Who was better, Sugar Ray Leonard or Roy Jones Jr?

[nac386]

I didn't mention the draws because your argument was about being undefeated...Toney was undefeated and was looked as the best boxer on the planet next to Roy. I don't know if score one round for Toney in this fight.

My argument was not about being undefeated, I had not even used those words when you listed Toney's record without the draws. All I had said was that Hearns was #1 p4p and 32-0.

Re Hopkins: He started late in boxing, but no man on earth is in the shape of life in his late 30s ... his mid 00's version would lose to Roy just like his mid 90s version.

Who would win between mid 90s Hopkins vs. mid 00s Hopkins? I'd go with the younger Hopkins if I had to bet.

I think late 90's to early 2000's Hopkins was the most complete version that we saw. Like I said, there are big Hopkins fans on here that can speak on it better than I can.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Then you don't know boxing well. You can't have a better win than James Toney and Bernard Hopkins.

The fab 4 is just boxing folklore. There were others boxers that made that time period great,
like Arguello, McCallum, Pryor, Starling, Curry, Sanchez, Jackson, Honeyghan.

HAHAHAHA!!! A guy who thinks Roy Jones Jr. is the greatest of all time telling someone else they don't know boxing well.

I didn't mention the draws because your argument was about being undefeated...Toney was undefeated and was looked as the best boxer on the planet next to Roy. I don't know if score one round for Toney in this fight.

Toney had a tendency to not look good in some fights. He had some questionable decisions go his way.

 

[proncley]

HAHAHAHA!!! A guy who thinks Roy Jones Jr. is the greatest of all time telling someone else they don't know boxing well.

You can't compare him to Robinson or Moore, because they competed to much more. But in my book he is the most spectacular we've seen in boxing. Do me a favor and get over it.

 

[Seano]

Hearns was the #1 p4p fighter in 1981 when he fought Leonard, at 32-0 with like 30 knockouts.

Hearns was #1 P4P by KO magazine because he was KOing people and had fought no one but journeymen and scrubs before he fought Leonard. If that fight took place today, thats exactly how it would be described. But instead we credit Leonard for Hearns' entire career.

Todays fighters get conditions strapped onto their resume for fights like that. Most people don't even consider Marquez a good win for Floyd, for example and he was 1000 times more accomplished than Hearns when Leonard beat him. Actually, if I think about it,Duran sort of fits that descriptor a little better,however his greatness over LW is pretty much defined by that Leonard win. So Leaonard gets credit for beating a great welter who was only great at welter for beating him. and don't get me started on the old "waited for guys to get old thing."

I'm rambling here a bit but the point is clear. Nostalgia shouldn't factor into conversations of greatness but it absolutely does with most fans.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

My argument was not about being undefeated, I had not even used those words when you listed Toney's record without the draws. All I had said was that Hearns was #1 p4p and 32-0.




I think late 90's to early 2000's Hopkins was the most complete version that we saw. Like I said, there are big Hopkins fans on here that can speak on it better than I can.

Correct. He has been fighting people on prison, not top level ammys or professionals. He was learning on the job, not just technique, but learning his confidence. 2001 Hopkins bests 1993 Hopkins easy.

 

[Seano]

HAHAHAHA!!! A guy who thinks Roy Jones Jr. is the greatest of all time telling someone else they don't know boxing well.



Toney had a tendency to not look good in some fights. He had some questionable decisions go his way.

It depends on how you define greatness. I'll tell you what, I watched Roy in his prime and it was tough for me to imagine how anyone could possibly beat the guy. He was dazzling.

Roy was the guy who really made me realize that you can't judge how great a guy really is until his career is over.

 

[Seano]

Correct. He has been fighting people on prison, not top level ammys or professionals. He was learning on the job, not just technique, but learning his confidence. 2001 Hopkins bests 1993 Hopkins easy.

Hopkins would never have been able to handle Roy anywhere close to his prime, thats exactly why he priced himself out of a fight no one really cared about anyway.

Hopkins was a smart fighter but Roy fought some really smart boxers in his day,I don't see how a more experienced Hopkins beats a decent version of Roy. Hopkins never beat anyone who brought Roys physical tools to the ring.

 

[Noctilux]

I'd say Leonard but of the two RJJ was the one who had an aura of invincibility. As good as Leonard was, no one though he was untouchable against Hearns, Duran, and especially, Hagler.

 

[proncley]

Hearns was #1 P4P by KO magazine because he was KOing people and had fought no one but journeymen and scrubs before he fought Leonard. If that fight took place today, thats exactly how it would be described. But instead we credit Leonard for Hearns' entire career.

That's a good point. Today people question wether Golovkins power only works against bums. But with Hearns it was the same. When he boxed someone savvy, it either went to the scorecards or he got knocked out himself.

Its the case with every world class boxer, RJJ too. When they go against another world class boxer, they look mortal.

 

[CastletonSnob]

That's a good point. Today people question wether Golovkins power only works against bums. But with Hearns it was the same. When he boxed someone savvy, it either went to the scorecards or he got knocked out himself.

Its the case with every world class boxer, RJJ too. When they go against another world class boxer, they look mortal.

Hearns only lost by decision once. He outboxed just about everyone. He was even well ahead on the scorecards against Leonard.

 

[MMALOPEZ]

Sugar ray by a mile plus he fought far superior opposition

 

[burningspear]

Hearns was #1 P4P by KO magazine because he was KOing people and had fought no one but journeymen and scrubs before he fought Leonard. If that fight took place today, thats exactly how it would be described. But instead we credit Leonard for Hearns' entire career.

Todays fighters get conditions strapped onto their resume for fights like that. Most people don't even consider Marquez a good win for Floyd, for example and he was 1000 times more accomplished than Hearns when Leonard beat him. Actually, if I think about it,Duran sort of fits that descriptor a little better,however his greatness over LW is pretty much defined by that Leonard win. So Leaonard gets credit for beating a great welter who was only great at welter for beating him. and don't get me started on the old "waited for guys to get old thing."

I'm rambling here a bit but the point is clear. Nostalgia shouldn't factor into conversations of greatness but it absolutely does with most fans.

More impressive to challenge the unknown, fight the young hungry unbeaten phenom than the aging warriors who've taken their licks. Why Floyd gets big props for sonning Canelo but a lil flack for dragging JWM up two weights and waiting on other fighters to show wear.

 

[Seano]

More impressive to challenge the unknown, fight the young hungry unbeaten phenom than the aging warriors who've taken their licks. Why Floyd gets big props for sonning Canelo but a lil flack for dragging JWM up two weights and waiting on other fighters to show wear.

Or of its a fighter you don't like, you'll say his opposition is green and he avoided so and so.

 

[mozfonky]

one thing i do give roy credit for was longevity, ray only fought for a few years at a world class level, not counting the comebacks. I always wondered how ray would have fared with guys like curry, honeyghan, starling, breland, mccrory, guys not in his class but the type of guys that all great champions have lost to.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

RJJ because I like him better.

 

[burningspear]

one thing i do give roy credit for was longevity, ray only fought for a few years at a world class level, not counting the comebacks. I always wondered how ray would have fared with guys like curry, honeyghan, starling, breland, mccrory, guys not in his class but the type of guys that all great champions have lost to.

I can't imagine Ray losing to any of those but who knows how he'd have worn with a longer career?

 

[mozfonky]

I can't imagine Ray losing to any of those but who knows how he'd have worn with a longer career?

those were good fighters who had some good nights. great champs let down most of the time. I happen to think Starling was maybe the best out of all of those guys, there were lots of good welterweights who came along at the time, and, of course middle's and jr. mw's.

 

[The Adder]

sugar ray. RJJ was over rated.

 

[BluntTrauma21]

Hearns was young but he was ready, that was a great fight and a great win by Ray. Are ppl starting to question that now? The guy didn't lose until Hagler several fights later. If that's not a great win then I don't know what is.

Roy was possibly the most gifted fighter we've ever seen. Ray did more resume wise and showed more heart in his career. Roy was either clowning guys or looking like shit, even in his win against Tarver he looked terrible. Ray won a belt at hw which is very impressive.

"Better" is too broad of a term, p4p prime vs prime, I find it tough to match the two, I think I'd favor Roy in his prime but very slightly. We've seen SRL in some wars and more than hold his own.

Also, RJJ is the best guy to use in "fantasy" match ups b/c in his prime he was so unique and seemingly untouchable that ppl seem to think just b/c he clowned Toney and Bhop that there's no way anyone at any weight class could ever possibly get to him in a p4p, prime for prime, match up. Neither Toney nor Bhop were big punchers, we've seen more of Ray overcoming adversity against atg great fighters, I gotta edge him over Roy.

 

[Seano]

Hearns was young but he was ready, that was a great fight and a great win by Ray. Are ppl starting to question that now? The guy didn't lose until Hagler several fights later. If that's not a great win then I don't know what is.

Roy was possibly the most gifted fighter we've ever seen. Ray did more resume wise and showed more heart in his career. Ray was either clowning guys or looking like shit, even in his win against Tarver he looked terrible. Ray won a belt at hw which is very impressive.

"Better" is too broad of a term, p4p prime vs prime, I find it tough to match the two, I think I'd favor Roy in his prime but very slightly. We've seen SRL in some wars and more than hold his own.

Also, RJJ is the best guy to use in "fantasy" match ups b/c in his prime he was so unique and seemingly untouchable that ppl seem to think just b/c he clowned Toney and Bhop that there's no way anyone at any weight class could ever possibly get to him in a p4p, prime for prime, match up. Neither Toney nor Bhop were big punchers, we've seen more of Ray overcoming adversity against atg great fighters, I gotta edge him over Roy.

No, its a good win. But people fail to rate a win like that today. Floyd is the closest thing we have to a new ATG, so I use him as an example. People don't give Floyd extra credit for what Canelo did after he beat him.

Or look at the Toney/Hearns example if you like. Toney had a lot more good wins on his resume than Hearns when he lost to Ray. Why isn't that considered a great win? Because Toney turned into a fat turd that people didn't like and Hearns was involved in fun fights. thats why.


I mean, its not like its some new thing I just noticed or anything. Fans tend to set conditions on greatness depending on how much they like someone.