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

[hugh grant]

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

[moochi]

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).

[chrisJS]

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 Bull**** 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.

[billeau2]

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.

[Caught Square]

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

[billeau2]

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.

[Vadrigar.]

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

Done.

[Caught Square]

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

[Derranged]

I still get bothered when I think about how Roy ruined himself by moving up to heavyweight and the moving back down. He was never the same.