BoxRec

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 09:18

man wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 08:56 still ray for me.

Why prime ray > prime jones

Just curious. I mean it is a tough question. Both were blessed with such great speed, reflexes, athletictism in there prime, realy hard to say who was better. P4p jones was faster than ray, but ray punched harder. Footwork maybe edge for ray.

in the end it is roy's match making,
which slightly pushes the scale towards
sugar for me.

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23

Lackeos wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 21:35 IMO, Toney, Rigondeaux, and Lomachenko don't even belong on the poll; and Pacquiao and Tyson only loosely merit inclusion. But since I know this is a poll of your 10 favorite fighters, I think the results of this poll might help correct your evaluations of some of the fighters you most overrate.

Some fighters that I think might have been better inclusions are... Bernard Hopkins, Terry Norris, Aaron Pryor, Michael Spinks, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Alexis Arguello, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, and Andre Ward.

Whitaker and SRL are two fighters who I consider to be super exceptional, so I would pick either of them.

I didnt want to go their. But you pushed me into it.

Hopkins is overrated. Great career. At his peak losing to a b level like taylor.

Hagler the real deal. Couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than the 10 i listed.

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer. So how would he handled ultra athletic boxer like pac or floyd who are better than him in every departmant speed, footwork, reflexes, timing. Got gifts. Meldrick prime and pernell prime> chavez prime

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape. No hw ever looked as exceptional as tyson did in the 80s. Lewis might ve beaten him, but only because he weighed more and was much taller, not because he was a better boxer. Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard, but not because kovalev is a better boxer than leonard, but because he weighs much more and is much taller.

Ward is a joke right?

Why would prime Leonard fight prime Kovalev? That would be a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight.

But since you asked, it's Duran for me.

ewenhay wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:28

Jip wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:23

Lackeos wrote: ↑15 Nov 2017, 21:35 IMO, Toney, Rigondeaux, and Lomachenko don't even belong on the poll; and Pacquiao and Tyson only loosely merit inclusion. But since I know this is a poll of your 10 favorite fighters, I think the results of this poll might help correct your evaluations of some of the fighters you most overrate.

Some fighters that I think might have been better inclusions are... Bernard Hopkins, Terry Norris, Aaron Pryor, Michael Spinks, Carlos Monzon, Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Alexis Arguello, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Larry Holmes, and Andre Ward.

Whitaker and SRL are two fighters who I consider to be super exceptional, so I would pick either of them.

I didnt want to go their. But you pushed me into it.

Hopkins is overrated. Great career. At his peak losing to a b level like taylor.

Hagler the real deal. Couldnt touch leonard. Not more impressiv than the 10 i listed.

Chavez, he was losing to athletic boxer. So how would he handled ultra athletic boxer like pac or floyd who are better than him in every departmant speed, footwork, reflexes, timing. Got gifts. Meldrick prime and pernell prime> chavez prime

Holyfield, lewis, holmes in prime shape all look inferior to tysons prime shape. No hw ever looked as exceptional as tyson did in the 80s. Lewis might ve beaten him, but only because he weighed more and was much taller, not because he was a better boxer. Prime kovalev would beat a prime leonard, but not because kovalev is a better boxer than leonard, but because he weighs much more and is much taller.

Ward is a joke right?

Why would prime Leonard fight prime Kovalev? That would be a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight.

That is the point. Obviously a welter wont fight a light heavyweight.

The point i made was just that boxer A can be a better boxer than boxer B but still lose to boxer B because boxer B is taller and stronger, weighs more. That was my example. Leonard is a much better boxer than kovalev, but in a fight he would lose due to kovalev being the much bigger man.

The example is good at hw. Some hw ar techniqly poor, poor skills, the only reason they beat some better boxer hw is because they aremuch taller and bigger.

man wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:15

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 09:18

man wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 08:56 still ray for me.

Why prime ray > prime jones

Just curious. I mean it is a tough question. Both were blessed with such great speed, reflexes, athletictism in there prime, realy hard to say who was better. P4p jones was faster than ray, but ray punched harder. Footwork maybe edge for ray.

in the end it is roy's match making,
which slightly pushes the scale towards
sugar for me.

So roy was a better boxer but ray fought better opponents?
To me prime roy was a better boxer than prime ray. If you ask me who had a better career snd fought opponents. Obviously ray

theres some strong names on that list. leonard, duran, mayweather, jones jr, these guys were arguably the best of all time in their best weight divisions. i voted ray, based on his proving his skills against great opposition, but wouldnt argue strongly against the other 3.

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:01

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 13:59

Jip wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 17:32

You dont understand a lot of things.

Prime, meaning when you are at your best, does 0 have to do with your opponents. Jones was at his best against pazienza, but pazianza wasnt the best opponent jones ever had. Floyd looked the most incredible against corrales or gatti, that was his peak prime. But neither corrales or gatti were as good as the opponents floyd faced when he was atill good but out of his prime like when he faced canelo or cotto.

Toney at his best looked more impressiv to me than hagler & hopkins. But both had a better career than toney.

Rigo has better footwork, reflexes, speed, technique than hagler, hopkins and most boxer. Absolut rare talent.

Your examples are 1 fight. That isn't a prime. That's the best of a person's TALENT. Prime would be a period and not just 1 fight.

By your definition of prime, there are fighters not even in the top 50 that looked better than anyone in the top 10 in one fight.

Prime can be 1 fight or a long time period depends on how hard and consistent the boxer trained and other circumstances.

The best of a persons talent is his prime. Sorry to say that but you realy dont sound intelligent at all.

What do you mean?
by my definition a non top 50 boxer looked better than any top 10 boxer in 1 fight.

You statemant sounds incomplete.

Prime James Toney was not better than prime Marvin Hagler....period.

THE GRAETEST Ali had some unforgettable victorie's that would define the Great Man so it must be the greatest ALI

Tony1244 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:01 Toneys on there but not Ali?

I voted Leonard. But I think Duran, Whitaker, Jones and Mayweather are also good choices.

How can we have a debate about the best boxer from 1970 until now and ALI aint on the list.

ClivePatrickLyons wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 20:00

Tony1244 wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 20:01 Toneys on there but not Ali?

I voted Leonard. But I think Duran, Whitaker, Jones and Mayweather are also good choices.

How can we have a debate about the best boxer from 1970 until now and ALI aint on the list.

The vast majority of Ali's greatness was achieved prior to the seventies.

Ali was in fact a very fortunate recipient of several highly-contentious decision victories during the 1970's.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to undermine Ali's greatness, but it's important to realise that he was far removed from his prime during that decade.

I only talk about boxing from when I started watching it full on which is early to mid 80's.
I can see the Ray Leonard argument as he beat good versions of Hagler, Duran and Hearns among others.
Pernell Whitaker at his best would definitely rank top 3 of boxers who could beat anyone else on his best night, he was a defensive genius and remarkable to watch.

But Roy Jones Jr was something else for my money, I've never seen anything like him.
Roy had it all, I use to think Thomas Hearns was the quickest boxer I ever saw until I witnessed what Roy could do.
Roy's power and timing were off the charts incredible, his boxing IQ amazing, his conditioning, discipline and professionalism an awe to see.
I saw Roy fight 3 times live from coast to coast and don't regret a single dollar I spent in doing so.
When he fought James Toney, I think it's fair to say considering how highly Toney was thought of at the time that James would win ... Jones toyed with him and made it look like a vacation with pay.
Roy's personal performance against Vinnie Pazienza still ranks as No 1 in my book to this day, I've never seen anything like that.
He moved from 160 to 168 to 175 and to Heavyweight and back down to 175 undefeated [unless of course you count the Griffin 1 rip off] which was hall of fame worthy alone.
Roy Jones would be my pick but there's so many other great fighters very close to him that deserve highly honorable mentions, let's not forget them or in anyway try to diminish or underplay their work too.

A better way of phrasing a question like this topic would be to ask ...

Who was the best boxer on their best night ?

There's so many ways to argue debate and quarrel over the way certain questions are put that the point get's lost most of the time.

If you asked me who were among the best boxers on their best night with everything being fair I'd say something like ...

Jones Jr
Holyfield
Leonard
Whitaker
Chavez
McCallum
Hagler
Mayweather

Boxers like that.
Some may look at Holyfield and say well he lost to Lewis and Bowe ... my answer would be but look at his performance and the weight differential between Holyfield and Lewis and Bowe.
Considering the size of Holyfield compared to Lennox and Riddick he did exceptionally well.
How do you think it would have played out were Holyfield Lewis and Bowe relatively the same weight ?

Evander wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 20:48 A better way of phrasing a question like this topic would be to ask ...

Who was the best boxer on their best night ?

There's so many ways to argue debate and quarrel over the way certain questions are put that the point get's lost most of the time.

If you asked me who were among the best boxers on their best night with everything being fair I'd say something like ...

Jones Jr
Holyfield
Leonard
Whitaker
Chavez
McCallum
Hagler
Mayweather

Boxers like that.
Some may look at Holyfield and say well he lost to Lewis and Bowe ... my answer would be but look at his performance and the weight differential between Holyfield and Lewis and Bowe.
Considering the size of Holyfield compared to Lennox and Riddick he did exceptionally well.
How do you think it would have played out were Holyfield Lewis and Bowe relatively the same weight ?

This is exactly what i said.

You said "who was the best boxer on his best night"

I said "who is the best boxer since 1970 not in terms of accomplishment resume but in terms of peak prime"

It is the same since anyone with a brain understands that with "peak prime" i mean which boxer looked the best when he was at his best.

The best version of rjj is better than any best version of any boxer ever.

No one, no robinson, no leonard, no whitacker had this kind of combination of speed, reflexes, timing, footwork. They close, but roy is the goat of boxing. Shame he was stupid and didnt fight hopkins II, calzaghe, mcclellan, michalchewski when roy was at the top.

80s tyson, considering he was 5'10 is the best hw ever. Imagine a prime 6'5 tyson same height like lewis. Tyson would have destroyed anybody ever.

At the peak of there prime the guys i mentioned are top.

Before 1970 boxer like robinson and ali obvoously

Jip wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 21:08

Evander wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 20:48 A better way of phrasing a question like this topic would be to ask ...

Who was the best boxer on their best night ?

There's so many ways to argue debate and quarrel over the way certain questions are put that the point get's lost most of the time.

If you asked me who were among the best boxers on their best night with everything being fair I'd say something like ...

Jones Jr
Holyfield
Leonard
Whitaker
Chavez
McCallum
Hagler
Mayweather

Boxers like that.
Some may look at Holyfield and say well he lost to Lewis and Bowe ... my answer would be but look at his performance and the weight differential between Holyfield and Lewis and Bowe.
Considering the size of Holyfield compared to Lennox and Riddick he did exceptionally well.
How do you think it would have played out were Holyfield Lewis and Bowe relatively the same weight ?

This is exactly what i said.

You said "who was the best boxer on his best night"

I said "who is the best boxer since 1970 not in terms of accomplishment resume but in terms of peak prime"

It is the same since anyone with a brain understands that with "peak prime" i mean which boxer looked the best when he was at his best.

The best version of rjj is better than any best version of any boxer ever.

No one, no robinson, no leonard, no whitacker had this kind of combination of speed, reflexes, timing, footwork. They close, but roy is the goat of boxing. Shame he was stupid and didnt fight hopkins II, calzaghe, mcclellan, michalchewski when roy was at the top.

Hopkins and Roy beefed about rematch money and it never got done but Roy beat him first time around injured.
Calzaghe he fought and lost but when Roy was way over the hill, Joe wasn't even in the frame when Roy was priming.
The whole Darius Michalczewski thing went on for a while but what I saw of Darius could not hold court with a prime Jones for a second.
Gerald McClellan was a very tough fighter but who had been beaten by Denis Milton 11-2-1 and Ralph ward 12-3-0 in just over a year into his pro career ... you think he could have beat Roy Jones.

Evander wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 21:18

Jip wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 21:08

Evander wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 20:48 A better way of phrasing a question like this topic would be to ask ...

Who was the best boxer on their best night ?

There's so many ways to argue debate and quarrel over the way certain questions are put that the point get's lost most of the time.

If you asked me who were among the best boxers on their best night with everything being fair I'd say something like ...

Jones Jr
Holyfield
Leonard
Whitaker
Chavez
McCallum
Hagler
Mayweather

Boxers like that.
Some may look at Holyfield and say well he lost to Lewis and Bowe ... my answer would be but look at his performance and the weight differential between Holyfield and Lewis and Bowe.
Considering the size of Holyfield compared to Lennox and Riddick he did exceptionally well.
How do you think it would have played out were Holyfield Lewis and Bowe relatively the same weight ?

This is exactly what i said.

You said "who was the best boxer on his best night"

I said "who is the best boxer since 1970 not in terms of accomplishment resume but in terms of peak prime"

It is the same since anyone with a brain understands that with "peak prime" i mean which boxer looked the best when he was at his best.

The best version of rjj is better than any best version of any boxer ever.

No one, no robinson, no leonard, no whitacker had this kind of combination of speed, reflexes, timing, footwork. They close, but roy is the goat of boxing. Shame he was stupid and didnt fight hopkins II, calzaghe, mcclellan, michalchewski when roy was at the top.

Hopkins and Roy beefed about rematch money and it never got done but Roy beat him first time around injured.
Calzaghe he fought and lost but when Roy was way over the hill, Joe wasn't even in the frame when Roy was priming.
The whole Darius Michalczewski thing went on for a while but what I saw of Darius could not hold court with a prime Jones for a second.
Gerald McClellan was a very tough fighter but who had been beaten by Denis Milton 11-2-1 and Ralph ward 12-3-0 in just over a year into his pro career ... you think he could have beat Roy Jones.

No one beats prime roy.

I know that they beefed over money but they shouldve get it done. Now roy lets himself get kod for pennys. As good as roy was he seems not very intelligent to me.

Prime dm was tough. Roy wouldve won. But the fight shouldve taken place.

Calzaghe was #1 at sm while roy was #1 at lh. They shouldve met at a catch weight or something.

Roy fought to many c level opponents he shouldve pushed more for the opponents i listed.

Jip wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 22:05

Evander wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 21:18

Jip wrote: ↑19 Nov 2017, 21:08

This is exactly what i said.

You said "who was the best boxer on his best night"

I said "who is the best boxer since 1970 not in terms of accomplishment resume but in terms of peak prime"

It is the same since anyone with a brain understands that with "peak prime" i mean which boxer looked the best when he was at his best.

The best version of rjj is better than any best version of any boxer ever.

No one, no robinson, no leonard, no whitacker had this kind of combination of speed, reflexes, timing, footwork. They close, but roy is the goat of boxing. Shame he was stupid and didnt fight hopkins II, calzaghe, mcclellan, michalchewski when roy was at the top.

Hopkins and Roy beefed about rematch money and it never got done but Roy beat him first time around injured.
Calzaghe he fought and lost but when Roy was way over the hill, Joe wasn't even in the frame when Roy was priming.
The whole Darius Michalczewski thing went on for a while but what I saw of Darius could not hold court with a prime Jones for a second.
Gerald McClellan was a very tough fighter but who had been beaten by Denis Milton 11-2-1 and Ralph ward 12-3-0 in just over a year into his pro career ... you think he could have beat Roy Jones.

No one beats prime roy.

I know that they beefed over money but they shouldve get it done. Now roy lets himself get kod for pennys. As good as roy was he seems not very intelligent to me.

Prime dm was tough. Roy wouldve won. But the fight shouldve taken place.

Calzaghe was #1 at sm while roy was #1 at lh. They shouldve met at a catch weight or something.

Roy fought to many c level opponents he shouldve pushed more for the opponents i listed.

Bit of truth to that but you have to put things in perspective.
Saying Roy get's ko'd for pennies now isn't fair, Roy has gone on the record and says he loves boxing merely for the sake of competition.
Same time I think Roy Jones Jr is in his own way hyping boxing in a number of ways, he went to Russia did you see how the Russians embraced him off of his reputation ?
Holy cow they loved him like we do and have a deep appreciation for his craft it was amazing, goes to show how far reaching his ability is globally.

Calzaghe ... I was at MSG when Roy fought Joe and posted my exploits on this very forum at the time.
Main reason I was there was because of Roy, but also because Joe Calzaghe was a pretty damn good fighter at that time too.
The Southern Welsh guys are proper hard people and Joe was a reflection of that.
But the best way I could answer whether Joe could beat a prime Roy or close to it would be like this ... go ask Joe he'll tell you the Welsh are straight up shooters and won't lie to you.
Catch weight with a Roy Jones v Joe Calzaghe in anywhere close to prime of an acceptable level would be a no brainer Jones would beat him.
That said Joe Calzaghe was a fairly unique boxer and would probably have been able to go the distance and make Roy uncomfortable.

Did Roy fight C level guys ... Yes
But I think history will remember it like no one wanted to go near him and used negotiation tactics, excuses, the money's not good enough , the timing isn't great, I've got a mandatory and so on ... excuse my language but if you want to fight then step the f__k up and sacrifice all of the above if you think you can do it.
Hardly any of them did because they knew what would happen to them.
You saw him, he was magnificent.

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:37

man wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:15

Jip wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 09:18

Why prime ray > prime jones

Just curious. I mean it is a tough question. Both were blessed with such great speed, reflexes, athletictism in there prime, realy hard to say who was better. P4p jones was faster than ray, but ray punched harder. Footwork maybe edge for ray.

in the end it is roy's match making,
which slightly pushes the scale towards
sugar for me.

So roy was a better boxer but ray fought better opponents?
To me prime roy was a better boxer than prime ray. If you ask me who had a better career snd fought opponents. Obviously ray

honestly on this top level - especially
pound for pound - the differences are
tiny. for me roy had a very unique
approach to the game, like with totally
avoiding the jab, defence relying so
much on reflexes and hands down so
very often. as much as i have respect
for this unorthodox approach i am not
sure it can hood water agains the very
prime very best.

sugar to me is more or less a classic
boxer and proved to be excellent against
the very best in their very prime. do not
misunderstand this as me not believing
that roy had great wins - i am just giving
reasons for my slight bias.

Duran.

Don't think Tyson, Jones or Toney should be on the list.

Thread Title should have included the word "peak" or "prime" if that was the intended question, as stated in the OP.

Lights Out Toney. From MW to HW James Toney could get into the ring in his prime and give hell to every single top guy since 1970. There is no guy in that weight range the entire time that you can say James Toney doesn't belong in the ring with or have a chance against. His later career issues have cause many to forget how great he was. He was a fighter that played the weight game the wrong way. He stayed too light for too long and RJJ caught him. He didn't go up to HW in time to really show how great he could be in the division even though he won a belt and did very well there before the wheels fell off. I value what Toney did to JIrov at CW and Ruiz and Holy at HW way above what RJJ did winning a strap from Ruiz. Toney was the trut MW to HW guy of the era and not RJJ.

Dave Tiberi beat Toney like a novice.

Kronkpride wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 00:45 Lights Out Toney. From MW to HW James Toney could get into the ring in his prime and give hell to every single top guy since 1970. There is no guy in that weight range the entire time that you can say James Toney doesn't belong in the ring with or have a chance against. His later career issues have cause many to forget how great he was. He was a fighter that played the weight game the wrong way. He stayed too light for too long and RJJ caught him. He didn't go up to HW in time to really show how great he could be in the division even though he won a belt and did very well there before the wheels fell off. I value what Toney did to JIrov at CW and Ruiz and Holy at HW way above what RJJ did winning a strap from Ruiz. Toney was the trut MW to HW guy of the era and not RJJ.

Why do people always give Toney a 'weight drained' pass for his schooling at the hands of Jones Jr?

He lost his next fight after that to Montell Griffin & that was at 175; was he weight drained for that too?

Toney seems to get off too lightly for some of his defeats & the likes of Jones Jr must bang his head against a wall every time he reads that stuff, because it's like his performance versus Toney just doesn't count.

Duran, at lightweight. The Duran above welter isn’t considered.

Syntax Error wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 13:30

Kronkpride wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 00:45 Lights Out Toney. From MW to HW James Toney could get into the ring in his prime and give hell to every single top guy since 1970. There is no guy in that weight range the entire time that you can say James Toney doesn't belong in the ring with or have a chance against. His later career issues have cause many to forget how great he was. He was a fighter that played the weight game the wrong way. He stayed too light for too long and RJJ caught him. He didn't go up to HW in time to really show how great he could be in the division even though he won a belt and did very well there before the wheels fell off. I value what Toney did to JIrov at CW and Ruiz and Holy at HW way above what RJJ did winning a strap from Ruiz. Toney was the trut MW to HW guy of the era and not RJJ.

Why do people always give Toney a 'weight drained' pass for his schooling at the hands of Jones Jr?

He lost his next fight after that to Montell Griffin & that was at 175; was he weight drained for that too?

Toney seems to get off too lightly for some of his defeats & the likes of Jones Jr must bang his head against a wall every time he reads that stuff, because it's like his performance versus Toney just doesn't count.

Exactly.

Jones schooled hopkins with one arm, schooled toney when some said toney was 1 p4p.

Jones gets 0 credit for beating atg like hopkins & toney.