesn't meet the "fighter" qualifications, he has a lot of God given talent but he is more of defensive specialist, hit and run technician not a classic, true sense of the word "fighter". RJJ could take an opponent out with one shot or beautiful power combinations and looked good doing it. Not doing the P4P thing here, he fought the best/tougher opposition.
Greater fighter: Roy Jones Jr or Floyd Mayweather?
Collapse
-
-
No I don't just like I don't include Lacy or Tito for Roy. However if I did include them I would include Tito and Lacy.When I talk about Mayweathers resume, I don't mention Berto or Mitchell. Do you?
You're walking a thin line with resume, ranking, name and caliber fighter...
Let's see..
Johnson went on to arguably beat Tarver and beat Gonzales.
Hill went on to beat Tiozzo, who is arguably a HOF, Lalonde and Brudov.
Mosley went on to beat no one.
De La Hoya went on to beat Steve Forbes in a bout most would say he lost.
So no, these aren't fair comparisons.
A fair comparison for you would be Pac. Pac, albeit, over the hill, went on to have descent wins after Floyd.
Tito, Lacy, Shane and DLH should be clumped together regardless of rankings because all 4 fighters were at the very end of their careers and went on to accomplish zilch after their respective bouts with Roy/Floyd.
They were names, that's all they were. Ghosts of what they use to be.
I do include Johnson and Hill same way I include Mosley, Cotto and De La Hoya.
I don't think it matters what happened after because that's circumstantial. What matters is how they were conisdered at the time.
Also, De La Hoya might have looked bad against Forbes but to say "most think he lost" is ridiculous. Oscar won the fight.Comment
-
When evaluating a win on a fighters resume, you have to account for what the opponent did afterwards. If we didnt count what their opponent did afterwards, Hopkins wouldn't be considered an ATG win because Hopkins didnt become an ATG until "after" he fought RJJ
So yes, the "after" counts as well for a totality assessment on their respective victory. Just like the "after" is counting for Floyd's victory over Canelo. Are you saying if Canelo beats GGG we shouldn't count that as justification for showing how good of a win Canelo counts for Floyd's resume?Last edited by Chollo Vista; 07-04-2017, 01:56 PM.Comment
-
Everyone's circumstances are different, and there's no way you can do direct comparisons between 2 guys from different weight classes, who peaked at different times. It's impossible.
Manny has won titles in twice as many weight classes as what Roy did. But does that automatically mean that he accomplished more than Roy?
You can't just debate statistics.Comment
-
Correct.
Whilst they weren't great wins for Floyd, they have to be better than Roy's wins over Tito and Lacy.
Tito hadn't fought for almost 3 years, and he weighed in at 172 pounds. He was no longer a top level fighter. And neither was Lacy. The performance against Lacy by was great. It was very pleasing on the eye. But performances and wins are 2 different things entirely. So although it was a great performance, it was a meaningless win.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 07-04-2017, 05:19 PM.Comment
-
Nobody cared about the WBO in the late 90's-early 00's. They were a laughing stock, and the Ring didn't even acknowledge them.
The issue with Dariusz, was:
He'd been stripped of the WBA and the IBF belts that he'd won from Virgil Hill.
They were made vacant and were won by Lou Del Valle and Reggie Johnson. Then Roy beat the both of them to add to his WBC belt. Which made Roy the unified LHW champ. But Dariusz hadn't lost the belts in the ring. So understandably, everyone wanted Roy and Dariusz to fight, to establish who the true champion was. Personally, I think Roy was on another level, and I think he'd definitely have beaten him. But the fight should have happened. But neither guy would make concessions in order for it to happen.Last edited by robertzimmerman; 07-04-2017, 05:27 PM.Comment
-
This is a good analogy.Comment
-
Oscar was faded when he fought Floyd, but he was completely on another level to the versions of Tito and Lacy who Roy fought.When I talk about Mayweathers resume, I don't mention Berto or Mitchell. Do you?
You're walking a thin line with ranking, name and caliber fighter...
Let's see..
Johnson went on to arguably beat Tarver and beat Gonzales.
Hill went on to beat Tiozzo, who is arguably a HOF, Lalonde and Brudov.
Mosley went on to beat no one.
De La Hoya went on to beat Steve Forbes in a bout most would say he lost.
So no, these aren't fair comparisons.
A fair comparison for you would be Pac. Pac, albeit, over the hill, went on to have descent wins after Floyd.
Tito, Lacy, Shane and DLH should be clumped together regardless of rankings because all 4 fighters were at the very end of their careers and went on to accomplish zilch after their respective bouts with Roy/Floyd.
They were names, that's all they were. Ghosts of what they use to be.Comment
-
-
Comment