BoxRec

Which man rates higher ?

Duran.

Duran by a mile.

Duran lost to some fighters that were below his standard geeze some way below his standard but still went on to pull of some Big upsets he even gave Hagler fits at Middleweight its Hands Of Stone Hands Down

ClivePatrickLyons wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 00:52 Duran lost to some fighters that were below his standard geeze some way below his standard but still went on to pull of some Big upsets he even gave Hagler fits at Middleweight its Hands Of Stone Hands Down

Roy lost to plenty below his standard too. At most Duran had 3 prime losses.

Roy's only loss prior to age 35 is a DQ in a fight he was winning, how is that comparable to Duran's losses in any way, shape, or form?

If Roy Jones had retired in 2003 I doubt people would be picking Duran.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 05:30 Roy's only loss prior to age 35 is a DQ in a fight he was winning, how is that comparable to Duran's losses in any way, shape, or form?

If Roy Jones had retired in 2003 I doubt people would be picking Duran.

I wouldn't be picking Super Roy above The Hands of Stone.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 05:30 Roy's only loss prior to age 35 is a DQ in a fight he was winning, how is that comparable to Duran's losses in any way, shape, or form?

If Roy Jones had retired in 2003 I doubt people would be picking Duran.

Yes they would, it's not even close. They still pick him over Floyd, who also rates over Roy. I suppose that is arguable.

Well nobody who knew the sport was picking Jones over Duran at any time. Duran was better.
Naturally Duran is rated ahead of Patterson. Most people do rate Jones ahead of Patterson.

Duran being better isn't reflected in his record at all. He has the better top win but beyond that I don't see an advantage. In terms of dominance and consistency Roy Jones clearly takes this. By age 34 he only had one DQ loss in a fight he was winning whereas Duran had been bested numerous times. He also looks spectacular on film. I don't know of many if any fighters who dominated their opponents in their prime to the extent Roy did.

Jones also has wins over Toney and Hopkins that match any of Duran's wins bar Leonard.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 14:15 Duran being better isn't reflected in his record at all. He has the better top win but beyond that I don't see an advantage. In terms of dominance and consistency Roy Jones clearly takes this. By age 34 he only had one DQ loss in a fight he was winning whereas Duran had been bested numerous times. He also looks spectacular on film. I don't know of many if any fighters who dominated their opponents in their prime to the extent Roy did.

Jones also has wins over Toney and Hopkins that match any of Duran's wins bar Leonard.

I don't agree at all. I don't even think it's arguable.

Both are great. Duran is much greater though.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 05:30 Roy's only loss prior to age 35 is a DQ in a fight he was winning, how is that comparable to Duran's losses in any way, shape, or form?

If Roy Jones had retired in 2003 I doubt people would be picking Duran.

Many have Duran as no1 fighter of all time.

That is going to far. However is arguably top 10. Jones is not. A lot with Jones is how much credit you give him for the win over Hopkins. I give him some ,but Hopkins was not the fighter that he would become when Jones beat him.

If you disagree I would love to hear you explain away all Duran's losses and try to explain how Duran's wins bar Leonard top Roy Jones best wins. Despite having fewer total fights Roy Jones beat 14/15 guys who were currently ranked in the top 10 which is roughly on par with Duran and he dominated them in one-sided fashion. Quality foes like Virgil Hill were swept aside with ease.

As much as I don't like to defend Duran, one of the biggest sleazeballs in boxing history, here I go:

Most of his losses were when he was way past it; her was old and had a lot of wear and tear. Anything after Hearns is completely meaningless.

Duran's biggest win (Leonard) easily trumps Jones win over Toney
Jones win over that version of Hopkins is not any more impressive than numerous wins that Duran had DeJesus, Buchanan, Palomino, Cuevas.

Even if you give Jones the benefit of the doubt, he doesn't have the depth of Duran. Who would Jones #3 even be? Certainly behind DeJesus, Buchanan, Palomino, and Cuevas.

Duran has the better depth and easily beat the best fighter. There is pretty gap here.

lol why even argue resume? its obvious on that front durans way way above jones

for jones to have any little case to be rated p4p above this type of great, you have to appeal to the eye test, and while roy was a tremendous talent he was still not the well rounded overall package duran was. at this level of atg, guys like duran and hagler, your talking about guys who had tremendous talent and skill and overall ability

jamamb wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 15:44 lol why even argue resume? its obvious on that front durans way way above jones

for jones to have any little case to be rated p4p above this type of great, you have to appeal to the eye test, and while roy was a tremendous talent he was still not the well rounded overall package duran was. at this level of atg, guys like duran and hagler, your talking about guys who had tremendous talent and skill and overall ability

Roy Jones, Jr looked dominant, yes. Anybody would if you're fighting school teachers and policemen that were trying to make ends meet.

The problem with Jones was after beating James Toney, there's not a single fighter on his record that makes you say "ouch!, That's a great one there!"

I'm a huge Roy fan boy but I'd never argue that he ranks higher than Duran, who is arguably the greatest fighter since Sugar Ray Robinson.

Duran's win over Leonard is better than Jones win over Toney but after that the edge for Duran is questionable at best. Why is a win over even a green Hopkins less impressive than wins over Palomino, DeJesus, Buchanan? Hopkins overall is a better fighter than any of these guys and was already world class by the time he fought Jones, I don't think he was far removed from his prime.

After that you have wins over Antonio Tarver, Reggie Johnson, Virgil Hill, etc. Why is Virgil Hill a less impressive win than DeJesus or Palomino?

If they were the same weight at their best Duran would beat his ass something ugly. Virgil hill wasn't as good as dejesus, palomino or Marcel. You just don't know who the fighters are. Not to mention beating g Barkley at 37 was more impressive than the Hopkins win. Duran beat Castro at light heavy. Don't know why I bother with your trolling.

At his best weight Duran lost to Esteben DeJesus. Yet your sure he could beat the far more talented Roy Jones. That doesn't make a lot of sense I'm afraid. What lightweight opponents did Duran have that were even remotely as talented as Roy Jones?

Virgil Hill wasn't as good as Palomino or DeJesus based on what exactly? This isn't reflected on film or based on records.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 20:45 If they were the same weight at their best Duran would beat his ass something ugly. Virgil hill wasn't as good as dejesus, palomino or Marcel. You just don't know who the fighters are. Not to mention beating g Barkley at 37 was more impressive than the Hopkins win. Duran beat Castro at light heavy. Don't know why I bother with your trolling.

100%. There really is no argument worthy of debating here.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019, 20:45 If they were the same weight at their best Duran would beat his ass something ugly. Virgil hill wasn't as good as dejesus, palomino or Marcel. You just don't know who the fighters are. Not to mention beating g Barkley at 37 was more impressive than the Hopkins win. Duran beat Castro at light heavy. Don't know why I bother with your trolling.