Originally Posted by RedBlackAttack
When people rank the top 5 pound-for-pound, it is usually about more than just how good you think a guy was at his peak. That's part of it, but it's also about who you beat, your accomplishments, etc.
I'm a huge RJJ fan, but he's nowhere near that high if you're making a real p4p list. He just didn't have enough marquee wins to be up there with the likes of Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Harry Greb, Willie Pep and Roberto Duran.
That's my personal top 5 p4p. If I had to sit and rank it out, I'd guess RJJ would fall somewhere between 25 and 40. Still very high when you consider this sport goes back over a century and there's so many weight classes.
At his absolute peak at 168, I might even be willing to say there's no one who has ever fought in that division who I would absolutely favor to beat him. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to prove it against another great fighter. The middleweight wins over James Toney and Bernard Hopkins were great, but he'd need a lot more of those kinds of wins to be top 5 p4p.
To me pound for pound means the better fighter if both boxers were to fight at the same weight. Resume and all that is important but not as important as who is more talented and more skilled. This is why there is a difference between pound for pound and greatest boxers of all time to me. I couldnt name 5 boxers in the history of boxing who could match up with a prime Roy Jones if they were to face him at the same weight.
And even though boxing exist for over a century i think we can all agree that it improved alot over the time and no boxer from back then could even mess with Roy.
A boxer shouldnt be penalized for not having alot of HOF opponents on his resume unless he ducks them. If i remember correctly when he faced Bernard Hopkins and James Toney he had some pretty comfortable wins and those 2 guys are some of the best of all time