True or False: Prime Roy Jones jr was on another level than Prime Floyd?

[UNBIASED BOXING]

Ok. Didn't Floyd do most of his achievements past the age of 30? Why couldn't Roy? So I will agree with you if you admit Floyd had a longer and better prime period than Roy.

I definitely agree with Glen , I am not too sure about Traver I feel like the magic man was always undervalued.

Tarver was a great fighter, but he was also the same guy who Harding beat. Not to mention, Roy pretty much thoroughly beaten Harding when they fought (although it was slow start for Roy, he picked it up in the fight). Keep in mind, these fights were around the same time, and before Roy moved up in weight. Roy before his move up to heavyweight would have thoroughly beaten him, in my opinion. The fact the first fight was close/controversial, despite Roy being weakened from the cut tells me as much.

Again: Roy's biggest problem was moving from light heavyweight to heavyweight.

Roy, when he fought Ruiz on fight night, was around 196 - 199 lbs. (depending on what his clothes weighed).

Roy, back when he fought at LHW (before moving up to Heavyweight), was approximately around 182-184 lbs. In fact, the fight prior to Ruiz, he supposedly weighed in on fight night around 182 lbs.

Couple that with the fact he had supposedly, only around a 2 month window to cut weight for the Tarver fight, as he was originally planning to stay and contest at heavyweight. He failed to get fights made against Holyfield (who hated Don King/opted for James Toney), Corrie Sanders, and even Mike Tyson. That's why he eventually settled back to 175 for a money fight against Tarver. Normally, when you go on a cut, you generally opt for cutting 1-2 pounds of fat a week, in order to preserve muscle mass. Of course, Roy has to make weight, so I'm sure him and his team were in a tough bind at this point.

Floyd never jumped up a massive amount of weight (I mean, put on a lot of weight) and cut back down. He always stayed and played to his strengths, without adding the weight. He was brilliant at his matchmaking, if not lucky in a way (in terms of his opposition available).

Not every fighter ages the same, anyways.

[billeau2]

I don't consider that to be Hopkins prime. Prime doesn't mean young age, it means when you are at your pinnacle two different things. Hopkins is fine wine he gotten better with age. That Hopkins that defeated Tito would had beaten Roy.

Fine so Roy beaten James Toney and Hopkins. Still not better than Floyd resume at all.

Well the point is not who has a better resume per se, though I would argue that Roy has a better resume because of those victories... But that is neither here nor there... The problem becomes when people qualify every win a fighter has. Keeping things simple is good... Was Chateau Hopkins at the perfect drinking temperature when he was pulled from the wine cellar to fight Jones? who knows, probably not, but he was Hopkins, he was able, and had his youth and some of his experience.

[Removed Now]

You disagreed to a different question and misrepresented Roy's prime. That's my problem with what you said.

Roy is my all time favorite fighter and I'm well aware of what he did and how some newer fans judge his whole career based on some bad post-prime losses and what they can go see on B@xrec but those few things don't tell Roy's whole story. He was P4P#1 for the better part of a decade for a reason. I'm not going to act like those things didn't happen. Roy was a better fighter at their absolute peaks even if Floyd has obviously retired with a better resume.

Fair statement. I do agree Roy's talent was out of this world in his prime. He could beat most fighters one handed.

It's sad his dad was so hard on him.

[Removed Now]

Tarver was a great fighter, but he was also the same guy who Harding beat. Not to mention, Roy pretty much thoroughly beaten Harding when they fought (although it was slow start for Roy, he picked it up in the fight). Keep in mind, these fights were around the same time, and before Roy moved up in weight. Roy before his move up to heavyweight would have thoroughly beaten him, in my opinion. The fact the first fight was close/controversial, despite Roy being weakened from the cut tells me as much.

Again: Roy's biggest problem was moving from light heavyweight to heavyweight.

Roy, when he fought Ruiz on fight night, was around 196 - 199 lbs. (depending on what his clothes weighed).

Roy, back when he fought at LHW (before moving up to Heavyweight), was approximately around 182-184 lbs. In fact, the fight prior to Ruiz, he supposedly weighed in on fight night around 182 lbs.

Couple that with the fact he had supposedly, only around a 2 month window to cut weight for the Tarver fight, as he was originally planning to stay and contest at heavyweight. He failed to get fights made against Holyfield (who hated Don King/opted for James Toney), Corrie Sanders, and even Mike Tyson. That's why he eventually settled back to 175 for a money fight against Tarver. Normally, when you go on a cut, you generally opt for cutting 1-2 pounds of fat a week, in order to preserve muscle mass. Of course, Roy has to make weight, so I'm sure him and his team were in a tough bind at this point.

Floyd never jumped up a massive amount of weight (I mean, put on a lot of weight) and cut back down. He always stayed and played to his strengths, without adding the weight. He was brilliant at his matchmaking, if not lucky in a way (in terms of his opposition available).

Not every fighter ages the same, anyways.

Agree with most of what you said. Yes the jump up to heavyweight and back down hurt Roy. However he did it for the money and let's face it he beat one of the weakest heavyweight champions ever. Do I think Roy had a chance against a legit heavyweight? Hell no.

Do I think a healthy Roy beats Traver sure. Could Traver maybe made it interesting sure but I think it would had been close or a Roy KO.

As far as Floyd goes he's resume speaks for it self. He went from featherweight to Junior Middle weight and outclassed alot of Hall of Famers on the way. Was he lucky due to his time period of course. But we can make say the same for Roy and Manny fighters.

I would love to see prime Roy against Ward, Calzaghe, Kovalev, Dawson ( when he was P4P) , Stevenson and later age Hopkins.

[Removed Now]

[QUOTE=billeau2;19487772]Well the point is not who has a better resume per se, though I would argue that Roy has a better resume because of those victories... But that is neither here nor there... The problem becomes when people qualify every win a fighter has. Keeping things simple is good... Was Chateau Hopkins at the perfect drinking temperature when he was pulled from the wine cellar to fight Jones? who knows, probably not, but he was Hopkins, he was able, and had his youth and some of his experience.[/QUOTE]

If you replaced youth with mature would you still give credit to your statement? At one point Leonard was beaten down by Comacho and Ali by homes. They were still Ali and Ray and they still have some experience but we both know it's not the same. If you are giving him credit for the win over a young Hopkins then you must give fighters that same W for older fighters. At the end of the day they took the fight and got paid. Now personal I would never hold Roy's lost to Enzo over his head but by your statement a W is a w no matter what age.

The wine is still drinkable even though it's in poor taste correct?

Besides that I agree 100% with you.