How good was Roy Jones in his Prime??

First topic message reminder :

Jones came up on another thread so I made a new to see how good people thought this guy was at his best. Imo he is one of the best of all time. Yes he is rubbish now but he is nothing like he was when he was at his best he is so slow now it is unbelievable and he gets knocked out in almost every fight now to pretty rubbish fighters trust me these guys would have no chance against him when he was at his best. How good to people rate him when he was at his best and how washed up do people think he is now? I must say it is a shame to see him washed up now when he was once so good it is like watching Holyfield I think he should quit before he gets brain damage being knocked out so many times is not good.

manos de piedra wrote:I am literally embarresed seeing people try and defend the likes of young zulu kid as a quality opponent. Oxring, coxy - you dont know what your talking about. Sorry.

I'm embarassed that you had the utter temerity to try and mention RJJ in the same breath as Jimmy Wilde.

But then again you lack objectivity, reasoning and the only thing you do seem to possess regarding fighters pre-1960 is ignorance.

Wilde is a legend of the sport. Yeah he had 150 fights and yeah not all of them were top drawer fighters - but he beat some bloody great fighters down the years, regularly giving away weight and could never be accused of ducking out of a challenge. There's a reason why every single boxing fan who appreciates fighters who fought pre-1960 have him in their top 20.

Ok Scott. You want 50? Ok, here goes off the top of my head (AND IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER, just listing the 50):

1. Wilde
2. Villa
3. Ali
4. Foreman
5. Frazier
6. Chavez
7. SR Robinson
8. SR Leonard
9. Charles
10. Tunney
11. Johnson
12. Louis
13. Lynch
14. Sanchez
15. Lopez
16. Pacquiao
17. Mayweather Jr
18. Hopkins
19. Marciano
20. Dempsey
21. Greb
22. Monzon
23. Hagler
24. Ketchell
25. Fitzsimmons
26. Armstrong
27. Gavilian
28. Griffith
29. Napoles
30. Ross
31. Jofre
32. Zarate
33. McGovern
34. Herman
35. Langford
36. Pep
37. Moore
38. Spinks
39. Attell
40. Wonjongkam
41. JM Marquez
42. Saddler
43. Duran
44. B Leonard
45. Kilbane
46. Gans
47. Canzoneri
48. C Ortiz
49. Wills
50. Lewis

And there's probably more i could name if i kept on going. Which i won't as i want a coffee.

Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

trottb wrote:Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

I need propafol when it comes to dealing with Manos and fighters pre 1960.

trottb wrote:Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

And the internet.

coxy0001 wrote:Hopkins-Pavlik: 190,000 buys
Hopkins-Wright: 305,000 buys
Hopkins-Tarver: 330,000 buys
Hopkins-Taylor II: 410,000 buys
Hopkins-Taylor I: 370,000 buys
Hopkins-Trinidad: 480,000 buys

Jones-Calzaghe: 225,000 buys
Jones-Toney: 300,000 buys
Jones-Tarver: 302,000 buys
Jones-Tarver II: 384,000 buys
Jones-Tarver III: 440,000 buys
Jones-Ruiz: 602,000 buys

Hopkins = 2,085,000
Jones Jr = 2,252,000

Jones JR was only doing 160,000 or so and didn't do numbers until Ruiz. So to suggest he was some massive PPV player is innacurate.

Source. http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Chee/Chee041606.htm

Yet for some reason you have listed 5 ppv Hopkins fights post Tarver vs Jones to discredit Roy...Roy was the number one fighter, the draw and has a win over Hopkins...Offering 60-40 was more than reasonable.

But according to you Jones priced himself out.

Think you will find Hopkins ducked Jones, probably knew he was going to get beat again...Also ducked Dawson till he got beat by Pascal.

coxy0001 wrote:

trottb wrote:Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

I need propafol when it comes to dealing with Manos and fighters pre 1960.

Manos is one of the most balanced posters on the forum, criticising him for bias shows more about you than him.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

trottb wrote:Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

I need propafol when it comes to dealing with Manos and fighters pre 1960.

Manos is one of the most balanced posters on the forum, criticising him for bias shows more about you than him.

Agreed Scott, don't always agree with him but he always argues his point well and backs up everything he says.

How many of coxys angry list would you have below Roy scott? Just out of interest.

No idea really, just wanted him to waste his time. Maybe 15-20. Wouldn't argue that there are a number with a stronger resumé.

Rightful Gold medal winner
Fighter of the Decade 1990s
First since Fitzsimmons to win Middleweight and Heavyweight titles
Longest ever reigning P4P#1 (not certain but think it’s very likely)
Beat the P4P number one
Went 49-1, the loss was a DQ in a fight he was dominating
Beat maybe a dozen former or future world titlists
Never really looked like losing until dropping back down from Heavy
Beat about a half dozen unbeaten fighters, knocked out guys that had never been stopped before

OK he doesn’t have the most depth in terms of top wins but to claim he isn’t a great is ridiculous.

rowley wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

trottb wrote:Maybe you should lay off of the caffeine Coxy.

I need propafol when it comes to dealing with Manos and fighters pre 1960.

Manos is one of the most balanced posters on the forum, criticising him for bias shows more about you than him.

Agreed Scott, don't always agree with him but he always argues his point well and backs up everything he says.

Comparing/mentioning Wilde & RJJ in the same sentence is enough for me.

Lets just have RJJ at 51 for arguements sake before i lose the plot. Again.

We all have fighters whose record we don't rate. I appreciate he was phenominally gifted, but the sticky point in that statement is that he didn't do anything to test himself for a number of years. Again, it comes back to looking great against mediocrity.

The rematch with Bhop would've defined him and his career (if he'd beaten BHop and then Ruiz, the former i have big reservations about), sadly too many ifs and buts assoiciated with his career though. Can't definatively say "he was great" as a result, greatness doesn't have ifs and buts littered around arguements in my opinion.

manos de piedra wrote:I am literally embarresed seeing people try and defend the likes of young zulu kid as a quality opponent. Oxring, coxy - you dont know what your talking about. Sorry.

Apologies Manos, but I would level the same accusation at you with regards to peri-WWI boxers.

Tis easy to sit back today and say that an old timer had a "padded record". Except at the time, when he was fighting - he was seen as a phenomenon and was not accused of padding his record with "bums".

Whereas Roy - throughout his active career has been accused of fighting less able men.

Ergo - comparing Wilde's CV w/ RJJs - unfair and RJJ loses for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------
However - in terms of RJJs own greatness - I'm inclined to agree with Scott - his resume is pretty incredible.

Joe Louis shone like a diamond in a compost heap. We still remember him as brilliant for 20+defences of the richest prize in sport. And for stylistically, having every punch there is to be thrown. The Schemling Louis fought is on a par with the McCallum that Jones beat. [Coxy, I appreciate that I just named Louis in the same sentence as RJJ, but before you reply, please understand that I don't rate them equally - just comparing them fairly].

So having opponents isn't necessarily the only key to greatness. Stylistically, Louis does well and it is not a crime, for me to suggest that stylistically RJJ does well also.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that 60/40 RJJ was a crime. He'd already beaten Hopkins once. If Hoppo wanted the fight that much he could have accepted a little less. (a la Manny-Hatton - I am amazed that Hatton got 48% for that fight. Manny was the draw).

superflyweight wrote:You seem to have a bit of a problem with Jones, Coxy and it seems a bit out of perspective. Don't think anyone is claiming that his record is immense but it's not substantially different from a lot of fighters that are consistently rated highly in ATG lists.

For what it's worth, he's the best to ever seriously fight at supermiddle (as short as his time there was). At light heavyweight I have him as high as six in my all time rankings. As good as the light heavyweight division has been, I think it would be some doing to come up with ten guys who deserve a place ahead of him.

Jones is not the best at Supermiddle neither is he in the top 10 of middle or light heavy. Jones was a division hopper and a spectacular one at that but to view him as the best at anything is a huge stretch. It's the same as the mug who said obscure bands are "bobbins". Obscure bands tend to be much, much better than the muck that's served up in the mainstream.

I genuinely can't think of anyone who fought at supermiddleweight who would beat him at that weight. If you want to name some then feel free to do so.

I don't have him in the top 10 at middleweight - he wasn't there long enough and the division is too rich for him to be considered.

However, at light heavy I think he is worthy of a top 10 place and just about edges out guys like Conn and Loughran to take 6th place in my list. As mentioned above, Foster's resume isn't exactly littered with great light heavyweights and he is considered nailed on top 5 at the weight.

Are you trying to suggest that I've placed RJJ in my top ten purely because I've heard of him? That really is quite patronising.

Jones' resume at supermiddleweight does not outshine Calzaghe's and to say he would have beaten everyone at the weight including Calzaghe is an assumption not a fact. So for that reason I can't have Jones as top SMW.

Again to put Jones Jnr anywhere near Foster at Light Heavy is a stretch considering Foster spent most of his career at the weight and even though I've less knowledge of the old timers, I'd say I share the majority view that Jones Jr is just outside the top ten mainly due to two things - He didn't spend enough time at the weight and he won his belts without fighting the lineal champion, won two of his belts through a technicality, a fact that shouldn't be overlooked. Again, it's easy to assume that Jones would have beaten Michalczewski but he didn't and so that needs to be taken into account.

Great fighter but will be remembered as a multi weight world champion rather than a special fighter at one particular weight.

I didn't say that his resume did outshine Calzaghe's and nor would I place him at number 1 in a list of supermiddles. I was just stating that in my opinion, he's the best fighter there has been at that weight.

I tihnk you casn put him close to Foster albeit he doesn't come close to dislodging Foster from the top 5.

I think there is a clear top 5 at light heavy of Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney and Foster. Outside that you are then looking at names like Conn, Loughran, Muhammad, Greb, Langford, Bivins, Maxim. Rosenbloom and yes, RJJ. As with most divisions it gets harder to place fighters once you get past the clear cut choices and I think it's very difficult to differentiate between the next group of fighters. The length of his reign over the division and the way he made it look so easy are the principle reason why I have him as best of the rest.

Fair enough. Depends on whether you want to base his place in history on abilities or accomplishments.

There's an argument to say Jones Jnr was never the "true" world champ at light heavyweight and that's why I'm not sure I could place him in the top 10. Had he beaten Dariusz M (and I reckon he would have comfortably) his place in the top 10 would have been assured but alas the fight never took place.

Is Ezzard Charles outside your top 10 too then?

Explain why someone like Young Zulu Kid (17-32-10) or Tommy Noble (20-49) or Alf Mansfield (46-52-22) are quality wins? Especially in comparison to say a Reggie Johnson, Sugar Boy Malinga, Eric Harding, Montell Griffen. How can you honestly list these guys with losing records as evidence of greatness yet claim Jones only fought bums. I think you will see Wildes record is packed with coal miners especially in his early career.

For the record, I never said Wilde wasnt great. I rate him highly - look at any of my top ten lists and you will see in no way am I biased against old era fighters so whoever said that obviously doesnt read much of what i write. I just challenge these assumptions of wins passed off as great when theres little to suggest they are and the complete lack of consistenty from some posters in comparing eras. Nobody has offered a valid explanation or back up as to why many of these wins by Wilde should be classified as great or rack higher than Jones opposition its just based on some kind of assumption that isnt even supported by the basic record of the fighter.

Im not arguing Wilde isnt great, Im arguing that Jones is.

Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

manos de piedra wrote:Explain why someone like Young Zulu Kid (17-32-10) or Tommy Noble (20-49) or Alf Mansfield (46-52-22) are quality wins? Especially in comparison to say a Reggie Johnson, Sugar Boy Malinga, Eric Harding, Montell Griffen. How can you honestly list these guys with losing records as evidence of greatness yet claim Jones only fought bums. I think you will see Wildes record is packed with coal miners especially in his early career.

For the record, I never said Wilde wasnt great. I rate him highly - look at any of my top ten lists and you will see in no way am I biased against old era fighters so whoever said that obviously doesnt read much of what i write. I just challenge these assumptions of wins passed off as great when theres little to suggest they are and the complete lack of consistenty from some posters in comparing eras. Nobody has offered a valid explanation or back up as to why many of these wins by Wilde should be classified as great or rack higher than Jones opposition its just based on some kind of assumption that isnt even supported by the basic record of the fighter.

Im not arguing Wilde isnt great, Im arguing that Jones is.

That's a pretty boxrec-based way of looking at it Manos. If you want to take that line - fine. However - it would be more objective to see that people saw Young Zulu Kid as a legitimate challenge. No-one of the time saw Wilde as padding his record. Tunney - a man who saw Dempsey, Greb, Johnson - described Wilde as the best he ever saw.

No-one contemporary to Jones saw Malinga as a credible challenge. It was another opportunity to watch Jones KO someone. Same for Eric Harding.

If you want to boxrec it - why is SRR a great when he lost ~20 times. Why is Burley seen as great when he lost to half the HoFers he fought?

I'm not arguing that Jones Jr isn't great - I'm saying that you should look at both fighters with consistency.

If you think Wilde padded his record - what about Joe Louis? Name me one legitimate top 10 HW Louis beat in their prime? Yet many view im as the greatest HW of all time.

Part of the issue as I see it is that people place far too much stock in record when it comes to Jones. Due to the era he fought in and the circumstances he doesnt ave a paper record to match guys like Charles or Tunney. But its like some people assume this means hes incapable of even sharing the ring with them. At absolute worst I would give Jones something like a 1 in 3 chance of winning those fights head to head and talent wise I see no reason why he shouldnt be mentioned alongside them. If you want to say his record is not as good as Tunney, fine, I agree but thats not a valid reason to dismiss his chances or talent.

Riddick Bowe for example will struggle to make it into a top 30 heavyweight list while guys like Fitzsimmons and Corbett often make it into the top twenty. I would back Bowe to beat those two handily if it ever came to it though and while I agree his acheivement may not rank alongside them it doesnt mean I assume he loses badly to them. Its pretty clear to me that he would be a formidable opponent to almost any heavyweight. Likewise Jones to any light heavyweight/middleweight.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

Are you trying to give coxy an aneurism? Despite my earlier support for Jones, I thik you've taken that a bit far. At his peak I doubt he's an easy fight for anyone but there's no way he goes in as clear favourite against Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney or Foster at light heavyweight.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Explain why someone like Young Zulu Kid (17-32-10) or Tommy Noble (20-49) or Alf Mansfield (46-52-22) are quality wins? Especially in comparison to say a Reggie Johnson, Sugar Boy Malinga, Eric Harding, Montell Griffen. How can you honestly list these guys with losing records as evidence of greatness yet claim Jones only fought bums. I think you will see Wildes record is packed with coal miners especially in his early career.

For the record, I never said Wilde wasnt great. I rate him highly - look at any of my top ten lists and you will see in no way am I biased against old era fighters so whoever said that obviously doesnt read much of what i write. I just challenge these assumptions of wins passed off as great when theres little to suggest they are and the complete lack of consistenty from some posters in comparing eras. Nobody has offered a valid explanation or back up as to why many of these wins by Wilde should be classified as great or rack higher than Jones opposition its just based on some kind of assumption that isnt even supported by the basic record of the fighter.

Im not arguing Wilde isnt great, Im arguing that Jones is.

That's a pretty boxrec-based way of looking at it Manos. If you want to take that line - fine. However - it would be more objective to see that people saw Young Zulu Kid as a legitimate challenge. No-one of the time saw Wilde as padding his record. Tunney - a man who saw Dempsey, Greb, Johnson - described Wilde as the best he ever saw.

No-one contemporary to Jones saw Malinga as a credible challenge. It was another opportunity to watch Jones KO someone. Same for Eric Harding.

If you want to boxrec it - why is SRR a great when he lost ~20 times. Why is Burley seen as great when he lost to half the HoFers he fought?

I'm not arguing that Jones Jr isn't great - I'm saying that you should look at both fighters with consistency.

If you think Wilde padded his record - what about Joe Louis? Name me one legitimate top 10 HW Louis beat in their prime? Yet many view im as the greatest HW of all time.

No it isnt a basic way of looking at it. I have the luxory of looking back with hindight on Young Zulu Kids career and regardless of what opinion was held in the day, I am looking for an explanation as to why he is considered a quality win for Wilde. I havent received one yet, just plenty of dismissive attitude. Its a simple question, but if he was a quality fighter why does he have a staggerin losing record? Another question is why he would be considered a better win than most of Jones title fights? m not an expert on Wilde, but neither am I ignorant completely about him. I just fail to understand why you list of all these wins as quality. I have used boxrec as a source, yes, but only to challenge and ask the question as to why this is evidence of a great win? I havent got satisfactory explanation. Its also obvious that Wildes record is heavily padded. He fought nearly 150 times and the overwhelming majority of opponents were not top quality.

Im not the one being inconsistent, if you want to say these guys with losing records are great wins for Wilde thats fine, but then you will have to forgive me for saying the same about Jones opponents then. If Young Zulu Kid is a great win, then I see no reason as to why Malinga is not. We are largely on the same sise here if you think Jones is great, but I just dont see why accusations of weak opposition or padding can be levelled at Jones but not Wilde, or why they dont belong in the same company.

I reckon Jones was alot better than Wilde but they are different weight classes so they never would have fought even if they were in the same time

Good thread by the way Waingro, some nice debate.

Scottrf wrote:Good thread by the way Waingro, some nice debate.

Thanks

superflyweight wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

Are you trying to give coxy an aneurism? Despite my earlier support for Jones, I thik you've taken that a bit far. At his peak I doubt he's an easy fight for anyone but there's no way he goes in as clear favourite against Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney or Foster at light heavyweight.

Peak Jones was on a different level.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

Are you trying to give coxy an aneurism? Despite my earlier support for Jones, I thik you've taken that a bit far. At his peak I doubt he's an easy fight for anyone but there's no way he goes in as clear favourite against Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney or Foster at light heavyweight.

Peak Jones was on a different level.

Are you counting heavyweight in that? I think Jones was one ofthe best ever but would he have beaten Lewis or Ali? I dont think he would in the old days he could have been heavyweight champ maybe I reckon he would beat guys like Dempsey or Johnson or that other guy Hart they were not as good some of the heavyweights were also small then but look a the size difference if he fought Lewis it would be too much plus Lewis was top quality and someone like Ali would have too much skill.

Waingro wrote:I reckon Jones was alot better than Wilde but they are different weight classes so they never would have fought even if they were in the same time

Where's :facepalm: when you need it.......?!!

Waingro wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

Are you trying to give coxy an aneurism? Despite my earlier support for Jones, I thik you've taken that a bit far. At his peak I doubt he's an easy fight for anyone but there's no way he goes in as clear favourite against Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney or Foster at light heavyweight.

Peak Jones was on a different level.

Are you counting heavyweight in that? I think Jones was one ofthe best ever but would he have beaten Lewis or Ali? I dont think he would in the old days he could have been heavyweight champ maybe I reckon he would beat guys like Dempsey or Johnson or that other guy Hart they were not as good some of the heavyweights were also small then but look a the size difference if he fought Lewis it would be too much plus Lewis was top quality and someone like Ali would have too much skill.

No I'm not counting HW. Jones was a similar size to some of the great HW's back in the day, but was too small to compete with the modern giants. At 160/168/175 he had the combination of skills and athleticism that let him fight with a completely unique style that no one else could hope to. Be it steroids or what, the guy was almost super-human in his day.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Waingro wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Prime Roy Jones was outrageously good. I doubt any fighter past or present could have given a prime Jones even a decent fight.

Are you trying to give coxy an aneurism? Despite my earlier support for Jones, I thik you've taken that a bit far. At his peak I doubt he's an easy fight for anyone but there's no way he goes in as clear favourite against Charles, Moore, Spinks, Tunney or Foster at light heavyweight.

Peak Jones was on a different level.

Are you counting heavyweight in that? I think Jones was one ofthe best ever but would he have beaten Lewis or Ali? I dont think he would in the old days he could have been heavyweight champ maybe I reckon he would beat guys like Dempsey or Johnson or that other guy Hart they were not as good some of the heavyweights were also small then but look a the size difference if he fought Lewis it would be too much plus Lewis was top quality and someone like Ali would have too much skill.

No I'm not counting HW. Jones was a similar size to some of the great HW's back in the day, but was too small to compete with the modern giants. At 160/168/175 he had the combination of skills and athleticism that let him fight with a completely unique style that no one else could hope to. Be it steroids or what, the guy was almost super-human in his day.

I think you are right mate, only huge fighters that had great skill could beat him imo although i reckon guys like hagler would give him a close fight the guy was beast but i reckon Jones had too much skill.

Waingro wrote:I reckon Jones was alot better than Wilde but they are different weight classes so they never would have fought even if they were in the same time

No disrespect to you Waingro, but big statement to make when you've never seen Wilde fight,Wildes record is outstanding.

Nico the gman wrote:

Waingro wrote:I reckon Jones was alot better than Wilde but they are different weight classes so they never would have fought even if they were in the same time

No disrespect to you Waingro, but big statement to make when you've never seen Wilde fight,Wildes record is outstanding.

I thinks Jones had more skill than wilde in his prime right now he is washed up but I am talking about when he was at his best

manos de piedra wrote:No it isnt a basic way of looking at it. I have the luxory of looking back with hindight on Young Zulu Kids career and regardless of what opinion was held in the day, I am looking for an explanation as to why he is considered a quality win for Wilde. I havent received one yet, just plenty of dismissive attitude. Its a simple question, but if he was a quality fighter why does he have a staggerin losing record? Another question is why he would be considered a better win than most of Jones title fights? m not an expert on Wilde, but neither am I ignorant completely about him. I just fail to understand why you list of all these wins as quality. I have used boxrec as a source, yes, but only to challenge and ask the question as to why this is evidence of a great win? I havent got satisfactory explanation. Its also obvious that Wildes record is heavily padded. He fought nearly 150 times and the overwhelming majority of opponents were not top quality.

Im not the one being inconsistent, if you want to say these guys with losing records are great wins for Wilde thats fine, but then you will have to forgive me for saying the same about Jones opponents then. If Young Zulu Kid is a great win, then I see no reason as to why Malinga is not. We are largely on the same sise here if you think Jones is great, but I just dont see why accusations of weak opposition or padding can be levelled at Jones but not Wilde, or why they dont belong in the same company.

I didn't say basic - I said boxrec. I know you've used boxrec as a source - I'm not criticising that - but looking at fights won/lost does not tell the whole story. Young zulu kid is recorded as 15-8-4 when he fights Wilde. However - of those 8 defeats - about half of them came against Memphis Pal Moore and Pete Herman - with whom he drew first time out - ie the flyweight Kid was fighting and losing to bigger men - bantamweights. So the losses that go against Kid are often explicable by him fighting bigger men. Furthermore, he was fighting in the states - where lots and lots of fights were called as "no decision" - so he could have won more. So the first issue is context.

Context as an issue can be taken further. JonesJr Malinga wasn't seen as a challenge for Jonesjr. Zulu Kid was seen as a challenge for Wilde. So the opinions of fighters at the time are also important. Charley Rose reckoned Young Zulu Kid to be his 10th greatest flyweight of all time.

Furthermore - his overall record isn't properly in context if its seen as a whole. It is recognised that Kid kept fighting long past his time and so his career is tarnished by losses that should not be there. Again - that would be like criticising Jones Jr for his losses to Lebedev or SRR for the end of his career.

We look at the people he was fighting - Tancy Lee, the great Scots flyweight champion. Boxrec record Tancy as having been 6-2-0 when he fought Wilde; and 12-7-1 overall. However; if we look at his career overall from the encyclopaedia - we see he has a more than respectable record of 48-2-10. So the second issue is boxrec based - that the opponents he was fighting at the time are listed as having slight winning records, or major losing records - unfairly - when not all their fights are listed. This is one of the major issues with boxrec as a source for old timers - its great for everything from about 1950 onwards - but it misses fights before that - and in the early days it misses an awful lot of fights.

We return to my major point. People weren't accusing Wilde of padding his career fighting bums whilst he was fighting. People WERE accusing RJJ (sometimes unfairly) of padding his career whilst he was at LHW. (I agree with you, there weren't many top opponents for him to fight - he didn't have a Charles or a Tunney around).

However - I will leap to Wilde's defence when his record, an excellent one, is called into question.

If you were to have used Joe Louis as your example - it would have been stronger; as Louis, also a great stylist, was accused of fighting lesser opposition (not as a pejorative against him - but the quality around him was roundly criticised in the 30s).

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:No it isnt a basic way of looking at it. I have the luxory of looking back with hindight on Young Zulu Kids career and regardless of what opinion was held in the day, I am looking for an explanation as to why he is considered a quality win for Wilde. I havent received one yet, just plenty of dismissive attitude. Its a simple question, but if he was a quality fighter why does he have a staggerin losing record? Another question is why he would be considered a better win than most of Jones title fights? m not an expert on Wilde, but neither am I ignorant completely about him. I just fail to understand why you list of all these wins as quality. I have used boxrec as a source, yes, but only to challenge and ask the question as to why this is evidence of a great win? I havent got satisfactory explanation. Its also obvious that Wildes record is heavily padded. He fought nearly 150 times and the overwhelming majority of opponents were not top quality.

Im not the one being inconsistent, if you want to say these guys with losing records are great wins for Wilde thats fine, but then you will have to forgive me for saying the same about Jones opponents then. If Young Zulu Kid is a great win, then I see no reason as to why Malinga is not. We are largely on the same sise here if you think Jones is great, but I just dont see why accusations of weak opposition or padding can be levelled at Jones but not Wilde, or why they dont belong in the same company.

I didn't say basic - I said boxrec. I know you've used boxrec as a source - I'm not criticising that - but looking at fights won/lost does not tell the whole story. Young zulu kid is recorded as 15-8-4 when he fights Wilde. However - of those 8 defeats - about half of them came against Memphis Pal Moore and Pete Herman - with whom he drew first time out - ie the flyweight Kid was fighting and losing to bigger men - bantamweights. So the losses that go against Kid are often explicable by him fighting bigger men. Furthermore, he was fighting in the states - where lots and lots of fights were called as "no decision" - so he could have won more. So the first issue is context.

Context as an issue can be taken further. JonesJr Malinga wasn't seen as a challenge for Jonesjr. Zulu Kid was seen as a challenge for Wilde. So the opinions of fighters at the time are also important. Charley Rose reckoned Young Zulu Kid to be his 10th greatest flyweight of all time.

Furthermore - his overall record isn't properly in context if its seen as a whole. It is recognised that Kid kept fighting long past his time and so his career is tarnished by losses that should not be there. Again - that would be like criticising Jones Jr for his losses to Lebedev or SRR for the end of his career.

We look at the people he was fighting - Tancy Lee, the great Scots flyweight champion. Boxrec record Tancy as having been 6-2-0 when he fought Wilde; and 12-7-1 overall. However; if we look at his career overall from the encyclopaedia - we see he has a more than respectable record of 48-2-10. So the second issue is boxrec based - that the opponents he was fighting at the time are listed as having slight winning records, or major losing records - unfairly - when not all their fights are listed. This is one of the major issues with boxrec as a source for old timers - its great for everything from about 1950 onwards - but it misses fights before that - and in the early days it misses an awful lot of fights.

We return to my major point. People weren't accusing Wilde of padding his career fighting bums whilst he was fighting. People WERE accusing RJJ (sometimes unfairly) of padding his career whilst he was at LHW. (I agree with you, there weren't many top opponents for him to fight - he didn't have a Charles or a Tunney around).

However - I will leap to Wilde's defence when his record, an excellent one, is called into question.

If you were to have used Joe Louis as your example - it would have been stronger; as Louis, also a great stylist, was accused of fighting lesser opposition (not as a pejorative against him - but the quality around him was roundly criticised in the 30s).

Thanks for the response,

However I still have to question Young Zulu Kid being considered a quality win, if the same isnt going to be done for many of Jones wins. I feel hes just being overrepresented here and several points are not being addressed.

Firstly (using boxrec), Zulu Kid was only 19y old when he fought Wilde the first time. This is generally not when a fighters at his best. He also went on to barely win a fight after he lost to Wilde in 1916. Now are we saying that this guys peak and career were basically over by the time he was twenty? I can excuse obvious career declines such as Ezzard Charles or Roberto Duran for instance when its apparent they tail off badly at the end of their careers and are in their thirties. But this isnt really the case with Zulu Kid. Hes got losses all through his career. He lost nearly every time he faced top fighters so all things considered I just cant see whats special about him as a fighter or why he ranks as a quality win relative to many of Jones opponents.

He was seen as a valid opponent at the time, thats fine, but Calvin Brock was considered a credible opponent for Wlad Klitschko for example. It doesnt make it a great win neccessarily. On reflection it would appear the perception of the day of Younng Zulu Kid may have incorrect seeing as he lost the better fighters of the era with regularity. Perception is just perception and can change. Im not disputing Wilde should have fought him (although the fact he had lost regularly to Moore and Herman already should really indicate his level). On reflection, why should this be considered a great win though? The perception of the day doesnt make it so in my view. You also note that Charley Rose rated him as the tenth best flyweight. Ok thats just one source though from a man who died in the 1970s. The overwhelming amount of soources I have seen doesnt feature Young Zulu Kid anywhere in the top flyweights of all time so again all things considered it looks like Roses opinion is by far the minority and Zulu Kid isnt actually rated all that highly.

Too often for my liking I read material about early era fighters thats far to keen to overrepresent and doesnt explain the realities in a balanced or reasonably manner. Its like there was no such thing as a bad fighter back then. Losing records were down to bad luck, innaccurate recordings, robberies, riggings etc, technical weaknesses in the fighter are not covered at all or insufficiently explained and so forth. Nowadays people are happy to dismiss fighters as tomato cans, bums etc but back then its like there was no such thing. I find the unwillingness to just accept some fighters back then were just average a bit frustrating. For example this might be the type of thing I read:

"In July 1916 Jimmy Wilde again stepped into the ring to face the highly rated contender Johnny Hughes in an eagerly anticpated British title fight. Hughes was an excellent boxer famed for his speed and movement around the ring and wicked left hook. Many felt that this would be Wildes toughest fight to date against the teak tough Londoner who had previously beaten Alf Mansfield in a thrilling encounter. In front a packed out Kendall Rise Athletic Ground in London Wilde displayed a master class of precision punching and devastating power dropping the tough Londoner several times on a way to a 10th round knockout after delivering a thundering right hook which left his opponent out for the count."

Sounds great. So I read think and think hey thats interesting I must look this fight up for more information. Then I see that Johnny Hughes has a patchy record with more losses than wins, was coming into the fight on the back of a host of losses, doesnt appear to have many noteable wins at all and was 33y old at the time of the fight having seen better days. The suspicioun begins to dawn on me that maybe this guy wasnt all that great a fighter after all and the author of the above piece may have been less than wholesome with the truth. I feel better for having looked it up myself, however briefly and am content to disagree with the authors "version" of events. Its just too easy to easy to be heavy handed with creative licence and it occurs all too frequently for my liking. How would people feel about the accuracy of the following:

"In September 2005 world heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko returned to the ring to face what many believed was his toughest opponent to date, Samuel Peter. The thunderous punching Nigerian was undefeated and had scored a host of knock out wins on his path to the world title. Many believed the highly rated Nigerians power would be too much for the champion. In front of a sold out audience in the famous Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City the champion Klitschko thrilled the rapturous audience and displayed the heart of a champion rising from the canvas three times to outpoint the ferocious Nigerian and retain his title via unanimous decision".

Its not that difficult to be imaginative in representing the fight.

In relation to Joe Louis, I actually think his level of opposition was fine. I think only Ali can really claim to trump it in heavyweight terms.

I appreciate what you say in terms of biased reporting - but you're only addressing half the issue for me. You make a valid point when you say that these people frequently appeared to have losing records via boxrec. But remember - Tancy Lee is supposedly only 17-12 his whole career - when the truth of the matter is that he was something like 49-2. Boxrec doesn't report all the fights. Rather its those dedicated fight biographies that describe Johnny Hughes as a tough opponent that have to be seen as more helpful for me.

Kid was 19 - young yes, but he was also a bona fide flyweight who'd been a pro for years and years. Reports describe him diminishing in terms of speed and reflexes - especially a couple of years after the Wilde defeat. I see no reason to doubt that. We all know examples of notable boxers who appear to have tired and "gone off" far too young.

Furthermore - when we're discussing losing to the better fighters - yes, Kid lost to the likes of Moore and Herman - but they were bantamweights. Herman in particular was a big lad - and Kid had no right fighting and doing well against guys of that size.

Johnny Hughes had been bantamweight champion according to coscorner. Boxrec entirely fail to mentiopn this fight as ever having existed. So what do we conclude - that Johnny Hughes was overrated or that boxrec is an inadequate source.

They weren't seen as inadequate at the time - but the opposition of RJJ was.
------------------------------------------------
Now. The opposition of Louis. At the time it was criticised - rightfully so - surely that has to count for something in our analysis?

In summary therefore:

1) I feel you're far too quick to write off the likes of Johnny Hughes on the grounds of what boxrec subsequently says about them.
2) I feel you don't value opinions and criticisms "of the time" highly enough
3) I still feel you're placing too much weight on boxrec's record - when the encyclopaedias of the fighters record suggest they had more fights - and won more fights than boxrec recognises.

Im not writing off guys like Johnny Hughes or Zulu Kid but I am suggesting that you are overrating them as wins. Especially in comparison to many of Jones wins which I would see as being similar level. Even accounting for inaccuracies in boxrec, unless its essentially completely fabricated then theres plenty of evidence there to say they had lost to average fighters. Zulu Kid being 19 years old when he lost to Wilde and then barely winning a fight afterwards is hard to explain. If boxrec is completely wrong then fair enough but if its even half right then it doesnt really represent Zulu Kid as a special win and as I said above I have not seen him feature as top flyweight in most lists or sources I have seen.

I think its far more dangerous to take opinions of the day as givens as opposed to forming your own because its largely second hand and often not completely reliable. Hindsight is a luxury so why not avail of it? Many perception and opinions in certain eras change over time and reflcetion and while Zulu Kid may have been seen as a credible fight for Wilde back then theres a big difference between that and a great win. I dont view the win as special. If you want to view the win as a win over a decent challenger in the day then I think thats reasonable but to use it as a great win? Not for me.

If you go through Jones opposition, most of them are top ten ranked opponents in his division so I could easily use that as grounds of refuting he was padding his record or taking easy fights. Griffen, Harding, Hill, Del Valle, Johnson, Tarver, Gonzalez, Telesco etc Not outstanding wins but aside from Darius Michalsewski they were the best the division had to offer.

What I am trying acheive is consistency between the two in how they are rated and I think saying Zulu Kid, Tancy Lee etc were quality wins for Wilde but saying that Jones wins were not in the same kind of level is being too generous to Wilde in my view. I dont see why there are better than Griffens, Hills, Hardings etc

Maybe it's better to use ones eyes and to suggest that perhaps winning titles from 160-heavyweight is something only Fitz achieved and that last time I looked Hill and Harding hadn't done that....

Interesting point, Manos.

However - I would pick you up on the point of hindsight. If contemporaries, who had the luxury of hindsight, didn't pick them up as weak opponents, why then can we, based solely upon boxrec - a source that is infinitely unreliable during this period. I return, to my bugbear - Tancy Lee. Boxrec have him as 17-12-? - whereas a Scots boxing encylopaedia refers to him as 49-2-something during this period.

Personally, I try to steer as clear of boxrec with regards to the early lighter weights as possible - as fights simply aren't recorded as having ever occurred. We can't use something as an objective source if it turns out to be completely blind - or at best, one-eyed.

oxring wrote:Interesting point, Manos.

However - I would pick you up on the point of hindsight. If contemporaries, who had the luxury of hindsight, didn't pick them up as weak opponents, why then can we, based solely upon boxrec - a source that is infinitely unreliable during this period. I return, to my bugbear - Tancy Lee. Boxrec have him as 17-12-? - whereas a Scots boxing encylopaedia refers to him as 49-2-something during this period.

Personally, I try to steer as clear of boxrec with regards to the early lighter weights as possible - as fights simply aren't recorded as having ever occurred. We can't use something as an objective source if it turns out to be completely blind - or at best, one-eyed.

Im not saying they are weak wins, or that opinions held back then are without merit. I am just questioning why they should be considered any better than the kind of wins Jones achieved?

Boxrec is by no means a perfect source - I accept there may be innaccuracies in it but I also think the same lack of objectivity is evident in many other sources from the past especially often impartial opinions. Boxrec at least doesnt judge it only tries to represent what happened, and no more.

I havent read the encyclopedia on Tancy Lee so I can specualte on the why there would be a disparity but like I said if boxrec is only half right on the issue its still enough to show that Tancy Lee is not an elite level win in my view. Its incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of opposition back in those days as boxing was far less structured but in general I do find that descriptions of fighters back then are often done with rose tinted spectacles and often not supported by whatever record of the fighter is available or the explanation of the lack of success in the fighters career. Like I say, nowadays its common to see opposition described as bums or journeymen but back then its like no such opposition existed. Every fighter, regardless of record or talent, was seen to be tough when I doubt this was this case. One of the products of fighting more regularly is that you will face many more mixed level opponents.

manos de piedra wrote:I havent read the encyclopedia on Tancy Lee so I can specualte on the why there would be a disparity but like I said if boxrec is only half right on the issue its still enough to show that Tancy Lee is not an elite level win in my view. Its incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of opposition back in those days as boxing was far less structured but in general I do find that descriptions of fighters back then are often done with rose tinted spectacles and often not supported by whatever record of the fighter is available or the explanation of the lack of success in the fighters career. Like I say, nowadays its common to see opposition described as bums or journeymen but back then its like no such opposition existed. Every fighter, regardless of record or talent, was seen to be tough when I doubt this was this case. One of the products of fighting more regularly is that you will face many more mixed level opponents.

First point - a former British bantamweight champion - which holds some merit, the British title being worth more in those days - who was 49-2 - that would be seen as one hell of a good win for a flyweight boxer in any day and age. I would accept your point that boxrec is trying to be impartial and just report the facts of the fights - but that isn't the case if they are missing out fights that occurred - in fact, they are doing more of a disservice by their omissions.

Second point - I disagree that every fighter, regardless of record or talent was seen as tough. The phrase "overmatched" is widely used in this period - and I have lost count of the number of times I have come across the words "game but overmatched" in post fight reports of the era. That, to me, indicates someone who came to fight but was on a different level to the champion. However - Toney was overmatched when he fought RJJ but is still an elite win. But there is an important distinction - Toney was seen as overmatched only after RJJ handled him at will, not before. So when media reports of a 1900s fight refer to pre fight suspicions that an opponent is overmatched - then he is likely a journeyman level win. When media reports of the 1900s suggest that the opponent will be a challenge and he then proves overmatched - it, in my eyes, is more likely to be a good win.

The thing is though that Toney is immediately obvious as a quality win. Im not convinced the likes of Tancy Lee and Young Zulu Kid were. Obviously theres a big difference of era but Tancy Lee didnt turn pro until he was in his 30s, when most flyweights are retired and Young Zulu Kids career was all but over by the time he was 21. This makes it pretty hard to get a handle on their careers.

I dnt mind the discussion about what kind of wins they were, its an interesting excercise. But I do feel that that just taking them as given top wins but at the same time not recognising that many of Jones wins are capable of falling into the same bracket is quite unfair.

We could discuss back and forth the qualities of these guys, their acheivements and so on but really what I am trying to get at is why they should be considered better wins than what Jones has?

You have provided reasonable evidence to show they may be better than what boxrec insinuates but I also think some of the evidence about them also indicates they may not be great wins and would seem to me to be closer to good or decent wins over valid contenders of the day. This is precisely the sort of win that I think Jones has in abundance and I am not quite sure why Tancy Lee, Zulu Kid, Mansfield etc deserve to be considered better wins than what I feel their equivalents are in Griffen, McCallum, Hill, Harding, Johnson etc and these contenders that Jones comfortably cleared out during his reign?

Scottrf wrote:Rightful Gold medal winner
Fighter of the Decade 1990s
First since Fitzsimmons to win Middleweight and Heavyweight titles
Longest ever reigning P4P#1 (not certain but think it’s very likely)
Beat the P4P number one
Went 49-1, the loss was a DQ in a fight he was dominating
Beat maybe a dozen former or future world titlists
Never really looked like losing until dropping back down from Heavy
Beat about a half dozen unbeaten fighters, knocked out guys that had never been stopped before

OK he doesn’t have the most depth in terms of top wins but to claim he isn’t a great is ridiculous.

Great post. For me Jones is one of the most talented fighters in history in his prime he was untouchable.

manos de piedra wrote:You have provided reasonable evidence to show they may be better than what boxrec insinuates but I also think some of the evidence about them also indicates they may not be great wins and would seem to me to be closer to good or decent wins over valid contenders of the day. This is precisely the sort of win that I think Jones has in abundance and I am not quite sure why Tancy Lee, Zulu Kid, Mansfield etc deserve to be considered better wins than what I feel their equivalents are in Griffen, McCallum, Hill, Harding, Johnson etc and these contenders that Jones comfortably cleared out during his reign?

Fair point - and you make an interesting point with regards to boxrec - and analysis of ages. However - when boxrec says Lee didn't turn pro until he was in his 30s - I just doubt they have any of his younger fights on record - which seems more likely to me.

Some of the wins - Hill/McCallum for instance - matches pretty well with a Tancy Lee for me - ie both experienced former championship level fighters.

Others - Griffin - matches well with a Tancy Lee - ie highly rated up and coming fighter who doesn't achieve much after a brutal defeat.

Its the Harding and in some respects the Lucas fights that I doubt slightly more - as they never were that good and they never went on to be that good. That said - in his 150 or so fights - Wilde fought many people at that level - its just I feel he fought more Hill/McCallum level fighters than Jones did.