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

Erm, no it shows in adversity you have sound fundamentals to fall back on.

I don’t really care about fights like Jones vs green or ray vs Camacho.

I guess you’re using the royal we, and yeah I think sugar ray could beat Roy Jones.
I don't care about those fights, either. I agree it shows you have sound fundamentals to fall back on but that's not what makes a fighter better than another where it matters - how good they were when they were prime.
A prime Jones Jr. would deal with adversity accordingly to the tools and gifts in his arsenal. If he doesn't have it when he's not prime, it doesn't change the fact that he did have it when he was prime.
Strict adherence to fundamentals aren't necessarily what makes one fighter better than the other. Naseem Hamed utilized less fundamentals than boxers who are not as good as he was.

Also, Roy Jones deserves more credit for his abilities during prime - people always try to pass it off as lack of skill and rather just mere athleticism. Take for example, Gamboa. He was like an athletic cartoon character, particularly in the amateurs. Yet he couldn't box with his athleticism in ways that Roy Jones did.

By 'we', I mean virtually everyone.
 
Emanuel Steward thought he was.
Testing used to be embarrassing to inexistent in Sugar Ray Leonard's era. People say 'the sport has progressed since 30-40 years because of the medical advancements' but they're quite misguided. PED usage was rampant. I believe it hit boxing by the late 40's (although not as well utilized like in the 60's onwards).
 
I don't care about those fights, either. I agree it shows you have sound fundamentals to fall back on but that's not what makes a fighter better than another where it matters - how good they were when they were prime.
A prime Jones Jr. would deal with adversity accordingly to the tools and gifts in his arsenal. If he doesn't have it when he's not prime, it doesn't change the fact that he did have it when he was prime.
Strict adherence to fundamentals aren't necessarily what makes one fighter better than the other. Naseem Hamed utilized less fundamentals than boxers who are not as good as he was.

Also, Roy Jones deserves more credit for his abilities during prime - people always try to pass it off as lack of skill and rather just mere athleticism. Take for example, Gamboa. He was like an athletic cartoon character, particularly in the amateurs. Yet he couldn't box with his athleticism in ways that Roy Jones did.

By 'we', I mean virtually everyone.
I feel like I’m repeating myself here. There is literally no fighter that wins 10 times out of 10 against fellow all time greats. Roy in my opinion was at his best at 168 even though his resume is Toney and then the rest.

I agree and we are arguing over words really. If you caught prime Roy on the chin we didn’t really understand at the time that he cracked easily.

Did he look amazing going up the weights and schooling people, yes he did. Did he impress me more than other atgs, in some ways yes, as a technician no. But I’m a hamed fan so before @cocksure calls me a hypocrite I’ll pipe down.
 
I feel like I’m repeating myself here. There is literally no fighter that wins 10 times out of 10 against fellow all time greats. Roy in my opinion was at his best at 168 even though his resume is Toney and then the rest.

I agree and we are arguing over words really. If you caught prime Roy on the chin we didn’t really understand at the time that he cracked easily.

Did he look amazing going up the weights and schooling people, yes he did. Did he impress me more than other atgs, in some ways yes, as a technician no. But I’m a hamed fan so before @cocksure calls me a hypocrite I’ll pipe down.
Yeah, maybe I couldn't discern what you meant in some of your posts.

With regards to his chin, I think that's held against him too much by the boxing community. His chin seemed fine to me during his prime, and what made his chin seem like a disaster was the fact that his style would fail him whilst past prime, leaving his positioning in no-mans land which he would otherwise been able to escape from or at least dissipate via rolling with them, during his prime. When past prime, he just couldn't physically get himself to do the things he has in his mind to do.

In terms of the raw boxing fundamentals, I do completely agree. For me, he just impressed me more with his own matrix style than anyone who schooled with top boxing fundamentals.

I think he's the best ever, so that could be why lol.
 
Emanuel Steward thought he was.

Maybe just talking since he was Hearns trainer.
True though, your right you can't use the eye test. I guess I wouldn't be surprised.
 
Testing used to be embarrassing to inexistent in Sugar Ray Leonard's era. People say 'the sport has progressed since 30-40 years because of the medical advancements' but they're quite misguided. PED usage was rampant. I believe it hit boxing by the late 40's (although not as well utilized like in the 60's onwards).
I know Joe Louis was accused of juicing by some people too.
 
Although I see the logic in Seano's answer too. Roy was never part of dramatic fights like Ray was against Duran, Hearns and Hagler.

That could be due to the lack of proper competition or because he was too good. Personally I believe that Roy is the greatest of all time, and he changed boxing with his style.
No he didn’t. He didn’t have great technique. Nobody good emulates his style.
 
Testing used to be embarrassing to inexistent in Sugar Ray Leonard's era. People say 'the sport has progressed since 30-40 years because of the medical advancements' but they're quite misguided. PED usage was rampant. I believe it hit boxing by the late 40's (although not as well utilized like in the 60's onwards).
I always put it at mid sixties. The weight of guys according to height went up 20lbs across the board it seems.
I’ve been reading about steroids in sport recently, and would like a lead on steroids in boxing in the late 40s
I’m not saying your wrong, either.
 
I am very much on the side that Roy was amazingly physically gifted, and not actually a great boxer. Much like Ali, his reflexes were such that he barely got hit, even with bad technique. Difference being that Sli turned out to be iron chinned and willed when his speed left him. actually, for both of them, I would say they were still fast later on, but couldn’t keep up that insane output. Ali due to extracurricular focus, and Roy... well, I think that bulk up to HW wrecked him.

Anyways, no, Roy had no compelling rivalry, but let’s not forget that he beat Toney and Hopkins easily in his MW youth. He was amazing. More amazing than Ray, but Ray was a better boxer and more of a warrior. Legacy-wise, it’s Ray, but peak? Not sure, Roy seemed unbeatable.
 
Different kinds of better. Roy had uncanny ability. Ray Leonard had better all-around ability, was a two-way fighter, had the better resume (though prime Bhop, prime Toney, the HW win, and prime Tarver are really good wins), and Leonard could fight tired. There's something to appreciate here. He had this uncanny ability to find another gear when both he and his opponent were beaten to hell (watch the Hearns win and Duran loss).

For those reasons, I think Leonard was better, but the stuff Roy Jones could do , was just other wordly. Roy also had way more one punch power.
 
No he didn’t. He didn’t have great technique. Nobody good emulates his style.

David Haye doesn't emulate his style? Actually RJJ has been compared to Charley Burley who goes back to the 1940s.

RJJ's ambush style had a tremendous influence in boxing. When you watch 1980s fights, it was usually offensive first.
Those were the type of "Gatti-Ward rounds" that were looked at as rounds of the year:




Andre Ward says that Roy is his favorite boxer because he broke all the rules and got away with it.
Meaning that Roy didn't fight textbook, he never learned defense they way it is taught nor was he strategist like B-Hop.

With all that being said, I look at Roy as an unorthodox stylist rather than someone with poor technique. And I'm not letting random online posters convince me otherwise, lol.
 
I'll take prime RJJ. There's nobody in the history of 168 or 175 I would pick to beat a prime RJJ.
 
About Roy’s chin... nobody knows if it was bad in his prime. It actually seemed fine to me. Sometimes in combat sports chins just go. Fedor Emelianenko, Anderson Silva and Chuck Liddell in MMA are prime examples. In boxing, guys like Ray Leonard, Jeff Fenech, Fernando Vargas etc all had very good chins that suddenly became weak as they aged out of their prime. The above guys didn’t really have long careers with lots of fights either.
 
I know Joe Louis was accused of juicing by some people too.
no one reputable, all i saw was assanine internet posters who said that peds were being used since the late 30's which is bullshit. Joe in his prime didn't weigh much over 200.
 
It’s getting to the point where these mythical fighters prime rjj, prime Tyson etc are just wheeled out into arguments almost as if to say “ignore he fact their careers both disasterously imploded and they started getting fucked up by people, but when they were smacking the shit out of overmatched opposition they were clearly the best ever”. It doesn’t work like that. These discussions are straight out of the heavies when talking about prime fedor.
 
David Haye doesn't emulate his style? Actually RJJ has been compared to Charley Burley who goes back to the 1940s.

RJJ's ambush style had a tremendous influence in boxing. When you watch 1980s fights, it was usually offensive first.
Those were the type of "Gatti-Ward rounds" that were looked at as rounds of the year:




Andre Ward says that Roy is his favorite boxer because he broke all the rules and got away with it.
Meaning that Roy didn't fight textbook, he never learned defense they way it is taught nor was he strategist like B-Hop.

With all that being said, I look at Roy as an unorthodox stylist rather than someone with poor technique. And I'm not letting random online posters convince me otherwise, lol.[/QUOT

It’s getting to the point where these mythical fighters prime rjj, prime Tyson etc are just wheeled out into arguments almost as if to say “ignore he fact their careers both disasterously imploded and they started getting fucked up by people, but when they were smacking the shit out of overmatched opposition they were clearly the best ever”. It doesn’t work like that. These discussions are straight out of the heavies when talking about prime fedor.
pretty much true, difference is, roy somehow lasted 15 years and i'd say he beat plenty of guys who were at least buster douglas quality and several who were better. I don't think i'll ever understand completely, his rapid demise but they say that's what happens in boxing, "getting old overnight" is what it's called and there's no fixing that. I remember when Matthew Saad Muhammad was a big name, then, all of the sudden, he couldn't beat clubfighters. It's somewhat mysterious, whether physical, mental or some combination of both, well i guess it would have to be. I compared being a fighter like Jones was to a highwire walker who has total faith in himself and then falls oneday and never has the same confidence and can't get on the tightrope without the doubt that causes the wire to shake and come out from under him.
 
David Haye doesn't emulate his style? Actually RJJ has been compared to Charley Burley who goes back to the 1940s.

RJJ's ambush style had a tremendous influence in boxing. When you watch 1980s fights, it was usually offensive first.
Those were the type of "Gatti-Ward rounds" that were looked at as rounds of the year:




Andre Ward says that Roy is his favorite boxer because he broke all the rules and got away with it.
Meaning that Roy didn't fight textbook, he never learned defense they way it is taught nor was he strategist like B-Hop.

With all that being said, I look at Roy as an unorthodox stylist rather than someone with poor technique. And I'm not letting random online posters convince me otherwise, lol.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything; just pointing out that you are wrong.
 
pretty much true, difference is, roy somehow lasted 15 years and i'd say he beat plenty of guys who were at least buster douglas quality and several who were better. I don't think i'll ever understand completely, his rapid demise but they say that's what happens in boxing, "getting old overnight" is what it's called and there's no fixing that. I remember when Matthew Saad Muhammad was a big name, then, all of the sudden, he couldn't beat clubfighters. It's somewhat mysterious, whether physical, mental or some combination of both, well i guess it would have to be. I compared being a fighter like Jones was to a highwire walker who has total faith in himself and then falls oneday and never has the same confidence and can't get on the tightrope without the doubt that causes the wire to shake and come out from under him.
That’s what made jones incredible. He has top names on his resume and did it for so long.

I know it’s a completely different sport but Andre Agassi’s career went from top ten to miles outside the top 100 because he started taking Crystal meth.

Then he stopped and went back to the top again. Not accusing anyone of anything, just saying.
 
Back
Top