Jones and McClellan

First topic message reminder :

First of all can I just say that I thought last nights documentary of the Benn vs McClellan 'the fight of their lives' was quite excellent. Sad, moving, insightful, it had the lot.

I was going to mention this on Azania's thread, but didn't want to derail what is an excellent article.

Clips were shown of Gerald training and being interviewed prior to the fight, and it is clear he was one mean bloke, intent on causing as much damage as possible once he stepped through those ropes. He exuded an air of confidence that comes with having a record like his. When told "You are widely seen to be P4P #2" he replied "who's number one?!" (Out of interest, does anyone know who was #1 then, was it Jones Jr?) in a disbelieving, arrogant tone that said 'I'm the best'.

It is well documented that McClellan beat Roy in the amateurs (was this a stoppage or points?) and they mentioned on the documentary that Roy said he would go nowhere near McClellan in professional boxing.

Had such a fight happened in the professional ranks, how would you have seen it going around that time? Would Roy's supposed own fears be right and he'd be hunted down and stopped by G-Man, or would Jones use his incredible speed, reflexes and skills to pick the charging McClellan off? It is a fight that has always intrigued me given the styles, the amateur background and the excitement it could have provided, but how do you chaps see it going?

coxy0001 wrote:Imperial, don't forget that BHop "priced" himself out of the rematch even though their PPV numbers were roughly similar (RJJ was never a big PPV spinnner), and that he wanted a catchweight.... The same BHop who when prepared to take on the best took a catchweight against DLH and Pavlik......

It's actually getting nigh-on comical how you persist with this idea that Hopkins was worth a 50:50 split for a potential Jones rematch in 2001 / 2002.

coxy0001 wrote:With zero ability.

What do you know about that?

88Chris05 wrote:Out of genuine interest, Coxy, at what point do you think Hopkins ceased to be 'green'? It's not as if he was meeting genuinely top class fighters immediately after the Jones fight. Moreover, before he faced Jones, who could have really prepared him for such a style?

If being 'green' was such a big issue and determing factor then why, when Hoppo was the most seasoned pro in the game, could he only manage a UD (wide but not shut-out [and not as wide as Calzaghe 2 years earlier]) over a shot RJJ that in his fights either side of the Bhop fight got KTFO'd??

So Hopkins winning a clear decision when they were both old proves he wasn't green 20 years before? What kind of stupid logic is that?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Out of genuine interest, Coxy, at what point do you think Hopkins ceased to be 'green'? It's not as if he was meeting genuinely top class fighters immediately after the Jones fight. Moreover, before he faced Jones, who could have really prepared him for such a style?

If being 'green' was such a big issue and determing factor then why, when Hoppo was the most seasoned pro in the game, could he only manage a UD (wide but not shut-out [and not as wide as Calzaghe 2 years earlier]) over a shot RJJ that in his fights either side of the Bhop fight got KTFO'd??

When was the last time BHop knocked anyone out? I'll answer, 2004.

Incredible. Hoppo was green, Toney was unfit, McCallum was past it. The same people who say this make unbelievable claims about the calibre of a certain Rocky's defences. Walcott was not shot, Charles was on form. Louis was coming off a striing of victories. Moore was getting younger and was in his prime (never beat a HW with a pulse but never mind) and Cockell was....Cockell.

The hypocracy is absolute.

You mean your hypocrisy is absolute, when trying to be smart and clever which as i'm sure you're aware by now never works it's best not to twist people words to fit your own. I've corrected you so many times before do you really wish me to do it again?

Nope. No hypocracy here mate. But do carry on and correct me.

Walcott, Moore et al.....average age?......pensionable. Career? Past it. Not green but brown stuff when they met peak Rocky.

Each fighter must be judged on their own merits regardless of age, Walcott and Moore were old but in the form of their lives, why do you find such simple things to understand, you must understand yourself after all.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Each fighter must be judged on their own merits regardless of age, Walcott and Moore were old but in the form of their lives, why do you find such simple things to understand, you must understand yourself after all.

Toney had been in the form of his life, too, before fighting Jones. In fairness, you haven't been too quick to praise that win as the utterly superb one it was.

It's a good win Chris but I don't think Toney is as good as made out anyway, obviously he was the mythical pound for pound number one but so was Curry when dismantled by Honeyghan, that didn't suddenly make him a legend so why would it Jones?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Each fighter must be judged on their own merits regardless of age, Walcott and Moore were old but in the form of their lives, why do you find such simple things to understand, you must understand yourself after all.

Walcott. So much form that he lost 10 of his last 20 fights. Great form that one. As for Moore. What did he ever do at HW? Stretching credibility when it comes to your favourite fighters I see.

carry on.

You do misunderstand things don't you Az, at no point have you ever actually stopped to think about how highly I regard Marciano or his win column but instead jump in two footed.

Not saying that the singular win over Toney made Jones a legend, but it's part of his legacy all the same. The Honeyghan comparison isn't really valid. Honeyghan had never even fought at world level before (Jones has) and fell apart within three years of that win, whereas Jones went on and on, not losing until a decade later.

The thing is, I'm not even that much of a Jones fan. But I find some of the double standards working against him a little shocking at times. As Manos will remember, the other week we had people dismissing his wins over Hopkins and Toney and then telling us that Wilde's wins over Young Zulu Kid and Sid Smith were better, the stuff of legend. Plainly ridiculous.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do misunderstand things don't you Az, at no point have you ever actually stopped to think about how highly I regard Marciano or his win column but instead jump in two footed.

Yes ghosty. I misunderstand how a boxer losing 10 of his last 20 fights can be described as in the form of his life.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do misunderstand things don't you Az, at no point have you ever actually stopped to think about how highly I regard Marciano or his win column but instead jump in two footed.

Yes ghosty. I misunderstand how a boxer losing 10 of his last 20 fights can be described as in the form of his life.

I find the opposite that wins over say a young Billy Conn are dismissed but a win over an equally inexperience Hopkins are held up in high esteem.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do misunderstand things don't you Az, at no point have you ever actually stopped to think about how highly I regard Marciano or his win column but instead jump in two footed.

Yes ghosty. I misunderstand how a boxer losing 10 of his last 20 fights can be described as in the form of his life.

Please enligthen me to when he was in better form then Az?

I do regard Marciano highly and rate his win column. Its better than some - and he didn't have to rob Norton or Young along the way.

Walcott was in the form of his life - this much is indisputable. His "losses" are going back over the preceeding 5 years - hardly fair to include them. They were also to Violent Elmer Ray, Maxim, Louis (2), Charles (2). The only surprise on there was Layne - and Layne was supposed to be an outstanding boxer and the next big thing - before a certain Rocky Marciano right hand connected with his head.

Moore fought Marciano because there were no remaining credible HW challenges.

It is also important to note that Marciano has 6 wins over ATG fighters - Louis, Charles (2), Walcott (2), Moore.

Vitali Klitschko - who you rate higher, has none. Wlad has none. Holmes has 1 over "Ali" (maybe 2, if Norton is an ATG).

I appreciate you don't like the guy because he's white - and championed by "White" America.

Which makes you as bad and judgemental as all those you despise.

There was me thinking I was going insane and was alone in thinking that was the reason, thank you for putting my mind at ease Oxy.

88Chris05 wrote:Not saying that the singular win over Toney made Jones a legend, but it's part of his legacy all the same. The Honeyghan comparison isn't really valid. Honeyghan had never even fought at world level before (Jones has) and fell apart within three years of that win, whereas Jones went on and on, not losing until a decade later.

The thing is, I'm not even that much of a Jones fan. But I find some of the double standards working against him a little shocking at times. As Manos will remember, the other week we had people dismissing his wins over Hopkins and Toney and then telling us that Wilde's wins over Young Zulu Kid and Sid Smith were better, the stuff of legend. Plainly ridiculous.

I was involved in that debate. The means by which people were analysing Wilde's opponents were plainly invalid. No-one is yet to persuade me of otherwise - when Boxrec have Tancy Lee 17-12-10 when Wilde fights him - and coxscorner have Lee 49-2-1 over the same period.

If "fighter a" were to beat a divisional top ranked fighter with a (real and genuine, as Lee's was) 49-2-1 record today - he'd be able to dine out on that win for years. Yet for Wilde its criticised - because people refuse to accept that boxrec doesn't have all his or his opponents fights.

However - I'm a massive RJJ fan. The B-Hop win was a good win - but it wasn't the best version of Hopkins. As for the Toney win?

Toney was p4p king for beating Barkley - a fighter who'd been beaten more times than American Samoa's football team. He beat Nunn well - but had already robbed Tibieri - and probably McCallum as well. Certainly was lucky not to drop a fight in any of those.

He wasn't deserving of his p4p status. Further, the way he struggled to make weight turned him into a slow hodgepodge of a fighter that RJJ tore apart.

That said - RJJ was much, much better than any version of Toney and I do enjoy watching Roy dismantle him.

That's more because I don't like Toney than because I think it was the greatest performance in the history of the sport.

There are legitimate issues surrounding Toney and Hopkins - but they aren't more severe, in my opinion, than I've listed above.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You do misunderstand things don't you Az, at no point have you ever actually stopped to think about how highly I regard Marciano or his win column but instead jump in two footed.

Yes ghosty. I misunderstand how a boxer losing 10 of his last 20 fights can be described as in the form of his life.

Please enligthen me to when he was in better form then Az?

Please answer my question.

But his form has always been patchy. Wins interspersed with losses. He was never consistent. I await more excuses and evasion of my question. You have form there anyway.

Keep it cool though and dont get angry. Otay?

Can you actually give me a period in which Walcott was in better form?

oxring wrote:I do regard Marciano highly and rate his win column. Its better than some - and he didn't have to rob Norton or Young along the way.

Walcott was in the form of his life - this much is indisputable. His "losses" are going back over the preceeding 5 years - hardly fair to include them. They were also to Violent Elmer Ray, Maxim, Louis (2), Charles (2). The only surprise on there was Layne - and Layne was supposed to be an outstanding boxer and the next big thing - before a certain Rocky Marciano right hand connected with his head.

Moore fought Marciano because there were no remaining credible HW challenges.

It is also important to note that Marciano has 6 wins over ATG fighters - Louis, Charles (2), Walcott (2), Moore.

Vitali Klitschko - who you rate higher, has none. Wlad has none. Holmes has 1 over "Ali" (maybe 2, if Norton is an ATG).

I appreciate you don't like the guy because he's white - and championed by "White" America.

Which makes you as bad and judgemental as all those you despise.

Why dont you add Leon Spinks and Berbick. After all they beat the best ATG HW in history. If Rocky had done that to Ali the fact that Ali was near a walking corpse would not have been taken into consideration. Rocky gets a free pass.

Jersey Joe Walcott was as consistent as Theo Walcott.

oxring wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Not saying that the singular win over Toney made Jones a legend, but it's part of his legacy all the same. The Honeyghan comparison isn't really valid. Honeyghan had never even fought at world level before (Jones has) and fell apart within three years of that win, whereas Jones went on and on, not losing until a decade later.

The thing is, I'm not even that much of a Jones fan. But I find some of the double standards working against him a little shocking at times. As Manos will remember, the other week we had people dismissing his wins over Hopkins and Toney and then telling us that Wilde's wins over Young Zulu Kid and Sid Smith were better, the stuff of legend. Plainly ridiculous.

I was involved in that debate. The means by which people were analysing Wilde's opponents were plainly invalid. No-one is yet to persuade me of otherwise - when Boxrec have Tancy Lee 17-12-10 when Wilde fights him - and coxscorner have Lee 49-2-1 over the same period.

If "fighter a" were to beat a divisional top ranked fighter with a (real and genuine, as Lee's was) 49-2-1 record today - he'd be able to dine out on that win for years. Yet for Wilde its criticised - because people refuse to accept that boxrec doesn't have all his or his opponents fights.

However - I'm a massive RJJ fan. The B-Hop win was a good win - but it wasn't the best version of Hopkins. As for the Toney win?

Toney was p4p king for beating Barkley - a fighter who'd been beaten more times than American Samoa's football team. He beat Nunn well - but had already robbed Tibieri - and probably McCallum as well. Certainly was lucky not to drop a fight in any of those.

He wasn't deserving of his p4p status. Further, the way he struggled to make weight turned him into a slow hodgepodge of a fighter that RJJ tore apart.

That said - RJJ was much, much better than any version of Toney and I do enjoy watching Roy dismantle him.

That's more because I don't like Toney than because I think it was the greatest performance in the history of the sport.

There are legitimate issues surrounding Toney and Hopkins - but they aren't more severe, in my opinion, than I've listed above.

So you say a win over a divisionally ranked fighter would be enough to dine out on for years and tear into those boxers (all better than just divisionally ranked) like that?

In fairness Oxy, BoxRec is of no consequence to me. I don't know what Young Zulu Kid or Tancy Lee's win-loss records where when they faced Wilde, but in fairness we don't really need to know. Those two, as well as Sid Smith, simply were not greater fighters than Hopkins and Toney. They didn't achieve more, were not as highly thought of at or a few years after the time when Jones beat them, whichever way you look at it.

I'm not having a dig at Wilde, who is a legitimate all-time great. But double standards are afoot here, I think. Wilde spent much of his career doing exactly the same as what Jones did at 175 lb; beating who was their to fight, even if they weren't remarkable fighters. Not Wilde's fault that there wasn't a wealth of great Flyweights to go up against, and likewise it wasn't Jones' fault that Light-Heavyweight was decent rather than stacked when he was there, or that Michalczewski was not interested in making a fight happen.

Moreover, Jones' losses against Tarver and Johnson are, almost laughably, held up as proof that he was no great. "No excuses, no excuses" is all we've heard from Coxy regarding them, for instance. Yet, there is always an excuse lined up for any fight Wilde lost; a bout of flu before Lee, controversial stoppage against Herman, inactive and past his best against Villa etc. Some of those excuses are valid, don't get me wrong, but you can't be so sympathetic and accommodating for one fighter and then suddenly refuse to be the same for another just because you don't like them.

Roy Jones Jr was, whichever way you look at it, an all-time great. He scaled superb heights in his pomp, to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

But Ali was clearly shot to hell and back by the time he fought Berbick and Holmes.

No-one is saying that Charles or Louis were in their primes. (Walcott was, incidentally - or at his best, whichever way you want to look at it).

However - they weren't as shot as you like to suggest.

Think i'm going to go insane, it was Jones who wanted no part of Dariusz not the other way round, he may been the draw, the superstar, 'the champion' but he still did not want that fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think i'm going to go insane, it was Jones who wanted no part of Dariusz not the other way round, he may been the draw, the superstar, 'the champion' but he still did not want that fight.

You have no proof of that, purely speculation. What makes you think Michalczewski wanted to fight Jones? He certainly never made any noise about it, nor did he try his hand in America, the logical place for the fight to happen.

People act as if Michalczewski was forever calling Jones out or on a public campaign to make the fight happen. He wasn't. Why should Jones be called the ducker and Michalczewski given the free pass?

How many fighters build up 49 fight winning records today? Lee was a damn good win - highly thought of at the time - never became world champion because Wilde was in his way.

As for Toney and Hopkins - I'm not discrediting those wins - as that implies I give the wins no credit.

Hopkins wasn't at his best, nor was Hopkins a divisional #1 when RJJ beat him. This much is true.

Toney was p4p king - but I personally don't rate him.

The manner which RJJ dispatched Toney was mightily impressive and Hopkins went on to achieve greatness.

Its not as though RJJ doesn't have other impressive achievements either. For me - most impressive was his LHW reign. I know he didn't beat many "names" - but there couldn't be a "name" in that division whilst he was there. A glance at the ring rankings from the early 2000s show RJJ beating practically all the top 10 fighters, with the exception of D-mich.

That is impressive.

RJJ was a great fighter - and this debate is in danger of becoming sidetracked - however - one final time - people underestimate the calibre of Wilde's wins - and wins over Hopkins (however green) and Toney (however overrated) should not be discounted.

oxring wrote:But Ali was clearly shot to hell and back by the time he fought Berbick and Holmes.

No-one is saying that Charles or Louis were in their primes. (Walcott was, incidentally - or at his best, whichever way you want to look at it).

However - they weren't as shot as you like to suggest.

So Rocky beat ATG's who were past their best and Walcott who was as consistant as Theo and of course Don Cockell. And RJJ gets a bum rap from some on here. By the beard of the prophet, sweet jesus, we're living in the twilight zone.

Hoppo = green. Toney = not fit and drained. McCallum = past it. So RJJ is not an ATG above Rocky in the ranking. Rocky beats men older than Windy and he's a shoe in.

That Dane (Neilson I think) had a 48-0 record.

88Chris05 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think i'm going to go insane, it was Jones who wanted no part of Dariusz not the other way round, he may been the draw, the superstar, 'the champion' but he still did not want that fight.

You have no proof of that, purely speculation. What makes you think Michalczewski wanted to fight Jones? He certainly never made any noise about it, nor did he try his hand in America, the logical place for the fight to happen.

People act as if Michalczewski was forever calling Jones out or on a public campaign to make the fight happen. He wasn't. Why should Jones be called the ducker and Michalczewski given the free pass?

Think Jones refusing to talk about Dariusz fullstop has a lot to do about it, Jones at no point tried making the fight happen whereas DM did.

oxring wrote:How many fighters build up 49 fight winning records today? Lee was a damn good win - highly thought of at the time - never became world champion because Wilde was in his way.

As for Toney and Hopkins - I'm not discrediting those wins - as that implies I give the wins no credit.

Hopkins wasn't at his best, nor was Hopkins a divisional #1 when RJJ beat him. This much is true.

Toney was p4p king - but I personally don't rate him.

The manner which RJJ dispatched Toney was mightily impressive and Hopkins went on to achieve greatness.

Its not as though RJJ doesn't have other impressive achievements either. For me - most impressive was his LHW reign. I know he didn't beat many "names" - but there couldn't be a "name" in that division whilst he was there. A glance at the ring rankings from the early 2000s show RJJ beating practically all the top 10 fighters, with the exception of D-mich.

That is impressive.

RJJ was a great fighter - and this debate is in danger of becoming sidetracked - however - one final time - people underestimate the calibre of Wilde's wins - and wins over Hopkins (however green) and Toney (however overrated) should not be discounted.

Of course they don't build up 49 fight winning records, because they get to title level much sooner. It's not comparable. A number is irrelevant.

Trinidad beat Carr (32-0), Campas (56-0), Oscar (31-0) and a few other unbeaten boxers or guys with 1 or 2 losses over dozens of fights. He gets called overrated.

I'd say Trinidad gets unfairly called over rated, a genuinely great welterweight who went on to a be good middleweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Think Jones refusing to talk about Dariusz fullstop has a lot to do about it, Jones at no point tried making the fight happen whereas DM did.

Why, what did Dariusz do to make it happen? Jones said time and again that if Michalczewski came over to America, he'd fight him. Michalczewski chose not to.

Nothing wrong with the premise of saying that a 'challenger' should go to the backyard of the 'champion', but we all know it's never been that straightforward in boxing. Did people expect Ray Leonard to go over to Puerto Rico to fight Benitez for the latter's Welterweight crown?

If people are going to dismiss Jones' opposition as subpar, then surely that makes Michalczewski's opposition for the most part nothing short of a joke for a man who styled himself as being the 'real' champion at Light-Heavyweight. Compared to Jones, he was a noname, and Jones was consistently taking on better fighters and beating them more conclusively than Michalczewski was beating his. The German-Pole may have had 'lineal' recognition (much like Baldomir in 2006, so far from ever being the 'best' in any weight division it's untrue) at the time, but between 1996 and 2003 when they were both campaigning at the weight, surely noone could tell you with a straight face that Michalczewski was a better Light-Heavyweight than Jones was?

Az - Are you reading what I'm writing?

It seems not.

The 49-2-10 - real - ie wins over people with pulses and winning records - resume was in relation to Wilde's career.

Hopkins was green, Toney was overrated. McCallum had seen better days.

Louis and Charles had seen better days, Walcott was in the form of his life.

These are all facts - I don't see the problem?

Where have I ever mentioned rating Rocky and RJJ in all time rankings?

Az - go have a lie down. You seem out of it.
-----------------
Scott - see ref about the wins involving people with pulses and winning records.

Lee was British flyweight and featherweight champion - which means a reasonable amount in the days before flights across the atlantic for fights. Wins over Ladbury (former world champ), Jones (world champ - stripped on the scales) - the guy had a real record and is a decent win for Wilde. A little reading around the subject - aside from using boxrec - and this would be plain for all to see.

My initial point therefore - don't dismiss Wilde's opposition too quickly. He fought some good men.

And I rate Trinidad very highly. He's one of Puerto Rico's greatest champions and an ATG WW and LMW. And without Don King - ie - with better management - who knows how far he could have gone.

oxring wrote:-----------------
Scott - see ref about the wins involving people with pulses and winning records.

Lee was British flyweight and featherweight champion - which means a reasonable amount in the days before flights across the atlantic for fights. Wins over Ladbury (former world champ), Jones (world champ - stripped on the scales) - the guy had a real record and is a decent win for Wilde. A little reading around the subject - aside from using boxrec - and this would be plain for all to see.

My initial point therefore - don't dismiss Wilde's opposition too quickly. He fought some good men.

And I rate Trinidad very highly. He's one of Puerto Rico's greatest champions and an ATG WW and LMW. And without Don King - ie - with better management - who knows how far he could have gone.

Oscar, Carr and Campas didn't have wins as good as British title level?

You've got to be kidding me.

Where did I say that?

Point again - Don't dismiss Wilde's opposition too quickly - he fought some good men - AND I rate Trinidad highly.

Incidentally - don't underestimate British Title level between 1900-1920. The fights were tougher (significantly) than they are today. You can't fly across the atlantic for an opponent in 1912. There aren't many French boxers exhibiting their trade after the war either. And there were more British boxing and following boxing in 1900 than today. As evidenced by fewer gyms and bans on unlicensed fights.

People dont dismiss Wildes opposition, just highlight the inconsistency when comparing it to other fighters.

If people are going to downplay the wins of Jones - most of whom were top ranked world level rated opponents then the same can be applied to Wilde.

88Chris05 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Each fighter must be judged on their own merits regardless of age, Walcott and Moore were old but in the form of their lives, why do you find such simple things to understand, you must understand yourself after all.

Toney had been in the form of his life, too, before fighting Jones. In fairness, you haven't been too quick to praise that win as the utterly superb one it was.

No, he hadn't. Toney had already stated that his fight against Williams would be his last at Super middle, as it was killing him to make the weight (his weight troubles caused him problems in that fight). He had shouted to all and sundry about the Jones fight for almost a year, and Jones's team said nothing. As soon as Toney announces he can't make the weight,team Jones wants to get it on. Toney wouldn't turn down a fight no matter what the circumstances. The rest is history.

You said that the wins had to involve "people with pulses and winning records". Either you were implying their wins weren't against those sort of opponents or made an irrelevant point.

You said Trinidad was overrated. He beat guys who fought at world title level and had massive winning records and isn't ranked in the same stratosphere as Wilde.

Think people are missing the point of what Oxy is saying here, Wildes opposition is downplayed by the majority from researching almost exclusively on Boxrec, you have to do far more than that to come a conclusion.

Bob wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

Each fighter must be judged on their own merits regardless of age, Walcott and Moore were old but in the form of their lives, why do you find such simple things to understand, you must understand yourself after all.

Toney had been in the form of his life, too, before fighting Jones. In fairness, you haven't been too quick to praise that win as the utterly superb one it was.

No, he hadn't. Toney had already stated that his fight against Williams would be his last at Super middle, as it was killing him to make the weight (his weight troubles caused him problems in that fight). He had shouted to all and sundry about the Jones fight for almost a year, and Jones's team said nothing. As soon as Toney announces he can't make the weight,team Jones wants to get it on. Toney wouldn't turn down a fight no matter what the circumstances. The rest is history.

Toney complaining that he'd been struggling to make 168 lb (I'm not suggesting there's no truth in this, by the way) doesn't translate as him not being in the best form of his career. He was, by a large margin. Weight troubles or no, his form between 1992 and 1994 had been excellent.

Yeah funnily enough Toney isnt complaining about weight problems these days. I guess he found his comfort level.

I appreciate that Manos - but I reiterate - Jones has good wins - and I believe his LHW reign was very impressive - he cleaned out a division - (with the exception of Dmich)

It is a mistake to say the man has no wins other than a green Hoppo and a Toney who was never that good anyway.

Ironic really, that the wheel has turned full circle. I remember back on the beeb - the likes of ceej would hold RJJ's career up as a paragon of virtue and faultless and flawless. Now it seems, received wisdom has moved on.

I still believe that RJJ has good wins - but I stand by the fact that Hoppo wasn't as good as he went on to be, nor was he #1/2 at the weight when Roy beat him. Which doesn't matter that much - he was still damn good.

And I will bang my drum about Toney being overrated until the end of time. It upsets me that he is referred to a a nailed on first ballot hall of famer. When Curry isn't in the hall.

Az - Are you reading what I'm writing?

It seems not.

The 49-2-10 - real - ie wins over people with pulses and winning records - resume was in relation to Wilde's career.

Hopkins was green, Toney was overrated. McCallum had seen better days.

Louis and Charles had seen better days, Walcott was in the form of his life.

These are all facts - I don't see the problem?

Where have I ever mentioned rating Rocky and RJJ in all time rankings?

Az - go have a lie down. You seem out of it.

Walcott's form was always patchy. Losing 6 of his last 12 fights. Patchy record. Every 3rd fight he lost it seems. On that simple basis it is hard to say he was coming into the fight in the form of his life. After the rematch he stopped.. Sorry I dont buy that for an instant. Too much latitude and RJJ gets scrutinised with a microscope.

Scottrf wrote:You said that the wins had to involve "people with pulses and winning records". Either you were implying their wins weren't against those sort of opponents or made an irrelevant point.

You said Trinidad was overrated. He beat guys who fought at world title level and had massive winning records and isn't ranked in the same stratosphere as Wilde.

Cheers Ghosty - that's exactly correct.

Where did I say Trinidad was overrated? Think you're either not reading what I'm writing or getting me confused with someone else.

Re: pulses and winning records - maybe that point is exactly what it says. I was saying Lee has a good winning record over people with pulses and also winning records. It doesn't mean any more than that. It doesn't relate to Trinidad - a drum you seem to be obsessionally banging. You brought Trinidad into the debate - which was entirely unnecessary and relatively irrelevant. Further - I wasn't debating you at the time, ergo - the point you claim was either irrelevant or directed at you - wasn't.

As Ghosty said - people discredit Wilde's wins largely due to boxrec - which is unreasonable - as there's more quality if you can be bothered to do a bit of research around the subject. Nothing more than that. The point was brought up in response to Chris with regards to the quality of Wilde's opposition.

I am not making the comparison between Wilde's opposition and RJJ's opposition. That's been done before and debated elsewhere.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:You said that the wins had to involve "people with pulses and winning records". Either you were implying their wins weren't against those sort of opponents or made an irrelevant point.

You said Trinidad was overrated. He beat guys who fought at world title level and had massive winning records and isn't ranked in the same stratosphere as Wilde.

Cheers Ghosty - that's exactly correct.

Where did I say Trinidad was overrated? Think you're either not reading what I'm writing or getting me confused with someone else.

Re: pulses and winning records - maybe that point is exactly what it says. I was saying Lee has a good winning record over people with pulses and also winning records. It doesn't mean any more than that. It doesn't relate to Trinidad - a drum you seem to be obsessionally banging. You brought Trinidad into the debate - which was entirely unnecessary and relatively irrelevant. Further - I wasn't debating you at the time, ergo - the point you claim was either irrelevant or directed at you - wasn't.

As Ghosty said - people discredit Wilde's wins largely due to boxrec - which is unreasonable - as there's more quality if you can be bothered to do a bit of research around the subject. Nothing more than that. The point was brought up in response to Chris with regards to the quality of Wilde's opposition.

I am not making the comparison between Wilde's opposition and RJJ's opposition. That's been done before and debated elsewhere.

Here: https://www.606v2.com/t18835-your-top-5-overrated-fighters#710132

My point re Trinidad is that noone puts emphasis on fighters with great career records. They have to have been good champions to be even talked about as a good win.

I think your points re Jones are reasonable.

I said to an extent (although I'm very impressed at your memory). I also point out he was one hell of a WW/LMW.

In hindsight - I probably shouldn't have written anything.

The context to that post is - I was watching Oscar/Tito on youtube - and reading some of the comments. Included among them were lots stating he was p4p the best ever, the greatest etc. Which I think is a bit much.

However - he was still one hell of a fighter - which I did say.

Fair enough.