Roy Jones Jr or Sugar Ray Leonard

Bernard developed into a fighter who relied on smarts and craft. Jones was always about the speed and athleticism.....and also had a much more extensive amateur career anyway.

 

Because they are Roy Jones groupies keeping ruining every thread with non-sense. This thread had nothing to do with Leonard vs. Roy but that's what it turned into.

Anyway, Leonard is top 10 greatest p4p of all time. Roy isn't. Period.

Cupey

 

Can't argue with that.

 

So there was ZERO Intellect to Roy's Approach???...He was just a Dumb Jock Out there WINGING It, Huh???...


REED::

 

Jones

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. Roy was a very scientific fighter who took calculated risks inside and outside the ring. It wasn't fully developed when he fought Bernard, but when he reached his prime he would beat people with brains and athleticism. You can't take that away from him.

Cupey

 

You're from Vancouver so you don't count. How old are you?

Cupey

 

Yea no offence to hut hut, you're one of my favourite posters here, but you used that same argument against Amir Khan, that he was all speed and athleticism. As much as I am a Khan fan, I'm certainly not putting him in the same stratosphere as Roy Jones, yet by your reasoning they get by with the same tools. Roy must have had something else about him other than just pure athleticism.

 

Oh yeah, Jones was a very good boxer too, don't get me wrong. Just not nearly as fundamentally sound and versatile as Ray Leonard, IMO which is the question. Jones had skills. Khan's inferior in every department, most of all boxing brain.

 

So you don't think Hopkins developed as a fighter much more from 93 than Jones did? If so I find that absolutely ridiculous.

 

No, didn't say that. But the development in his game in that department was VASTLY less than B-Hops over the years. And the way his career swannied into the gutter once his speed and reflex' waned a bit makes that point for me.

 

If by "Smarts" & "Craft" U Mean PUTRID Punch Output, LEADING w/your HEAD, HITTING while CLINCHING w/your Other Hand & MANIPULATING Referee's, then Yes, Bernard "Developed Into a Fighter that Relied on Smarts & Craft" to a Higher Degree than Roy Did...

But to Insinuate that there was NO "Craft" or "Smarts" to Roy's Approach, to Suggest that it was ALL Based on SPEED & ATHLETICISM Tells REED that U HAVEN'T Watched Enough of Roy's Fights...



REED:hammert:

 

where did I say that? I agree with you because I think his strategy changed more while Roy Jones maybe perfected what he does. Simply saying that to reduce Roy to some guy who was a simpleton with his skills is not accurate.

Cupey

 

and where the hell did i do that? I said he was a guy who's style developed to take advantage of his speed and athleticism. you're putting words into my mouth, I never said he was a mindless simpleton, Ive already said he was a skilled fighter. Just that A) he was less skilled than Ray Leonard and B) his skills evolved much less than B-Hop after 93. Simplez.

 

you said "Bernard developed into a fighter who relied on smarts and craft. Jones was always about the speed and athleticism.....and also had a much more extensive amateur career anyway."

This implies that Roy Jones was not a smart fighter. Absolutely not true. Speed and athleticism means nothing with the smarts to employ them in the ring. If I misunderstood than my bad

cupey

 

damn, I just said the same thing ::

Cupey

 

But the poll does show that there are 18 people that are complete tards on this forum or are jones nut huggers to the ultimate degree. This poll isn't even close

Cupey

 

I can't say this any more clearly. Roy was skilled. Just not as skilled as Ray and his skills developed much less than Bhop subsequent to their fight. And yes, his style was more reliant on speed and athleticism relative to other great fighters as evidenced by the fact he couldn't do shit later in his career once those attributes started to fade. That doesn't mean he was mindless or without skill though.

I cant believe anything im saying there is even being contended.

 

Well you are simply attributing his decline to him not really being scientific. Mabye it's age? Everybody knows the dude is shot, so he can only fight shot fighters. The difference is that Roy refuses to fight any other way while Bernard changed his style to basically fight like a bitch.

Cupey

 

The poll asks a couple of different things, but in the OP, it says "Who was the better fighter prime for prime?"

To mE, that can mean a few different things. While I think Leonard is p4p #1, I pick Jones because at his best, I think he probably was better than Leonard. Leonard lost in his prime; Jones didn't (at least not in the normal way). And in the mid-90's, Jones was viewed as unbeatable--something that Leonard never was.

 

When you have Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Leonard in an era it's hard to think that anybody is unbeatable. Hagler came close. Roy was the best in his era, but if he was mixed with those 4 names do you honestly think anybody would call him unbeatable? Also, Leonard lost to probably #5 greatest of all time. Jones lost to who??? Really, there is no comparison.

Cupey

 

But so what? I already said I think Leonard is all-time p4p#1.

But at his best, I think Roy might have been better. Roy was the p4p#1 guy during his prime for almost 10 years. We'll never know how good he really was because he was more worried about $ and the '0' than legacy. Many fighters crush him on greatness, but 'best' doesn't always mean 'great'.

And I think Duran is very overrated despite beating my p4p#1 guy.

 

Well it's hard to say because in such a weak division how can you tell if he was better? You can only go by what they proved. Ray proved he was great and even when Hearns solved the puzzle Leonard changed the pieces and came through like a million bucks. Leonard never prided himself in not getting hit, but winning. Don't confuse the two.

cupey

 

You aren't limited to what was proved.

You have eyes, you've seen fights. When two guys get into the ring, if you only bet on who has the better resume you will lose a lot of bets.

And Hearns solved the Leonard puzzle. Did anyone solve the Jones puzzle? Did Montell? Did Harding? No.

If you never get hit, you can't lose, btw.

 

I knew Klitschko was going to give Lewis hell before their fight, despite Lewis having fought vastly superior opposition. As mikE says, you just go by what you see.

 

agREED...

Duran is UNDOUBTEDLY GREAT, but His Losses R NEVER Held AGAINST Him, Even when he WILLINGLY QUIT...Hearns Wiped his Ass w/Him, yet it's NOT Held AGAINST Duran's Legacy...& the SAME People that Say Bernard was "Green" or "Underdeveloped" When Roy Beat him WON'T Say the Same Shit about Sugar Ray Leonard in his 1st Fight w/Duran...

Posters Bitch about Roy Jones Nuthuggers, but Duran Nuthuggers R w/Out Question THE WORST...


REED:hammert:

 

Last time I checked Montel beat him. Check the records books. Your opinions don't count, the record books indicate a victory for Montell. He beat him by making him fall apart.

Cupey

 

The only thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that Hearns is always held in such low regards compared to Sugar or Duran. Man, this guy should be way up the p4p list. Duran also lost to Benitez. But I guess the question is was that in his prime. Secondly he lost to a great damn fighter and p4p higher than anybody Roy ever lost to.

Cupey

 

Was Esteban DeJesus "P4P Higher" than Tarver???...


REED:dunno:

 

yes.