Rate the generation

Uuuh, that LOSS is STILL on Tarver's Record, so HOW EXACTLY was it "Cancelled Out"???...

That's the Problem as it Pertains to Roy...Guys Take it Upon THEMSELVES to "Cancel Out" his Shit...

EVERY Roy Naysayer Attempts to "Cancel Out" his WIN Over Bernard, Now Here YOU Go "Cancelling Out" Roy's WIN Over Tarver ...

Sorry, but Roy Jones OWNS a WIN Over Antonio Tarver, No Matter WHAT Kinda Skin of Teeth SPIN U Wanna Apply to it...

Which Brings Us to THE FACT that Bernard has ONE Victory Over a Guy that Roy FAILED to Beat...N Other Words, Glencoffe Johnson is ENOUGH to Swing the Pendulum N Bernard's Favor???...

The FACT that Roy Accumulated MORE titles, was MORE Talented & BEAT Bernard is of NO Relevance???...& if U DARE Say Bernard was "Green" when Roy Beat him, THAT SAME Logic can B Applied to Glencoffe Johnson when Bernard Beat him...



REED

 

It's "cancelled out" because it was AVENGED twice, and very decisively both times, which proves that the first fight was either a fluke or a subpar performance from Tarver. That's the whole POINT of rematches and rubber matches, and has always been, long before Roy ever entered the picture.

Anyway, the fact that Roy didn't "fail to beat" Tarver at some point doesn't change the fact that Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did. Would I be wrong in saying Manny Pacquiao did better against Barrera (who he twice whupped easily) than Morales did, because Morales managed to eek out a win in one of their two fights? Does that mean that's not a valid argument to bring up when comparing Pacquiao and Morales on all-time lists?

Roy fans have always said that Roy was doing better against common opponents than Dariusz was, back when both were still titlists, and used that argument to say that Roy was a better fighter than Dariusz. Yet until Dariusz finally lost to Julio Gonzales, which of his common opponents with Roy had he "failed to beat"? :dunno:

The fact remains, Tarver whupped Roy 2 out of 3, which means he's either better than Roy or at least just has his number. And Hopkins whupped Tarver easily. Therefore, Hopkins clearly did better against Tarver than Roy did, hands down, regardless of whatever "failed to beat" spin you want to put on those fights.

 

::

What Part of ROY JONES BEAT BERNARD HOPKINS R U Failing to Comprehend???:dunno: ...

Sure, Bernard Fared BETTER Against Tarver than Roy Did...Sure, Roy Fans Used the Criteria of Roy FARING BETTER Against Common Opponents than MichalSHITski Did...

But the FACT REMAINS, Roy Jones FARED BETTER Than Bernard Hopkins when THEY Shared a Ring...

What, R U Gonna "Cancel Out" Roy's WIN Over Bernard Now???


REED::

 

So now, you AGREE with my point then.

So what on earth are you trying to dispute, then?

Are you trying to say that Bernard can't ever possibly be rated over Roy because he lost to him once at some point in his career? Does that mean Tommy Hearns can't possibly be rated as a better fighter than Iran Barkley? Or that Tyson can't ever be rated as a better fighter than Buster Douglas?

Right after Morales beat Pacquiao, many people on here said he could potentially rate higher in all-time rankings than Barrera... hadn't Barrera already beaten him, twice?

Are you saying ROY can't be rated as a better fighter than friggin' GLEN JOHNSON?? ::

 

Even Considering YOUR Level of HATRED for Roy, Comparing him to Iran Barkley or Buster Douglas is COMICAL...

GENERALLY U @ Least ATTEMPT to PORTRAY your Arguments OBJECTIVELY, but U've LOST that Luxury...

What EXACTLY Does Buster Douglas OR Iran Barkley have N Common w/Roy Jones when it Comes to ACCOMPLISHMENTS???...TALENT???...

REED is DISPUTING YOUR Notion that Bernard Hopkins is Somehow "Better" or "Greater" than Roy Jones...WHY???....Cause Roy Jones has Accomplished MORE than Bernard, Cause Roy Jones was MORE TALENTED than Bernard & Because Roy Jones BEAT BERNARD....

ANYTIME U Wanna Address THE FACT that Roy BEAT Bernard (w/Out Comparing him to 1-Hit Wonder SCRUBS) Feel FREE...


REED::

 

So now, ERIK MORALES is a "1-hit wonder scrub"?

There's plenty of other examples too, of course. Willie Pep often gets rated over Sandy Saddler. Jack Dempsey almost always gets rated over Gene Tunney. Mickey Walker often gets rated over Harry Greb. Nino Benvenuti sometimes gets rated over Dick Tiger. Tiger is often rated as a better middleweight than Emile Griffith. Marvin Hagler is almost always rated as a better middleweight than Ray Leonard. Right now, many people rate Tito and even Mosley as better than Winky Wright, and they rate Winky as better than Vargas and Harry Simon. The list is almost endless...

Unless you consider all of those fighters "1-hit wonder scrubs", too?

And the fact that those previous fighters I mentioned ARE "1-hit wonder scrubs" just proves my whole point anyway...

WHEN can't a fighter ever be rated as better than another fighter that he's lost to at some point?

Perhaps YOU'd like to explain how a fighter that is so "clearly" greater than Hopkins can fail so badly in common areas that Hopkins has been so successful in?

 

Based on the following criteria:-

1. Performance against fellow elite fighters.
2. Consistency and longevity
3. Performance through the weight classes.
4. My personal estimation of their peak abilities.

In that order.

01. Roy Jones Jr.
02. Bernard Hopkins.
03. Oscar De la Hoya
04. Joe Calzaghe
05. Ricardo Lopez
06. James Toney
07. Marco Anttonio Barrera
08. Shane Mosley
09. Ronald Wright
10. Erik Morales
11. Lennox Lewis
12. Felix Trinidad
13. Naseem Hamed
14. Darius Michalczewski
15. Kostya Tszyu

That may be subject to change once I come back and have a second look at it. Just to clarify - because they are MY rankings they are based on MY scoring of fights, hence DLH, Toney and Barrera may be higher than the W, D, L record might warrant. As I said above, I have put a heavy emphasis on how fighters looked against fellow HOF fighters hence the top spot for Jones based largely on his dominant Ws over Toney and Hopkins and the low ranking for Tito who was thoroughly schooled by each of the three peak power greats he fought and a decrepid RJ. Ricardo Lopez remains an anomoly because it is so hard to judge the quality of fighters at such a lower weight class I have largely ranked him based on citeria 4 alone. I admit thats totally inconsistent, but he just looked so damn good I cant help myself. And in any case, at this stage of my armchair boxing career I trust my eye.

 

Pep Gets Rated OVER Saddler Cause he was a More SIGNIFICANT Fighter of that Era & More SKILLFUL...Dempsey is Rated Over Tunney Cause of his IMMENSE Popularity & IMPACT on the Sport...

From there, U're Listing Guys Specific to THEIR DIVISIONS...If U Wanna Argue that Bernard is a Better MIDDLEWEIGHT than Roy, REED has NO Problem w/that...Based on Roy's BRIEF Time there vs. Bernard's 20 Defenses...

But the Topic is about who the Better FIGHTER is, Irregardless of Division...

Roy Jones has MORE Accomplishments than Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones CLEARLY has MORE Talent than Bernard...Roy has More HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE than Bernard...& YES, Roy Jones BEAT Bernard @ his BEST Weight...

All YOU Can Counter w/is, Bernard Fared Better Against Tarver & Glencoffe ...Nevermind that Roy was 35 Years of Age when he Lost & Completely IGNORING the FACT that Bernard Lost TWICE to Jermain Taylor, a Fighter that Probably WOULDN'T Beat a 39 Year Old Roy Jones...

& WHEN did REED Call Erik Morales a "1 Hit Wonder SCRUB"...REED would NEVER Call a 3 Weight World Champion Something like that,so DON'T Attribute Words to REED...

REED

 

Those things are debatable. That has been pointed out earlier, you apparently don't want to know about it..

 

Roy Jones won Titles N 4 Weight Classes...Bernard Won Titles N 2...

Roy Jones Became the 1st Former Middle Champ to WIN a Heavyweight Title N 106 Years...

Roy Jones BEAT Bernard Hopkins @ Bernard's BEST Weight...

What's "Debateable" about ANY of this???


REED:dunno:

 

Hopkins dominated his weight division longer than Jones dominated any of his. Hopkins easily surpassed the records set by legends like Monzon and Hagler. To me, it is debatable which is a bigger achievement: to rule one division or to hange them quickly. Also Hopkins' career lasted longer and his win over Tarver (clearly the champ in light-heavyweight) is comparable to Jones' win over Ruiz (about #5 heavyweight in the world)

 

It's THIS Simple...

U Can Go Back & Forth On Whether 1 Division DOMINATION is BETTER than 3 Weight DOMINATION...

U Can Even Compare Roy-Ruiz to Bernard-Tarver if U Want...

Which Brings Us RIGHT BACK to the Head to Head Matchup...

When ALL OTHER Things R EQUAL/COMPARABLE How can U IGNORE the Head to Head Matchup???...


REED:dunno:

 

What you said up there is misleading, since there is a difference in how Hopkins dominated his division compared to any of the division Jones ruled in.

Also, nobody is ignoring their actual fight, just as their common opponents shouldn't be ignored.

 

HOW is there a Difference???...

Roy Jones was JUST AS Dominant (if Not MORESO)from 160-175 as Bernard was @ 160...For QUITE a While, Roy Jones was THE Most Dominant Fighter N ALL of Boxing...

REED would Rate a Head to Head Matchup HIGHER than Common Opponents...Is it MORE Important that Leonard Beat Hearns or that Hearns Fared BETTER Against Duran than Leonard did???...


REED:dunno:

 

Nah, Roy was dominant at 175, he looked great at 160 and particularly at 168....he nearly cleared out 175, thats as good as, he didn't spend enough time at 160 or 168, plenty of champions have looked dominant without stamping themselves on the division entirely

 

These lists are always difficult to make. Even after making my own, i can find issues with it. ::

A strongly agree James Toney should have been part of it. Nonetheless for the names included I put them like this:

Jones
Hopkins
De La Hoya
Lewis
Barrera
Calzaghe
Morales
Tszyu
Mosley
Wright
Hamed
Michalczewski
Lopez

 

Neither, they're of equal importance.

The problem with that comparison is that Leonard beat Hagler who CRUSHED Hearns, so that Leonard not only beat Hearns, but also has the better overall record against common opponents.

If it was Leonard who had been crushed by Hagler, and Hearns who had outpointed Hagler (in addition to KOing Duran), then I would say Hearns definitely should rank better all-time than Leonard, even if he had previously lost to Leonard.

 

He sure didn't lose to as many fighters as Toney.

 

.....

Didn't fight as many good fighters either. Nor did he have as many fights as Toney.

 

great thread!:bears:


1 Jones

2 B-Hop

3 Mosley

4 Tito

5 Oscar

6 Calzaghe

7 Lopez

8 Barrera

9 Morales

10 Wright

11 Tszyu

12 Hamed

13 Michalczewski

14 Lewis



Really Floyd should be on here and right up in the top 5

 

why is it ranking 1-12 when there are 14 names?:dunno:

 

Staying at 1 division is not that great of an accomplisment when you see what those wins were against and what that division had to offer. When you are the biggest man in your division and not have that much competition in it, that is less of an achievement than dominating or competing in several. The accomplishment is longevity, but it doesn't look that good when you disect it.

 

1. Jones
2. Hopkins
3. Oscar
4. Calzaghe
5. Barrera
6. Morales
7. Lopez
8. Tito
9. Lewis
10. mosley
11. tszyu
12. Wright
13. Hamed
14 Michalczewski

If Toney was in it i'd put him below Morales.

 

looks like a pretty decent list to me mate. Still think Tito remains overrated. Give it five or ten years and I expect to see his name quite a bit lower than it appears in most of these lists. Certainly cant see ANY justification for having him top 5.

 

what is crazy is that Floyd is not listed..

Lemmon is clearly at the bottom if not off the list totally

 

include Floyd if you want, ffs, it's your list. I just listed who came to mind as examples - I plum forgot Toney (one of my all time faves), for example, it was hardly definitive.

I left Floyd (& Manny & Marquez) off because I though A) He still has potentially definitive fights to come and B) He's a good 5 years younger than the other guys on the list, so it felt like he was part of the next generation to these guys. But if you think he belongs there then by all means list him....he did win a belt in the late 90's so you have a point.

 

Shut up COCK.

A top-5 heavyweight in all-time rankings, which Lewis clearly is, could be the first in this list

 

what is "ffs" ?

 

Lewis is cleary a top 5 all time heavyweight? ...CLEARLY...:dunno: