Who Was The Greater Fighter: Tyson Or Jones?

[cfang]

Jones by a mile. He beat toney and hopkins. Those are better wins than tysons. In fact tyson has one win against a great fighter and he was old.

[dr_devious]

Mike Spinks was a great fighter too......at light heavy

[cfang]

Aye indeed he was

[Tuan_Jim]

Jones by a mile. He beat toney and hopkins. Those are better wins than tysons. In fact tyson has one win against a great fighter and he was old.

The green Bernard Hopkins Jones beat was better than Tyson's opponents?

No.

[Post 4 Post]

Both very different fighters & careers, yet so much in common

Both icons

Both looked & considered unbeatable at their peak

Both have a love of birds & both also train them to compete.

Both knowledgeable on the game

Both historians of the sport

Both good on the mic

Both blinding speed

Both KO power

Both considered #1

2 of the most special fighters since Ali/Leonard

Jones edges Tyson in all time greatness.

[p4p1]

It should be Jones and it should be Jones by the length of Flemington straight. He should have been able to dominate and be the man at 3 weight divisions. I've never been completely sure why he never went for a title at 154 when he was able to make the weight for the first few years of his career but his whole career seems to have been risk averse.
Jones won a title at MW but avoided the top MW's
Jones beat Toney at SMW which is a huge win but avoided most other top SMW's.
Jones beat most around at LHW but never was the undisputed and/or lineal champion despite the ring giving him their title.
He beat Ruiz for a HW title which looks great on paper but Ruiz wasn't even the WBAs real champion at the time.
By the eye test Jones look likes one of the greatest fighters ever but achievement wise I don't even know if he cracks the top 100.

Tyson on the other hand did become the undisputed and lineal champion of his weight division. He was not the best of his era but for a time he was the clear #1. Tyson took risks in his career and did fight most guys though he did avoid some, just not the the stage that Jones has appeared to.

If Jones MW wins over all or some of Jackson, McClellan, Castro, Johnson, SMW wins over Liles, Benn, Calzaghe (even Joe at 175) and a win against Michalczewski and Rocchigiani (who he did sign to fight but it fell through at no fault of his own) at 175, Jones would undoubtedly be one of the greatest ever. But his record is filled with no names and no risks until he was in his mid 30's by which stage he was past his best and lost to a bunch of guys who weren't fit to shine his shoes in his prime. A win over one of the top guys at Cruiser would have meant more IMO than his win over Ruiz.

So I have to say simply based on the fact that Tyson was the real undisputed/lineal champion while Jones never was makes Tyson greater.

[margaret thatcher]

you always have to look beyond labels

who did tyson beat to become undisputed, and how do wins over those men stack up vs jones?

[Ruthless-RKO]

It should be Jones and it should be Jones by the length of Flemington straight. He should have been able to dominate and be the man at 3 weight divisions. I've never been completely sure why he never went for a title at 154 when he was able to make the weight for the first few years of his career but his whole career seems to have been risk averse.
Jones won a title at MW but avoided the top MW's
Jones beat Toney at SMW which is a huge win but avoided most other top SMW's.
Jones beat most around at LHW but never was the undisputed and/or lineal champion despite the ring giving him their title.
He beat Ruiz for a HW title which looks great on paper but Ruiz wasn't even the WBAs real champion at the time.
By the eye test Jones look likes one of the greatest fighters ever but achievement wise I don't even know if he cracks the top 100.

Tyson on the other hand did become the undisputed and lineal champion of his weight division. He was not the best of his era but for a time he was the clear #1. Tyson took risks in his career and did fight most guys though he did avoid some, just not the the stage that Jones has appeared to.

If Jones MW wins over all or some of Jackson, McClellan, Castro, Johnson, SMW wins over Liles, Benn, Calzaghe (even Joe at 175) and a win against Michalczewski and Rocchigiani (who he did sign to fight but it fell through at no fault of his own) at 175, Jones would undoubtedly be one of the greatest ever. But his record is filled with no names and no risks until he was in his mid 30's by which stage he was past his best and lost to a bunch of guys who weren't fit to shine his shoes in his prime. A win over one of the top guys at Cruiser would have meant more IMO than his win over Ruiz.

So I have to say simply based on the fact that Tyson was the real undisputed/lineal champion while Jones never was makes Tyson greater.

Why wasn’t Ruiz the proper WBA champion?

[DrDuke]

Ruiz was a legit WBA holder at that time, but no one just saw him as a champion, because he sucked.

Actually, there was some controversy in him being worthy of this strap. He should be given a loss against Holyfield instead of a draw and he should be DQed in the Kirk Johnson bout instead of Johnson. So, in this sense he was a paper champ.

[Tuan_Jim]

It should be Jones and it should be Jones by the length of Flemington straight. He should have been able to dominate and be the man at 3 weight divisions. I've never been completely sure why he never went for a title at 154 when he was able to make the weight for the first few years of his career but his whole career seems to have been risk averse.
Jones won a title at MW but avoided the top MW's
Jones beat Toney at SMW which is a huge win but avoided most other top SMW's.
Jones beat most around at LHW but never was the undisputed and/or lineal champion despite the ring giving him their title.
He beat Ruiz for a HW title which looks great on paper but Ruiz wasn't even the WBAs real champion at the time.
By the eye test Jones look likes one of the greatest fighters ever but achievement wise I don't even know if he cracks the top 100.

Tyson on the other hand did become the undisputed and lineal champion of his weight division. He was not the best of his era but for a time he was the clear #1. Tyson took risks in his career and did fight most guys though he did avoid some, just not the the stage that Jones has appeared to.

If Jones MW wins over all or some of Jackson, McClellan, Castro, Johnson, SMW wins over Liles, Benn, Calzaghe (even Joe at 175) and a win against Michalczewski and Rocchigiani (who he did sign to fight but it fell through at no fault of his own) at 175, Jones would undoubtedly be one of the greatest ever. But his record is filled with no names and no risks until he was in his mid 30's by which stage he was past his best and lost to a bunch of guys who weren't fit to shine his shoes in his prime. A win over one of the top guys at Cruiser would have meant more IMO than his win over Ruiz.

So I have to say simply based on the fact that Tyson was the real undisputed/lineal champion while Jones never was makes Tyson greater.

All the names you mention were Don King fighters, which is why they didn't happen. Very frustrating I agree. In Calzaghe's case, he didn't want to fight prime RJ.

Couple of corrections. Jones did beat Castro, 10-0, and Ruiz was the sole WBA champ when Jones beat him.

[p4p1]

It should be Jones and it should be Jones by the length of Flemington straight. He should have been able to dominate and be the man at 3 weight divisions. I've never been completely sure why he never went for a title at 154 when he was able to make the weight for the first few years of his career but his whole career seems to have been risk averse.
Jones won a title at MW but avoided the top MW's
Jones beat Toney at SMW which is a huge win but avoided most other top SMW's.
Jones beat most around at LHW but never was the undisputed and/or lineal champion despite the ring giving him their title.
He beat Ruiz for a HW title which looks great on paper but Ruiz wasn't even the WBAs real champion at the time.
By the eye test Jones look likes one of the greatest fighters ever but achievement wise I don't even know if he cracks the top 100.

Tyson on the other hand did become the undisputed and lineal champion of his weight division. He was not the best of his era but for a time he was the clear #1. Tyson took risks in his career and did fight most guys though he did avoid some, just not the the stage that Jones has appeared to.

If Jones MW wins over all or some of Jackson, McClellan, Castro, Johnson, SMW wins over Liles, Benn, Calzaghe (even Joe at 175) and a win against Michalczewski and Rocchigiani (who he did sign to fight but it fell through at no fault of his own) at 175, Jones would undoubtedly be one of the greatest ever. But his record is filled with no names and no risks until he was in his mid 30's by which stage he was past his best and lost to a bunch of guys who weren't fit to shine his shoes in his prime. A win over one of the top guys at Cruiser would have meant more IMO than his win over Ruiz.

So I have to say simply based on the fact that Tyson was the real undisputed/lineal champion while Jones never was makes Tyson greater.

Why wasn’t Ruiz the proper WBA champion?

I thought that Lewis was still WBA champion and Ruiz was the 'regular' champ. I didn't remember that Lewis was stripped. It's hard for me to consider Ruiz a real champion though given the circumstances. I still think Ruiz is one of Jones' best wins, even if it wasn't for an ABC belt it's still a noteworthy win IMO.

you always have to look beyond labels

who did tyson beat to become undisputed, and how do wins over those men stack up vs jones?

Tyson's competition was far from great during his first reign, once the competition became great he started losing. Jones' competition was relatively poor for the most part and he does have some glaring names missing.

All the names you mention were Don King fighters, which is why they didn't happen. Very frustrating I agree. In Calzaghe's case, he didn't want to fight prime RJ.

Couple of corrections. Jones did beat Castro, 10-0, and Ruiz was the sole WBA champ when Jones beat him.

You're right on both counts. It would have been nice to see Jones fight more names at MW though, I mentioned Castro because he was a champ at 160 while Jones was. I was a kid at the time, I had no idea what the politics of things were. Did King more or less freeze Jones out of the title picture?
I have no doubt Calzaghe or his team wanted no part of a prime Jones. His team didn't appear to want part of any top fighters until he had been champion for almost a decade.
Jones has always been one of my favourites but when I look at his record and see the top fighters around at the time it just seems like such a waste of talent. He was never beating the big guys at HW but I wouldn't count him out against Holyfield among others. It is surprising that he didn't have a go at Cruiser after beating Ruiz and other HW fights falling through, Tarver was hardly a star at the time and the cruiser limit was 190lbs at the time. Likely would have turned out better than the two Tarver fights, whether the first one was because of dehydration or not I don't really know. Reports are that he was in the mid 180s in the week or so before the Tarver fight, hardly a big cut. If he fucked it up that's more on him than anything else. In my experience for some unknown reason boxers start cutting water a week or more from the fight sometimes, unbelievably stupid IMO.

[Ruthless-RKO]

The I don’t think there was many if any regular or interim WBA belts at the time.

[Tuan_Jim]

It should be Jones and it should be Jones by the length of Flemington straight. He should have been able to dominate and be the man at 3 weight divisions. I've never been completely sure why he never went for a title at 154 when he was able to make the weight for the first few years of his career but his whole career seems to have been risk averse.
Jones won a title at MW but avoided the top MW's
Jones beat Toney at SMW which is a huge win but avoided most other top SMW's.
Jones beat most around at LHW but never was the undisputed and/or lineal champion despite the ring giving him their title.
He beat Ruiz for a HW title which looks great on paper but Ruiz wasn't even the WBAs real champion at the time.
By the eye test Jones look likes one of the greatest fighters ever but achievement wise I don't even know if he cracks the top 100.

Tyson on the other hand did become the undisputed and lineal champion of his weight division. He was not the best of his era but for a time he was the clear #1. Tyson took risks in his career and did fight most guys though he did avoid some, just not the the stage that Jones has appeared to.

If Jones MW wins over all or some of Jackson, McClellan, Castro, Johnson, SMW wins over Liles, Benn, Calzaghe (even Joe at 175) and a win against Michalczewski and Rocchigiani (who he did sign to fight but it fell through at no fault of his own) at 175, Jones would undoubtedly be one of the greatest ever. But his record is filled with no names and no risks until he was in his mid 30's by which stage he was past his best and lost to a bunch of guys who weren't fit to shine his shoes in his prime. A win over one of the top guys at Cruiser would have meant more IMO than his win over Ruiz.

So I have to say simply based on the fact that Tyson was the real undisputed/lineal champion while Jones never was makes Tyson greater.

Why wasn’t Ruiz the proper WBA champion?

I thought that Lewis was still WBA champion and Ruiz was the 'regular' champ. I didn't remember that Lewis was stripped. It's hard for me to consider Ruiz a real champion though given the circumstances. I still think Ruiz is one of Jones' best wins, even if it wasn't for an ABC belt it's still a noteworthy win IMO.

you always have to look beyond labels

who did tyson beat to become undisputed, and how do wins over those men stack up vs jones?

Tyson's competition was far from great during his first reign, once the competition became great he started losing. Jones' competition was relatively poor for the most part and he does have some glaring names missing.

All the names you mention were Don King fighters, which is why they didn't happen. Very frustrating I agree. In Calzaghe's case, he didn't want to fight prime RJ.

Couple of corrections. Jones did beat Castro, 10-0, and Ruiz was the sole WBA champ when Jones beat him.

You're right on both counts. It would have been nice to see Jones fight more names at MW though, I mentioned Castro because he was a champ at 160 while Jones was. I was a kid at the time, I had no idea what the politics of things were. Did King more or less freeze Jones out of the title picture?
I have no doubt Calzaghe or his team wanted no part of a prime Jones. His team didn't appear to want part of any top fighters until he had been champion for almost a decade.
Jones has always been one of my favourites but when I look at his record and see the top fighters around at the time it just seems like such a waste of talent. He was never beating the big guys at HW but I wouldn't count him out against Holyfield among others. It is surprising that he didn't have a go at Cruiser after beating Ruiz and other HW fights falling through, Tarver was hardly a star at the time and the cruiser limit was 190lbs at the time. Likely would have turned out better than the two Tarver fights, whether the first one was because of dehydration or not I don't really know. Reports are that he was in the mid 180s in the week or so before the Tarver fight, hardly a big cut. If he fucked it up that's more on him than anything else. In my experience for some unknown reason boxers start cutting water a week or more from the fight sometimes, unbelievably stupid IMO.

Sort of. In the 90s Jones didn't want to do business with Don King, and King's terms were impossible. Plus Eubank, Benn and Collins were terrified of RJJ anyway. But I'm not sure Jones would have taken many more risky fights even if there was a chance to, as he seemed quite content to coast and fight easy challengers. Darius M wasn't a King fighter and there's no good excuse for not fighting him. Rocchigiani ditto. In Jones' prime at light heavy Hopkins wouldn't rematch him and though he said he was willing to go down to 168 to fight Calzaghe, Joe clearly didn't fancy it.

I wish Jones had stayed at heavy, relieved Byrd of his IBF belt and cashed out versus Tyson. Going back down to light heavy was a catastrophe and all the brutal losses have tarnished what was already a debateable legacy.

[HomicideHenry]

Jones was, IMHO, a freak athlete more than a great fighter. The moment he got a little bit slower, the losses started to pile up. At his best he was almost impossible to hit, but then again he fought in a relatively poor era for light heavyweights.

Tyson also benefited from a relatively poor era in heavyweight history, and when the division started getting a little more depth--- retrospectively, it's easy to see that he opted for inferior opposition than serious threats.

Don't get me wrong I was a big Tyson fan, but he was more of a programmed fighter than an instinctive fighter. Of course, that only became obvious when he let himself go and Douglas took him to the cleaners, and of course so did Holyfield.

How to rate them overall is difficult. I don't have Tyson among the top ten heavyweights of all-time, and I'm not so certain Jones could've beaten Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore and Billy Conn and Bob Foster and Michael Spinks or Gene Tunney, etc.

P.S.

The exhibition fight was pretty entertaining but that referee allowed too much clinching. In two-minute rounds you just cannot allow that to go on and make it an interesting contest. I will say that I find it ironic that ages ago Jones complained about John Ruiz's clinching, only for Jones to become huggybear himself.

P.S.S.

Also it's a letdown to see Jones call out Glenn McCrory of all people in the weeks afterwards. He sure wants no part of "The Celtic Warrior" Steve Collins does he?

Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all

[margaret thatcher]

Jones was, IMHO, a freak athlete more than a great fighter. The moment he got a little bit slower, the losses started to pile up. At his best he was almost impossible to hit, but then again he fought in a relatively poor era for light heavyweights.

Tyson also benefited from a relatively poor era in heavyweight history, and when the division started getting a little more depth--- retrospectively, it's easy to see that he opted for inferior opposition than serious threats.

Don't get me wrong I was a big Tyson fan, but he was more of a programmed fighter than an instinctive fighter. Of course, that only became obvious when he let himself go and Douglas took him to the cleaners, and of course so did Holyfield.

How to rate them overall is difficult. I don't have Tyson among the top ten heavyweights of all-time, and I'm not so certain Jones could've beaten Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore and Billy Conn and Bob Foster and Michael Spinks or Gene Tunney, etc.

P.S.

The exhibition fight was pretty entertaining but that referee allowed too much clinching. In two-minute rounds you just cannot allow that to go on and make it an interesting contest. I will say that I find it ironic that ages ago Jones complained about John Ruiz's clinching, only for Jones to become huggybear himself.

P.S.S.

Also it's a letdown to see Jones call out Glenn McCrory of all people in the weeks afterwards. He sure wants no part of "The Celtic Warrior" Steve Collins does he?

Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all

where the hell you been my man

[HomicideHenry]

Jones was, IMHO, a freak athlete more than a great fighter. The moment he got a little bit slower, the losses started to pile up. At his best he was almost impossible to hit, but then again he fought in a relatively poor era for light heavyweights.

Tyson also benefited from a relatively poor era in heavyweight history, and when the division started getting a little more depth--- retrospectively, it's easy to see that he opted for inferior opposition than serious threats.

Don't get me wrong I was a big Tyson fan, but he was more of a programmed fighter than an instinctive fighter. Of course, that only became obvious when he let himself go and Douglas took him to the cleaners, and of course so did Holyfield.

How to rate them overall is difficult. I don't have Tyson among the top ten heavyweights of all-time, and I'm not so certain Jones could've beaten Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore and Billy Conn and Bob Foster and Michael Spinks or Gene Tunney, etc.

P.S.

The exhibition fight was pretty entertaining but that referee allowed too much clinching. In two-minute rounds you just cannot allow that to go on and make it an interesting contest. I will say that I find it ironic that ages ago Jones complained about John Ruiz's clinching, only for Jones to become huggybear himself.

P.S.S.

Also it's a letdown to see Jones call out Glenn McCrory of all people in the weeks afterwards. He sure wants no part of "The Celtic Warrior" Steve Collins does he?

Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all

where the hell you been my man

Staying away from the drama of BoxRec but I guess I spent too much time in here already. Have a good new year Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family

[Ezzard]

Not much in it.

[nickcat0]

I'd say Jones was the better boxer, and if he'd retired at the age of 35 with a record of 49-1, and world titles at 4 weights, he'd have been considered an all time great.