Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao

Sooooo Floyd has just been interviewed on Showtime at the Lara fight last night and he has openly called out Manny for the fight to happen May 2nd and that negotiations are on the way.

He also stated the reason the last fight didn't happen was because of urine and blood testing and that he offered a further £40 million to fight on top.

Strangely enough he said they have been trying to negotiate for years but....Bob Arum has been preventing it from occuring....but now that Pacman is in a tight situation, has lost a couple of fights and his PPV numbers are down...he is becoming desperate to land some big money and fight Floyd.

Floyd says he wants to fight for his legacy, money and because the fans want the fight.

Found the interview on Showtime....may be out there on youtube but finally he has really gone aggressive in calling Manny out for May 2nd.

Thoughts on this?

Until I see them face to face as the first bell rings it's all a load of hot air and nothing they haven't said before.

Thoughts? Won't happen.

Floyd signed a six fight deal with Showtime
Manny signed a two year extension with TopRank and by extension HBO.

It's not really financially sensible for Manny anymore. His two Macau fights made him $55-60m at 12% tax. Floyd's two fights this year made him $70-80m at 40%.

Fights Floyd for a flat $40m, he goes home with $24m... goes to China and fight for $25M.. He goes home with $22m... hardly earth shaking finances

Same. I'll believe it when I see it.

Once again, a yawning smily would come in handy.

No difference fm the crap he's been saying for years.

kingraf wrote:Thoughts? Won't happen.

Floyd signed a six fight deal with Showtime
Manny signed a two year extension with TopRank and by extension HBO.

It's not really financially sensible for Manny anymore. His two Macau fights made him $55-60m at 12% tax. Floyd's two fights this year made him $70-80m at 40%.

Fights Floyd for a flat $40m, he goes home with $24m... goes to China and fight for $25M.. He goes home with $22m... hardly earth shaking finances

Could he not fight Floyd in Macau?

kingraf wrote:Thoughts? Won't happen.

Floyd signed a six fight deal with Showtime
Manny signed a two year extension with TopRank and by extension HBO.

It's not really financially sensible for Manny anymore. His two Macau fights made him $55-60m at 12% tax. Floyd's two fights this year made him $70-80m at 40%.

Fights Floyd for a flat $40m, he goes home with $24m... goes to China and fight for $25M.. He goes home with $22m... hardly earth shaking finances

It's not quite that simple Raf, Pacquiao pays more in management, promotional and training fees as well as having unpaid tax to sort out then you have to factor in his share of any PPV is much lower.

For their past three fights which does include Alvarez for Mayweather he's made over $145mil including PPV revenue whereas in the same timescale Pacquiao made $67mil. Even accounting for tax that's a huge difference in take home money.

Any fight between the two would even at this stage be expected to sell more than Alvarez so from a money perspective it makes perfect sense for the pair.

P.s. Yes I did check the figures with a quick google search.

He could... Especially if PPV is launched in China (Arum has for whatever reason simply not managed to get it off the ground, old fart). Put Shiming on the undercard, charge $5 and it probably blows every single fight in history out of the water financially.

All ifs and buts, Pacquiao would earn more money fighting Mayweather in America than fighting anybody else in Macau. With Shiming fighting for a world title he would surely want a large chunk of any money generated off the back of his name, it's not instantly going to go to Pacquiao is it.

I haven't ignored the tax issue. I've factored it. For one, it seems Paccy was wrong and he has to pay Filipino tax having paid Yank tax. If you're gonna get taxed twice anyway, makes sense to fight in the place which charges less. China also has the advantage of an untapped market. If the last two or three Paccy fights are on Chinese pay per view, with the right (read: random Chinese guy vs TBA) undercard, I think you see nine figure money from those fights.

Must admit I question your figures. Paccy's numbers sound like his base pays, ie
- Ríos $18m
- Bradley $20m
- Algieri $25m.

My mental arithmetic tells me that's $63m. I do find it hard to believe he only made $4m upside. Possible... just find it difficult to believe.

How much money is in a Mayweather Pacquiao fight Hammer? Seems like the pie in the sky money for Fury-Haye if I'm honest. Five years ago, it was the hottest entities in boxing, fighting in front of one million plus pay per view buys. Floyd had recently done 2.2m... now, well, realistically Floyd has failed to cross one million in 3/4 post prison. Manny is hovering around 500k, if we're being kind... Okay, it's two massive names, so I can believe 2 million buys vicinity... but much more? No don't buy it.

I still think you're looking at over $200mil, if Mayweather can get 925k buys for Maidana then a Pacquiao fight would at least double that i'd have thought.

You give either of them a worthwhile well known opponent and they still do huge numbers, 1.5mil for Cotto, 2.2 for Alvarez. The problem for Pacquiao has been fighting either rubbish or guys he's already faced previously, who really wanted to see him face Bradley again?

All of this is pretty pointless conjecture anyway as I doubt the fight will happen, drums up more interest in the two as they go on to fight Khan and Marquez again respectively.

I agree on the Fury-Haye point, there is no way in hell that fight was generating the purses they were talking about nor would Haye have ever agreed to a 50/50 split, more likely to be around £2.5mil and £1mil for the pair.

kingraf wrote:I haven't ignored the tax issue. I've factored it. For one, it seems Paccy was wrong and he has to pay Filipino tax having paid Yank tax. If you're gonna get taxed twice anyway, makes sense to fight in the place which charges less. China also has the advantage of an untapped market. If the last two or three Paccy fights are on Chinese pay per view, with the right (read: random Chinese guy vs TBA) undercard, I think you see nine figure money from those fights.

Must admit I question your figures. Paccy's numbers sound like his base pays, ie
- Ríos $18m
- Bradley $20m
- Algieri $25m.

My mental arithmetic tells me that's $63m. I do find it hard to believe he only made $4m upside. Possible... just find it difficult to believe.

His figures include the PPV, if he took a direct cut from for the Rios and Algieri fights I can imagine that makes the taxation issue even more complicated.

Exactly what Hammer says, all the talk about May Pac is just to keep them in the public eye. Dangling the carrot of a mega fight (nowhere near as big as in 2010/11, mind) so the public will accept their next opponent.

I also think Floyd is just d1ck swinging with this whole cinco de mayweather thing hoping Canelo will back down and free the date for him. Just don't see Floyd Pac ever happening.

Be a great night of boxing though.

Canelo vs Cotto and Floyd vs Pacman.

Who would you watch?

On a side note, looking forward to tonight's fight good card for the Khan vs Alexander scrap...which is on Sky so can't complain...although now I feel robbed because I paid for bellew.

This fight is still the biggest out there though in terms of PPV numbers and competition.

Who else could they fight at Welter that would gain as much interest or generate as much money?

I've also heard Manny is trying to get back down to LWW....I don't know.

Hope it happens....

Glass half full. I think it could happen next. If it doesn't happen next then it won't at all. I'm a Floyd fan but unless he fights GGG (we all know that ain't happening) then he needs Pacquiao.

Pacquiao is still a force to be reckoned with. He easily beat a very good fighter in Bradley and say what you will about Algeri but he was a champion and Manny picked him apart.

Both fighters have lost a slight step but they are still the top guys out there and the best of the era. Obviously the fight should of happened 4 or 5 years ago but It didn't, so it needs to happen now.

Well done Floyd people say he cherry picks but this shows that he wants to fight the best. I think Manny will find a way to duck Floyd once again tho.

I hope Adam and the glass half full people are right and I'm wrong. Mobile, I'm looking forward to Khan tonight (although I'll record it and watch it tomorrow), think and hope he'll do the business.

Clearly still an interesting fight, still an event, maybe even still the best match-up out there.

The sad truth is that it won't be the epoch-shaking contest that it would have been if it had been put together back in 2010. Mayweather-Pacquiao had the ingredients to be on a historic level with Leonard-Hearns, Hagler-Hearns and almost any fight that there ever was, with the possible exception of the first Frazier-Ali fight, in terms of its significance to the sport. The winner would undoubtedly have been granted all-time top 10, possibly even top 5, pound for pound status, regardless of what happened after it.

Now? As I say, it's interesting and it will be watchable, just as Leonard-Hearns 2 was. Let's not pretend, however, that it will be the event that it could have been or that it will imbue the winner with that magical aura that would once have been the case. The other deeds of Pacquiao and Mayweather will have to suffice for that, which is such a shame. The planets seldom align themselves as favourably for a special fight as they did for Floyd-Manny five years ago and it will be a permanent strike against the reputation of both that they couldn't find it within themselves to take advantage of that fact.

Fair point. Fight isn't as big as it was but I agree it is still intriguing.

Funny thing is, with both fighters losing a bit and both guys determined to be number 1, we could still have a great fight. I side with Floyd but Manny certainly has the offensive abilities and still some aggressiveness to make Floyd work hard.

Agree with everything you say, Adam, but find it hard to forgive the pair of them for their wanton attitude towards a once in a generation opportunity to haul boxing front and centre in the sporting world.

They could have showcased this great sport to the world, given the lie to the accusation that the best never meet the best any more and revived boxing as something that mattered to, and was discussed among, everyone from the global media to the man and woman in the street. I shall watch the fight, if and when it happens, but I shall silently be cursing both Floyd and Manny as I do so.

Couldn't agree more with the captain. They had an opportunity to transcend the sport for this generation and squandered it.

I've always thought that the way they both behaved in 2010/11, and the fact they basically got away with it (in terms of fans tuning in and supporting them/allowing them to continue earning ridiculous amounts) has encouraged other up and coming fighters to choose the easier path in their careers.

Agree Captain, it could of been so much more. Oh well Better late than never and maybe if the fight happens it will still be a good match up.

Hope this is a lesson learned to any upcoming stars and promoters. For a sport to thrive, the best HAVE to face the best.

Anyway, if they were on the same night... I'd watch Álvarez slap the manlet around then watch Mayweather-Pacquaio later on in life.

Anyone here reckon Álvarez could get Floyd to back down re Cinco de Mayo? In a head to head, Floyd sinks Álvarez, but Floyd, or rather ShoSports can't afford to risk losing a couple hundred thousand viewers to Álvarez. So unless he draws Pacquiao (which he won't), his next move becomes very interesting.

Part of me would still like to see it happen. The other half thinks the crowing from the Floydettes should he manage to decision Pacquiao just wouldn't be worth it.

They'd be arguing for him above Robinson!

In floyd's own eyes he's already above Robinson. I mean robbo lost didn't he.

So, if he fought and beat manny, he'd have to go at least another place above Robinson. 1.floyd. 2. Vacant 3. Robinson.

As others have said, I'd watch it through gritted teeth. I always fancied floyd in this,  prime or anytime, though the maidana  fights at least allow the faint hint of an upset.

One of the biggest Floyd fans on here but Haz he will not go up any higher on my all time list.

I believe he would of beat Manny anytime, I just want him to prove it. Also if he loses and its a fair decision then I will come on here and congratulate Manny.

For me Floyd is top ten of all time. To some of you that is way too high but it is my opinion. I would probably have him 9 or 10 on my list. Manny isn't too far away. Probably have him around 20.

I thought Pacquiao would beat him back in 2010 (when he was on Ariza's strength and conditioning programme).

Had Robinson been around these days he'd have fought Pacquiao a bunch of times.

AdamT wrote:One of the biggest Floyd fans on here but Haz he will not go up any higher on my all time list.

I believe he would of beat Manny anytime, I just want him to prove it. Also if he loses and its a fair decision then I will come on here and congratulate Manny.

For me Floyd is top ten of all time. To some of you that is way too high but it is my opinion. I would probably have him 9 or 10 on my list. Manny isn't too far away. Probably have him around 20.

What do you base that ranking on?

A list of good wins, great wins in his younger years.

His ability to win fights against every style. His ring generalship and his ability to adapt during fights.

Defensive genius, can count on my hand how many times he has been hurt.

The fact he could of been slightly more ambitious or had better opponents is the only reason he won't go beyond 9 or 10 on my list. I'm not a boxing historian or an expert. I'm just a fight fan, that bases my opinions on what I see and in my opinion Mayweather is an absolute boxing genius.

So mainly how he looks in the ring (his style etc?)

That's fair enough. You could rank the likes of Roy Jones and Salvador Sanchez that high based on the same criteria.

In terms of achievement he wouldn't rate as high (and belongs right alongside Pac).

So, if he fought and beat manny, he'd have to
go at least another place above Robinson.
1.floyd. 2. Vacant 3. Robinson.

That is brilliant, Milky.

Yeah to be honest I do base it on his abilities.

He hasn't the record of a Duran or Armstrong let alone the greatest ever, Ray Robinson. Only an idiot would say otherwise.

Though like the man you just mentioned, Jones Jr. I don't see too many better boxers on a head to head basis. Unfortunately I'm not an expert so my knowledge from before the Ali years is basically from old books and what I have read from more knowledgeable posters, For example some of you guys on here.

Just a general question....but WHO did RJJ actually beat in his primes to warrant such a high ranking in the all time list. People say his was the best SMW ever.....why?

Can. Worms.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Just a general question....but WHO did RJJ actually beat in his primes to warrant such a high ranking in the all time list. People say his was the best SMW ever.....why?

Can. Worms.

Hopkins and Toney - the latter at 168.

Jones was a phenom - a truly unusual athlete who produced stunning results. He was far more dominant than Floyd, for example. Jones was deemed untouchable from 160 to 175. Super middleweight is a relatively new division and Jones stands alone at the top of it. Whether more should be made of him being a drug cheat is another matter.

James Toney may have been drained but Jones Jr was sensational.

He may not have the highest tier of opponents but at his best he really was like Superman. Was a freak in his prime and I wouldn't pick too many to beat him head to head.

hazharrison wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:Just a general question....but WHO did RJJ actually beat in his primes to warrant such a high ranking in the all time list. People say his was the best SMW ever.....why?

Can. Worms.

It's a fair question that we've had time & time again, Dariuz M aside he was unlucky in that there wernt any big names in the division to beat, a bit like Calzaghe's reign. He did to be fair, aforementioned aside, clear out LHW division and hardly lost a round until the 1st Griffin fight.

Hopkins and Toney - the latter at 168.

Jones was a phenom - a truly unusual athlete who produced stunning results. He was far more dominant than Floyd, for example. Jones was deemed untouchable from 160 to 175. Super middleweight is a relatively new division and Jones stands alone at the top of it. Whether more should be made of him being a drug cheat is another matter.

Now I was a massive Jones fan, take away the failed IBF drug test, did you never find yourself questioning the mans physic at LHW? And the fact that he hardly ever broke into a sweat? I constantly wondered about this as fight after fight!

AdamT wrote:Fair point. Fight isn't as big as it was but I agree it is still intriguing.

Funny thing is, with both fighters losing a bit and both guys determined to be number 1, we could still have a great fight. I side with Floyd but Manny certainly has the offensive abilities and still some aggressiveness to make Floyd work hard.

I must admit to still being interested in this fight even though as all have said its not the fight it was. Back after the Cotto fight it was a 50/50 fight for me, I might even pick Manny if you pushed me. But since then its been downhill for him, he just seemed to lose a little bit each fight and add to the fact he is so easy to hit. The 2nd Bradley fight and the Algeri fight had me asking how easy would Floyd find his chin? Ok he's got a good engine and work rate, and that will cause floyd some problems, but for how long? Manny needs to ko him to win otherwise its Floyd on points or even late stoppage.

Roy's record isn't really as threadbare as his detractors like to claim. You'll have to forgive me lads, as I recognise I've written a more or less identical post in the past to the one below, but it's the best way I can try to drill home just how special and freakish a fighter Jones was in his pomp. People talk as if he only shone because he was facing no-names, which is ridiculous.

Castro: Won a world title and defended if a few times in the years after losing to Jones, beating John David Jackson twice. Dominated and shut out by Jones.

Hopkins: Didn't lose for another twelve years after being beaten by Jones, was a world champion within the next two years.

Malinga: Beat Nigel Benn, dropped a controversial split decision to Eubank and went on to beat Robin Reid to become a world champion, but outclassed and knocked out in six by Jones (his first stoppage loss, and he didn't have another until he was forty-three).

Thomas Tate: Gives Julian Jackson, one of the greatest ko artists in history, a hell of a fight en route to losing a close decision, standing up to his legendary power well. Gets blasted out in two rounds by Jones, though - the only stoppage loss of his career.

Toney: Pound for pound number two at the time, in the best and most consistent form of his career, won world titles and a Ring Magazine 'Fighter of the Year' award in years to come - humiliated by Jones.

Griffin: Unbeaten, two wins over Toney (albeit one of them a bit dodgy) and dominated Michalczewski for three rounds before that contentious stoppage in the fourth - obliterated in one round by Jones in their rematch.

Hill: Only prior defeats had been close points losses to top fighters like Hearns and Michalczewski, and would go on to win another world title in years to come. Flattened inside four rounds by Jones.

Reggie Johnson: Two-weight titlist, beat good fighters like Steve Collins and supposedly can't-miss prospects like Parks and Guthrie with most of his losses to guys such as Castro, Toney and John David Jackson being questionable to say the least. Lost every minute of every round against Jones.

Hall: Good enough to give Michalczewski two very interesting scraps, but was on the end of one of the worst and most sustained beat downs you'll ever see against Jones.

Harding: Was able to beat good fighters such as a previously undefeated Tarver and Griffin. After some early problems, eventually figured out by Jones, has his main weapon taken away from him and is pulled out by his corner against Jones.

Harmon: Outscored Glen Johnson, was a mile ahead against Michalczewski before getting stopped, but lost every round against Jones before the corner retirement.

Gonzalez: Undefeated at the time, went on to beat Glen Johnson and then overthrow Michalczewski in Germany a couple of years later - dropped multiple times and dominated by Jones.

Woods: Would go on to win a world title later in his career and beat Gonzalez twice, but was well outclassed and stopped in six rounds (his only ever stoppage loss) against Jones.

All of that before beating Ruiz for a Heavyweight belt (ok, bit of a gimmicky exercise but nevertheless, I don't see many guys in history Jones' size beating even an average Heavyweight titlist like Ruiz while giving away about 30 lb) and then returning to 175 to reclaim his title from Tarver in their first fight - which was a fair decision, despite Antonio's complaints.

He didn't have the names around to make him an Ezzard Charles kind of figure, and you can argue with plenty of justification that he has only one or two wins which really stand out as being 'great.' But he made a huge number of good, sometimes very good fighters look as if they'd never even set foot in a ring before such was his dominance. When you look at how those guys did against the other leading guys between 160 and 175 of that era, and what they achieved before / after losing to Jones, you get a better appreciation of just how dominant he really was and how it's not as "easy" to do what Jones did as the naysayers seem to think.

Similarly to Louis, Jofre and Wilde, you can argue that the names on Jones' CV don't scream out greatness. But if like the other three regularly benefit from you're awarding additional points for all-round talent and the stunning displays of it along with consistency and longevity, then there's no way Jones can be anything other than a genuine all-time great. As for the Super-Middles, Toney (as evidenced) and Calzaghe simply not in the same class as him, and I don't say that lightly.

88Chris05 wrote:Roy's record isn't really as threadbare as his detractors like to claim. You'll have to forgive me lads, as I recognise I've written a more or less identical post in the past to the one below, but it's the best way I can try to drill home just how special and freakish a fighter Jones was in his pomp. People talk as if he only shone because he was facing no-names, which is ridiculous.

Castro: Won a world title and defended if a few times in the years after losing to Jones, beating John David Jackson twice. Dominated and shut out by Jones.

Hopkins: Didn't lose for another twelve years after being beaten by Jones, was a world champion within the next two years.

Malinga: Beat Nigel Benn, dropped a controversial split decision to Eubank and went on to beat Robin Reid to become a world champion, but outclassed and knocked out in six by Jones (his first stoppage loss, and he didn't have another until he was forty-three).

Thomas Tate: Gives Julian Jackson, one of the greatest ko artists in history, a hell of a fight en route to losing a close decision, standing up to his legendary power well. Gets blasted out in two rounds by Jones, though - the only stoppage loss of his career.

Toney: Pound for pound number two at the time, in the best and most consistent form of his career, won world titles and a Ring Magazine 'Fighter of the Year' award in years to come - humiliated by Jones.

Griffin: Unbeaten, two wins over Toney (albeit one of them a bit dodgy) and dominated Michalczewski for three rounds before that contentious stoppage in the fourth - obliterated in one round by Jones in their rematch.

Hill: Only prior defeats had been close points losses to top fighters like Hearns and Michalczewski, and would go on to win another world title in years to come. Flattened inside four rounds by Jones.

Reggie Johnson: Two-weight titlist, beat good fighters like Steve Collins and supposedly can't-miss prospects like Parks and Guthrie with most of his losses to guys such as Castro and John David Jackson being questionable to say the least. Lost every minute of every round against Jones.

Hall: Good enough to give Michalczewski two very interesting scraps, but was on the end of one of the worst and most sustained beat downs you'll ever see against Jones.

Harding: Was able to beat good fighters such as a previously undefeated Tarver and Griffin. After some early problems, eventually figured out by Jones, has his main weapon taken away from him and is pulled out by his corner against Jones.

Harmon: Outscored Glen Johnson, was a mile ahead against Michalczewski before getting stopped, but lost every round against Jones before the corner retirement.

Gonzalez: Undefeated at the time, went on to beat Glen Johnson and then overthrow Michalczewski in Germany a couple of years later - dropped multiple times and dominated by Jones.

Woods: Would go on to win a world title later in his career and beat Gonzalez twice, but was well outclassed and stopped in six rounds (his only ever stoppage loss) against Jones.

All of that before beating Ruiz for a Heavyweight belt (ok, bit of a gimmicky exercise but nevertheless, I don't see many guys in history Jones' size beating even an average Heavyweight titlist like Ruiz while giving away about 30 lb) and then returning to 175 to reclaim his title from Tarver in their first fight - which was a fair decision, despite Antonio's complaints.

He didn't have the names around to make him an Ezzard Charles kind of figure, and you can argue with plenty of justification that he has only one or two wins which really stand out as being 'great.' But he made a huge number of good, sometimes very good fighters look as if they'd never even set foot in a ring before such was his dominance. When you look at how those guys did against the other leading guys between 160 and 175 of that era, and what they achieved before / after losing to Jones, you get a better appreciation of just how dominant he really was and how it's not as "easy" to do what Jones did as the naysayers seem to think.

Similarly to Louis, Jofre and Wilde, you can argue that the names on Jones' CV don't scream out greatness. But if like the other three regularly benefit from you're awarding additional points for all-round talent and the stunning displays of it along with consistency and longevity, then there's no way Jones can be anything other than a genuine all-time great. As for the Super-Middles, Toney (as evidenced) and Calzaghe simply not in the same class as him, and I don't say that lightly.

That's exactly how I see it Chris, just didn't word it as well as you! lol I am surprised at the way people on here view him & the stick they give him and his record. Lets be honest how many long reigning champs from Jones era have career defining fight after career defining fight? How great were Hopkins defenses until the MW tournament? Jones is my era, I must have watched almost all of his fights since Bryant Brannent (?) which was the 1st time I saw him after hearing so much about him. Another LHW fight that sticks in my mind was against David Telesco. Telesco was huge LHW with a decent record at the time and Jones fought and beat him with a broken hand! Must say I thought he was gifted the 1st Tarver fight, even before the fight began I thought Jones didn't look like the Jones before Ruiz, he looked drained.

Personally I've never really seen the big fuss over that first Tarver fight, sohotnot. Don't get me wrong - it was close. If Tarver had retained the titles with a draw then I don't think anyone could really have quibbled it too much, but I had Jones winning by a couple and genuinely think that he was the only one of the pair with a claim to an outright win. The 116-112 card (which Lederman also had on HBO's broadcast) was too wide, mind you, and the 117-111 was even worse. But as an overall result, Jones winning was a fair reflection, I felt.

In an odd way, while he struggled in a fight that most felt he'd walk beforehand, it turned out to be one of Jones' better wins. It was one of the few times up until then he'd ever been seriously challenged and come perilously close to losing, a Griffin DQ aside. But he dug deep and took a clean sweep of the last four rounds (in my opinion, anyway) to pull out the win despite clearly looking like he'd got old all of a sudden.

On the eve of the rematch, Tarver's trainer Buddy McGirt admitted that he couldn't even bring himself to watch the first fight back - not because he felt the decision was unfair, but because he knew it had been a glorious opportunity which his fighter partly threw away down the home straight. He said that he didn't need to view the fight again as it was clear where Tarver had gone wrong and that Jones was ready for the taking if Antonio executed properly second time out - and boy did he.

Good analysis Chris.

With RJJ because he's recent and we've seen it all first hand, we can contextualise every one of his performances to give a good overview of his career. 'He beat boxer A who went on to beat boxer B so this means x,y,z'. This is my problem with people waxing lyrical about boxers from times gone by because on paper, we just can't judge them in the same context with the same consistency, it really favours the Rose tinted specs of the past. For that reason I don't understand why people get so uppity with each other about their ATG lists. Anyway, small gripe of mine.

Chris says prime RJJ was a different class to Calzaghe. Seems harsh when I first read it but to be honest I don't know how else I'd put it myself. So many class operators looked average against RJJ. I think if Calzaghe bloodied his nose and nicked the odd round, he'd have done a lot better than most.

I think it was the fact I was such a big fan of Jones and the fact he appeared in my opinion to struggle throughout the fight as opposed to dominating that i felt Tarver won. Also Jones spent a lot of time on the ropes, and this is where Tarver should have done more and I can understand how people may have seen this fight differently to me. The other thing I seem to remember was the body language at the end and how Jones seemed relieved at the decision. I didn't keep a scorecard on this one and have not watched it again, maybe I'll watch it again. I understand where you are coming from on one of Jones better wins though Chris

Yeah, does sound a bit stern at first doesn't it, Dipper!? But at the end of the day it's meant as a compliment to Jones rather than a way to denigrate Calzaghe.

It's the same way I'd say that Kostya Tszyu was a top class fighter but not in the same class as Mayweather, or that Felix Trinidad was a top class figher but not in the same class as Ray Leonard - guys like Tszyu, Trinidad and Calzaghe all have excellent records and the body of work in their careers proves that they're top-notch operators in any era, but the likes of Mayweather, Leonard and Jones are that extra bit special, and just more talented and proven when all's said and done.

Dipper Brown wrote:Good analysis Chris.

With RJJ because he's recent and we've seen it all first hand, we can contextualise every one of his performances to give a good overview of his career. 'He beat boxer A who went on to beat boxer B so this means x,y,z'. This is my problem with people waxing lyrical about boxers from times gone by because on paper, we just can't judge them in the same context with the same consistency, it really favours the Rose tinted specs of the past. For that reason I don't understand why people get so uppity with each other about their ATG lists. Anyway, small gripe of mine.

Chris says prime RJJ was a different class to Calzaghe. Seems harsh when I first read it but to be honest I don't know how else I'd put it myself. So many class operators looked average against RJJ. I think if Calzaghe bloodied his nose and nicked the odd round, he'd have done a lot better than most.

To be honest there are quite a few young people on this site that were to young to watch a prime Jones, most know him from his recent way past it form. Lets not forget it was early 90's when he won his first title.

Totally agree with you on the old timers & rose tinted specs, basing opinions on what people have read, in a book written by a guy whose reading another persons report, sometimes a report taken from another person who was actually reporting on the fight. Especially with fighters where there is no footage.

Yes like Chris i feel Jones was a different class to Calzaghe, I agree with what you wrote.

I saw prime Jones. Best fighter I ever saw in my time watching fights. Floyd has better all around skill set but Jones is a freak and p4p I would pick him to beat Mayweather

Is tarver 1, one of jones' better wins? Being so bad he actually had to show some heart? I guess the douglas and lewis fights were tyson's defining moments, as he took his beatings like a man and put the argument of him being a flat track bully to bed.

Re Calzaghe jones. With jc, his toughest fights came at the beginning and end of his reign. Is that because he was supreme in his prime or just the coincidence that the best fighters he fought were at the beginning and end? Open question I don't know the answer, but suspect its a bit of both. When I saw the Calzaghe Hopkins fight it left me pretty confident bernard would have won in their primes... But perhaps I underplayed that Calzaghe too was past his best.

Stylistically, calzaghe's bravery in getting into range and throwing bunches gives him a better chance of having some success than most against jones... But it also leaves him likely to get tagged coming in and exposed in the pocket. I'm inclined to think jones might stop him, but if he doesn't you'd still have to fancy him to win on points, but perhaps not the landslide one that typified his era.

88Chris05 wrote:Roy's record isn't really as threadbare as his detractors like to claim. You'll have to forgive me lads, as I recognise I've written a more or less identical post in the past to the one below, but it's the best way I can try to drill home just how special and freakish a fighter Jones was in his pomp. People talk as if he only shone because he was facing no-names, which is ridiculous.

Castro: Won a world title and defended if a few times in the years after losing to Jones, beating John David Jackson twice. Dominated and shut out by Jones.

Hopkins: Didn't lose for another twelve years after being beaten by Jones, was a world champion within the next two years.

Malinga: Beat Nigel Benn, dropped a controversial split decision to Eubank and went on to beat Robin Reid to become a world champion, but outclassed and knocked out in six by Jones (his first stoppage loss, and he didn't have another until he was forty-three).

Thomas Tate: Gives Julian Jackson, one of the greatest ko artists in history, a hell of a fight en route to losing a close decision, standing up to his legendary power well. Gets blasted out in two rounds by Jones, though - the only stoppage loss of his career.

Toney: Pound for pound number two at the time, in the best and most consistent form of his career, won world titles and a Ring Magazine 'Fighter of the Year' award in years to come - humiliated by Jones.

Griffin: Unbeaten, two wins over Toney (albeit one of them a bit dodgy) and dominated Michalczewski for three rounds before that contentious stoppage in the fourth - obliterated in one round by Jones in their rematch.

Hill: Only prior defeats had been close points losses to top fighters like Hearns and Michalczewski, and would go on to win another world title in years to come. Flattened inside four rounds by Jones.

Reggie Johnson: Two-weight titlist, beat good fighters like Steve Collins and supposedly can't-miss prospects like Parks and Guthrie with most of his losses to guys such as Castro, Toney and John David Jackson being questionable to say the least. Lost every minute of every round against Jones.

Hall: Good enough to give Michalczewski two very interesting scraps, but was on the end of one of the worst and most sustained beat downs you'll ever see against Jones.

Harding: Was able to beat good fighters such as a previously undefeated Tarver and Griffin. After some early problems, eventually figured out by Jones, has his main weapon taken away from him and is pulled out by his corner against Jones.

Harmon: Outscored Glen Johnson, was a mile ahead against Michalczewski before getting stopped, but lost every round against Jones before the corner retirement.

Gonzalez: Undefeated at the time, went on to beat Glen Johnson and then overthrow Michalczewski in Germany a couple of years later - dropped multiple times and dominated by Jones.

Woods: Would go on to win a world title later in his career and beat Gonzalez twice, but was well outclassed and stopped in six rounds (his only ever stoppage loss) against Jones.

All of that before beating Ruiz for a Heavyweight belt (ok, bit of a gimmicky exercise but nevertheless, I don't see many guys in history Jones' size beating even an average Heavyweight titlist like Ruiz while giving away about 30 lb) and then returning to 175 to reclaim his title from Tarver in their first fight - which was a fair decision, despite Antonio's complaints.

He didn't have the names around to make him an Ezzard Charles kind of figure, and you can argue with plenty of justification that he has only one or two wins which really stand out as being 'great.' But he made a huge number of good, sometimes very good fighters look as if they'd never even set foot in a ring before such was his dominance. When you look at how those guys did against the other leading guys between 160 and 175 of that era, and what they achieved before / after losing to Jones, you get a better appreciation of just how dominant he really was and how it's not as "easy" to do what Jones did as the naysayers seem to think.

Similarly to Louis, Jofre and Wilde, you can argue that the names on Jones' CV don't scream out greatness. But if like the other three regularly benefit from you're awarding additional points for all-round talent and the stunning displays of it along with consistency and longevity, then there's no way Jones can be anything other than a genuine all-time great. As for the Super-Middles, Toney (as evidenced) and Calzaghe simply not in the same class as him, and I don't say that lightly.

Jones was great but that roster of opponents is looking poorer as the years go by - a fair few of those had seen better days. Roy's greatness was in his performance, though - certainly until he became somewhat spooked by the injury to McClellan.

After Hopkins and Toney the best men he fought were Johnson and Tarver (I'm choosing to ignore the Trinidad and Calzaghe fights).

Always easy to pick holes.....like BHop was green or Toney didn't show up.

Seems to be modern fighters that get holes picked easier. Suppose they fight less, so it goes down to risk vs reward