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

prime 4 prime, no one fucks with RJJ but overall, sugar ray leonard's legacy shits on roy's.
 
treelo said:
one barely made MW and had very few fights but fought and beat some superb fighters, the other started at MW and beat possibly 2 fighters who may well be in higher regard than any of Leonards wins
Click to expand...

Who did RJJ beat that is held in higher regard than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran?
 
I mean, resume wise, Ray fucking destroys Roy. He's the only one of the Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Benitez group who managed to get everyone else and put an L on their record, only Duran gave him a blemish.

That being said, when it comes to eye tests... Roy doesnt have as much to boast significant fight wise, a lot of no names he beat. But his win over James Toney was pretty 1 sided, let's face it, who ever took Toney to school other than Roy Jones?
 
it seems like everyone agrees that ray is more accomplished but Prime Roy beats everyone
 
borntoloseNOT said:
I mean, resume wise, Ray fucking destroys Roy. He's the only one of the Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, and Benitez group who managed to get everyone else and put an L on their record, only Duran gave him a blemish.
Click to expand...
.

How does Leonard destroy Roy? Just because he has one or two better wins?

Roy won world titles at 4 weight classes. Two boxers couldn't be closer in terms of accomplishments.
 
I'd rank Leonard higher but they both belong to the same all-time elite. More skills and guts for Leonard, more physical prowess for Jones.

Also, a former MW beating Ruiz is an amazing feat. Ruiz was boring as hell, but he was a proven HW.
 
I think this question's answer depends on what better means...
Better career and more skilled = Ray
Better in prime and physically = Roy
 
nac386 said:
Who did RJJ beat that is held in higher regard than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran?
Click to expand...

I don't like when people use name recognition as a sign of greatness. Thats more of a sign of popularity.

Hearns,hagler and Leonard are indeed great but hold them to the standards of a modern fighter instead of viewing their career as a highlight and see what happens. Judge Hearns on where he was when Ray fought him,not his entire legend.

I think James Toney is as good a win as Hearns. Hearns is just more liked.
 
Seano said:
I don't like when people use name recognition as a sign of greatness. Thats more of a sign of popularity.

Hearns,hagler and Leonard are indeed great but hold them to the standards of a modern fighter instead of viewing their career as a highlight and see what happens. Judge Hearns on where he was when Ray fought him,not his entire legend.

I think James Toney is as good a win as Hearns. Hearns is just more liked.
Click to expand...

Hearns was the #1 p4p fighter in 1981 when he fought Leonard, at 32-0 with like 30 knockouts.
 
nac386 said:
I know, but Toney and Hopkins are definitely not more highly regarded by most fans than Hagler, Hearns, and Duran.
Click to expand...

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

The fab 4 is just boxing folklore. There were others boxers that made that time period great,
like Arguello, McCallum, Pryor, Starling, Curry, Sanchez, Jackson, Honeyghan.
 
proncley said:
Then you don't know boxing well. You can't have a better win than James Toney and Bernard Hopkins.

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

Lol, thanks for educating me.
 
nac386 said:
Hearns was the #1 p4p fighter in 1981 when he fought Leonard, at 32-0 with like 30 knockouts.
Click to expand...

Toney was 44-0. Him and Roy were looked at as the best fighters on the planet and it was looked
as a historic fight as you can see here:



Merchant is even using Leonard-Hearns as comparisson.

I don't know how Hopkins was looked at that time, but we know how Hopkins is looked at today.
And he had a clean record except from his first pro fight.
 
proncley said:
Toney was 44-0. Him and Roy were looked at as the best fighters on the planet and it was looked
as a historic fight as you can see here:



Merchant is even using Leonard-Hearns as comparisson.

I don't know how Hopkins was looked at that time, but we know how Hopkins is looked at today.
And he had a clean record except from his first pro fight.
Click to expand...


James Toney was not 44-0, he already had two draws when he fought Roy Jones. He also lost his next fight to Montel Griffin. Then he lost a year later again to Montell Griffin.

Thomas Hearns was undefeated when SRL beat him. Hearns continued to win all of his fights for 4 years until he lost again...to Hagler.

Hopkins was not yet in his prime when he lost to Roy Jones, he actually continued getting better.
 
nac386 said:
James Toney was not 44-0, he already had two draws when he fought Roy Jones. He also lost his next fight to Montel Griffin. Then he lost a year later again to Montell Griffin.

Thomas Hearns was undefeated when SRL beat him. Hearns continued to win all of his fights for 4 years until he lost again...to Hagler.

Hopkins was not yet in his prime when he lost to Roy Jones, he actually continued getting better.
Click to expand...

Lol, thanks for attempting to educate me. But you're wrong all the way.

What do Toney's later fights have to do with anything? He was undefeated when he fought Roy. That was your argument.
He wasn't the puncher that Hearns was, but he brought something different to the table.

Hopkins was pretty much in his prime. He didn't get better with age, he just had to adjust his style to his age.
Do you really think the 2003 version of Hopkins would do better against Roy?
 
proncley said:
Lol, thanks for attempting to educate me. But you're wrong all the way.

What do Toney's later fights have to do with anything? He was undefeated when he fought Roy. That was your argument.
He wasn't the puncher that Hearns was, but he brought something different to the table.

Hopkins was pretty much in his prime. He didn't get better with age, he just had to adjust his style to his age.
Do you really think the 2003 version of Hopkins would do better against Roy?
Click to expand...


Your first post to me was telling me that I don't know boxing. You can disagree with my opinion when it comes to subjective matters. But so far, only you have been objectively wrong.

Toney had two draws. He was not 44-0 like you claimed, he was 44-0-2. That makes you wrong, that is not a debatable thing. That's the only incorrect statement that has been made.

You can disagree with me when I say that Hopkins got better, since that's just an opinion. Maybe our resident Hopkins fans @JayE and @cottagecheesefan can chime in on that, since they know Hopkins better than me.

Either way, you need to relax.
 
nac386 said:
Your first post to me was telling me that I don't know boxing. You can disagree with my opinion when it comes to subjective matters. But so far, only you have been objectively wrong.

Toney had two draws. He was not 44-0 like you claimed, he was 44-0-2. That makes you wrong, that is not a debatable thing. That's the only incorrect statement that has been made.

You can disagree with me when I say that Hopkins got better, since that's just an opinion.
Click to expand...

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

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

Who would win between mid 90s Hopkins vs. mid 00s Hopkins? I'd go with the younger Hopkins if I had to bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,915
Messages
55,454,711
Members
174,787
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top