Bernard Hopkins - Roy Jones Jr. Who is better All Time. [Archive]

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:17 PM

Ok, since his win last night, many posts have been made on the subject of who is better all time....Bernard Hopkins, or Roy Jones Jr....with one underlying subject....

If its a Hopkins fan posting, he will underrate Jones' accomplishments...and vice versa for a Jones fan.

Myself, I am a huge fan of both. My three favorite fighters of all time are Whitaker, Hopkins & Jones...in that order. So what I am going to attempt to do is give an unbiased view and assessment of both mens careers and come to an outcome that way.

Hope you enjoy it....

Records...

Hopkins 48-4-1 with 32 wins by KO and 0 losses by KO.

Jones 51-4-0 with 38 wins by KO and 2 losses by KO.

Both records are very similar. Roy has a few more wins with a few more KOs in a few more fights.... But, the one thing that immediately jumps out is his 2 losses by KO. 2 of Hopkins losses are very debatable also...as well as the fact that Bernard also lost to the better fighters. I would give a slight nod to Hopkins in this area.

Resume...

Hopkins has wins over Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright, Tarver & Johnson to name a few.

Jones has wins over Hopkins, Toney, Tarver & Ruiz to name a few.

Although the slight edge in quality wins goes to Hopkins, Roy does have one thing that jumps out at you.....a win OVER Bernard. For those two facts, I would call this one a wash (even).

Accomplishments...

Hopkins is the former undisputed MW champion. As well as a 2 division belt holder. He holds the record for consecutive title defenses at MW. He is ARGUABLY the best MW of all time. He is the former #1 p4p fighter in the world.

Jones is the former undisputed LHW champion. He is a 4 division belt holder. Jones is the first man to jump from LHW to HW and win a title in one fight. He is ARGUABLY the greatest LHW of all time. He is the former #1 p4p fighter in the world.

This one is another close one. Bernard accomplished his feats against arguably the better competition. But Roy did it at many different weight classes....including HW. I would give the slight edge to Roy on this one.

Longevity...

Bernard began his career as a high output, KO artist. As time caught up with him and his natural gifts faded, he totally reinvented himself to become a tactical, savy almost perfect BOXER. He changed his game and training regime and is regarded as arguably the best defensive fighter of this era. His reign at MW is unprecedented. And even at 42 years of age, he just defeated the generally considered #3 p4p fighter in the world. Hopkins is still now considered one of the 5 best p4p fighters in the world.

Roy is the biggest freak of nature this sport has ever seen. His blend of speed and power is amazing. He went through 4 weight classes and dominated 3 of them. Early on, his only loss was a DQ in a fight he would have won easily (as he showed in the rematch). But, as his natural skills faded, his weaknesses started to show...namely chin. Regardless of how his career unfolded over the years, his name will always be synonmous with dwindling gifts and lack of skills to make up for it. His last few fights are as follows....KO loss, KO loss, UD loss and two wins vs two unknowns. He is no longer considered an elite fighter. A very sad end to a VERY amazing career.

As great as Roy was, he is no longer that anymore. Hopkins with age and fading natural gifts, actually got BETTER. Hopkins probably has 1 or 2 good fights vs top competition left in him....Roy, will probably fight until he loses again...something that could come in any of his next few fights....sadly the only big fight he has a chance to make anymore is a rematch with Hopkins....one that he will be a HUGE UNDERDOG. This easily goes to Hopkins.

Conclusion...

With Roy having the slight edge in accomplishments and Hopkins having the slight edge in record....and resume a wash....it all comes down to longevity....which very few fighters in history can stack up to Hopkins with....and Roy is not one of them.

So, if you really look at it in an unbiased way (something I think I did quite well), Bernard has the slight edge all time. And can only add to it. Roy on the other hand, may fade more.

Regardless of it all, these are undeniably the two top fighters of this era. Their careers are what legends are made of and instead of hating and ripping on either of them, we should be honored that we were able to watch both of them throughout it all.

:good

Discuss....

Dostoevsky

07-22-2007, 10:20 PM

Roy Jones.
He beat Hopkins.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:22 PM

Roy Jones.
He beat Hopkins.

McBride beat Tyson...so by your logic McBride > Tyson...

Did you even read my post??

What a jackass.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:35 PM

KO Boxing

07-22-2007, 10:41 PM

I'm with Jones, again.

I rate Hopkins very very highly, however. IMO, he is amongst the top 3 middleweights of all time (which says a lot when you have names such as Hagler, Monzon, Ray Robinson and Greb - so he obviously outdoes at least 2 of them).

I just rate Jones higher overall.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:44 PM

I would have to rank Hopkins ahead of RRJ at Middleweight But as far as overall Greatness goes i would rank Jones slightly Ahead of Bhop cause RRJ did beat Bhop Even though if they were to have a rematch now Bhop would Beat him i believe So im a little Torn here.

Again, do I need to do more these comparisons.

Rahman beat Lewis....so does that mean Rahman is ahead of Lewis all time?

Williams beat Tyson....so does that mean he is ahead of Mike all time?

CLINTON FRIGGIN MITCHELL (career record 3-1-1) beat Hopkins in his pro debut...does that mean Mitchell is ahead of Bernard?

Make some sense people. Go back and read my post...then make an intelligent arguement please.

:patsch

Asterion

07-22-2007, 10:45 PM

Jones is the first man to jump from LHW to HW and win a title in one fight.

You forgot Michael Spinks.

KO Boxing

07-22-2007, 10:46 PM

:thumbsup
:good

I know I've been defending Jones over Hopkins in a number of the recent threads (debating their all time status and what have you), so I just wanted to get it out there that I am actually a very big fan of Hopkins. And think he's an awesome fighter. GREAT fighter.

Just a Jones man myself.

Just like last era you could be a Leonard, Hagler, Hearns or Duran man (I was a Leonard man, personally. Although him and Hagler are neck and neck. Duran was the best of them all p4p, arguably, though).

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:48 PM

Yeah I have the same thread open but it's just a poll whereas you provided some in depth analyses .

I think that too many fans rate Jones higher because they simple discount the last 3 or 4 years and all those KO losses and judge Roy only by what he's done before that in his supposed "prime". But this is the wrong way to judge a fighter, Roy is not that old yet, no where near as old as Hopkins and so you cannot simply discount the whole last leg of his career, a career that still is no where near over apparently. And thus you MUST take into a count those legacy tainting losses and the steroid scandals and other things. One must take everything from a fighter's ENTIRE career into account NOT JUST THE HIGHLIGHTS when making such a big decision on whose career is greater.
Thus, when taking into account this last leg of Roy's career and that of Hopkins, one can only conclude that despite the amazing things Jones did by going to LHW and HW and dominating/winning a title, his legacy was tarnished by the brutal KO losses whereas Hopkin's was greatly enhanced by a string of huge victories at such an unprecedentedly advanced age. With that said one can only conclude that The Executioner is slightly ahead of Jones on the p4p atg scale.

VERY well said.

It kills me how people attempting to assess this "fairly" want to totally discount what has happened in the past few years.

I am sorry, but a fighters career is judged by their career...not just the good times.

Just because Roy bear Toney...it doesnt dismiss his loss to Johnson. Just because he was one of the greatest LHWs of all time, doesnt mean he didnt get KOd by Tarver.

It doesnt change those things...but those things dont erase the others also.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 10:49 PM

:rofl :rofl :rofl

Owned.

Great post by the way. I think Hopkins edges him.
If it weren't for the fact that Roy went up to so many weights (and started at much lower weight than Hopkins) than Hopkins would be hugely ahead but because Roy DID do so many amazing things he's neck and neck and I wouldn't even argue that they're tied right now but to me Hopkins has just edged past him with the Winky win.co-signing some bullshit.

Jones beat Hopkins in his 20's, McBride beat an almost 40 year old Tyson that didnt even want to fight anymore, and had lost two of three fights.

Big differnce to me between the tow besides the fact that jones whipped him, is that jones moved up to fight and Hopkins had smaller guys move up to fight him. As i stated on another topic other fighters get bashed to no end for doing what Hopkins has done.

A close look at hopkins resume really speaks volumes.
Hopkins has had 7 major fighters in which he has a 4-3 record, which isnt bad when you think that those fights were vs Jones, Delahoya, Trinidad, Wright, Taylor and Tarver. Pretty damn impressive, if not for one problem..........Hopkins is 1-3 vs fighters that are middleweight or higher, ala lost to Jones, lost to Taylor twice. Only win coming vs Tarver who career goal was to beat jones. Hopkins is 3-0 vs welterweights:hi:

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:49 PM

You forgot Michael Spinks.

My mistake...I did forget.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 10:50 PM

VERY well said.

It kills me how people attempting to assess this "fairly" want to totally discount what has happened in the past few years.

I am sorry, but a fighters career is judged by their career...not just the good times.

Just because Roy bear Toney...it doesnt dismiss his loss to Johnson. Just because he was one of the greatest LHWs of all time, doesnt mean he didnt get KOd by Tarver.

It doesnt change those things...but those things dont erase the others also.dont forget that Hopkins to has four loses, and only 2 came past his prime:deal

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:54 PM

co-signing some bullshit.

Jones beat Hopkins in his 20's, McBride beat an almost 40 year old Tyson that didnt even want to fight anymore, and had lost two of three fights.

Big differnce to me between the tow besides the fact that jones whipped him, is that jones moved up to fight and Hopkins had smaller guys move up to fight him. As i stated on another topic other fighters get bashed to no end for doing what Hopkins has done.

A close look at hopkins resume really speaks volumes.
Hopkins has had 7 major fighters in which he has a 4-3 record, which isnt bad when you think that those fights were vs Jones, Delahoya, Trinidad, Wright, Taylor and Tarver. Pretty damn impressive, if not for one problem..........Hopkins is 1-3 vs fighters that are middleweight or higher, ala lost to Jones, lost to Taylor twice. Only win coming vs Tarver who career goal was to beat jones. Hopkins is 3-0 vs welterweights:hi:

Do we discount Hagler fighting Duran (LW), Hearns (WW) or Leonard (WW) just because they were naturally smaller fighters???

A great win, is a great win.

Your logic is flawed.

Now onto the point of the cosign thing.

Ill give ya another one....same fighter.

Douglas beat Tyson...is Douglas ahead of Tyson?

Garcia beat Raph Marquez, is Garcia better than Marquez?

It wasnt about the age...it was about that that kind of logic doesnt hold weight. Hopkins loss to Jones is a quality win for Jones...but just because it happened, doesnt mean that he AUTOMATICALLY has no chance to ever surpass him as an ATG.

Again, your logic is flawed.

:hi:

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 10:56 PM

Hopkins and Roy really arent close, besides really Roys freakish natural ability in his fights, and his ride in weight to heavyweight, IMO his resume dosen't hardly match Hopkins resume, I mean would you consider John Ruiz anywhere close to Tito? And anyways with Roy it was all ability, as his career progressed thats all he was, IMO.Do you think that Tito could beat Ruiz??? I dont, then you ask yourself what fighter on hopkins resume is their that Jones could beat in 2000??? that would be the better question. Im not saying that Jones' resume is the greatest in the world but he wasnt fighting welterweights. And Im not sure that Hopkins beats everyone of jones resume', Im not sure that Hopkins could beat Toney right now. And I know that he wouldnt have beat him in 2000.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 10:58 PM

Do you think that Tito could beat Ruiz??? I dont, then you ask yourself what fighter on hopkins resume is their that Jones could beat in 2000??? that would be the better question. Im not saying that Jones' resume is the greatest in the world but he wasnt fighting welterweights. And Im not sure that Hopkins beats everyone of jones resume', Im not sure that Hopkins could beat Toney right now. And I know that he wouldnt have beat him in 2000.

Again, some of Monzon's biggest wins were against WWs. Haglers also.

Your not making sense.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 10:58 PM

Do we discount Hagler fighting Duran (LW), Hearns (WW) or Leonard (WW) just because they were naturally smaller fighters???

A great win, is a great win.

Your logic is flawed.

Now onto the point of the cosign thing.

Ill give ya another one....same fighter.

Douglas beat Tyson...is Douglas ahead of Tyson?

Garcia beat Raph Marquez, is Garcia better than Marquez?

It wasnt about the age...it was about that that kind of logic doesnt hold weight. Hopkins loss to Jones is a quality win for Jones...but just because it happened, doesnt mean that he AUTOMATICALLY has no chance to ever surpass him as an ATG.

Again, your logic is flawed.

:hi:Are we talking about hagler or hopkins here??? Besids hagler's entire career wasnt built on fighting Duran and hearns. Without the wins over the welters and jr middles were the fuk would Hopkins be??? Without Duran and hearns hagler is still a great fighter with a great resume. so no my logic isnt flaw, its yours that is fuked.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:01 PM

Hopkins has fought some of the greatest punchers of recent times. Many of the fighters he's faced are on the top 100 punchers list whereas Jones always hand chose featherfisted garbage men. Why do you think he went for Ruiz when he moved up. Hopkins has never been hurt in his career. Jones was brutally annihilated twice and put into a coma for 15 minutes.Ill say to you first WTF:huh

Second i would tell you to go watch the echols fight and the fight with Mecado if you think that Hopkins was never hurt. in fact without the boneheaded call from the ref in the Echols fight we may not even be talking about hopkins right now, when echols really knocked hopkins out. I unlike some of the other here that claim to have seen all hopkins fights I actaully have seen them all except for his first 7.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:02 PM

Actualy no you're wrong, without Duran and Hearns Hagler is a nobody with nothing on his resume other than Mugabi, Rolden, etc, who are akin to today's Jermaine Taylor etc.Clearly you have no clue so Im done with you :hi:

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:03 PM

Are we talking about hagler or hopkins here??? Besids hagler's entire career wasnt built on fighting Duran and hearns. Without the wins over the welters and jr middles were the fuk would Hopkins be??? Without Duran and hearns hagler is still a great fighter with a great resume. so no my logic isnt flaw, its yours that is fuked.

No, its not. You think without the Duran and Hearns wins Hagler would be over Monzon, Robinson or Greb?

The point isnt about Hagler or Hopkins...its that your views are biased. You dont like Bernard...thats fine. But be fair when you look at things.

If you discount a fighter for fighting naturally lighter fighters than do you KNOW how many quality wins for some people would be gone?

Again, your not making sense. My post was unbiased, as I LOVE both fighters. I gave all the credit in the world to both for what they have accomplished...and you are just one of the people I mentioned at the begining....a fan of Jones/Hopkins hater who discounts and underrates anything Hopkins has accomplished.

Go away and let this be an intelligent post please.

:hi:

Asterion

07-22-2007, 11:03 PM

Actualy no you're wrong, without Duran and Hearns Hagler is a nobody with nothing on his resume other than Mugabi, Rolden, etc, who are akin to today's Jermaine Taylor etc.

Hopkins would also be a nobody if he hadn't fought Tito, Oscar, Tarver and Wright. :think

Mugabi, Minter, Antuofermo, Roldan, etc > Echols, Mercado, Lipsey, etc.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:07 PM

Ill say to you first WTF:huh

Second i would tell you to go watch the echols fight and the fight with Mecado if you think that Hopkins was never hurt. in fact without the boneheaded call from the ref in the Echols fight we may not even be talking about hopkins right now, when echols really knocked hopkins out. I unlike some of the other here that claim to have seen all hopkins fights I actaully have seen them all except for his first 7.

WHAT?????

You have never seen that fight bro if that is what you got out of it.

Echols did hurt Hopkins....he hurt his shoulder with a FUCKING body slam!!!! Are you insane?

Again, now your just making things up.

:patsch

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:10 PM

No, its not. You think without the Duran and Hearns wins Hagler would be over Monzon, Robinson or Greb?

The point isnt about Hagler or Hopkins...its that your views are biased. You dont like Bernard...thats fine. But be fair when you look at things.

If you discount a fighter for fighting naturally lighter fighters than do you KNOW how many quality wins for some people would be gone?

Again, your not making sense. My post was unbiased, as I LOVE both fighters. I gave all the credit in the world to both for what they have accomplished...and you are just one of the people I mentioned at the begining....a fan of Jones/Hopkins hater who discounts and underrates anything Hopkins has accomplished.

Go away and let this be an intelligent post please.

:hi:You crazy, I was talking up Hopkins when you were in jr high. I wrote an article in RING before the the whole middleweight tourn, thing talking about how soo many people were over looking Hopkins. So No Im not a hater of hopkins and if one was to scan my post you would find that Im actaully in favor of hopkins most of the times. Im just not blind. I saw the fight with Jones, and I saw jones win 9 rounds most of which he had a broken hand. Once shame on me twice shame on you. hopkins hasnt and doesnt fair well vs big fighters his own size, and the 1-3 record proves that every thing eles is all bullshit. What happens in the ring matters. You dont get greatness from a few fans on the web that has a hard on for you.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:10 PM

Hopkins would also be a nobody if he hadn't fought Tito, Oscar, Tarver and Wright. :think

Mugabi, Minter, Antuofermo, Roldan, etc > Echols, Mercado, Lipsey, etc.

Very true.

Though more fairly it would look like this.

Mugabi, Minter, Antuofermo, Rolden, etc. > Johnson, Eastman, Holmes, Echols, etc.

Ya just cant grab Hagler's best remaining wins (subtracting Hearns, Duran and Leonard...) and toss in a few names on Hopkins resume.

But keep in mind, that was only brought up because another idiot said Hopkins gets no credit because he only fought blown up WWs.

That said, I still believe Hagler is above Hopkins.

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:11 PM

WHAT?????

You have never seen that fight bro if that is what you got out of it.

Echols did hurt Hopkins....he hurt his shoulder with a FUCKING body slam!!!! Are you insane?

Again, now your just making things up.

:patschSo are you going to tell me that hopkins didnt get knocked down by Echols on a shot that the ref said was on the break??? You dont have a fukking clue. His shoulder???

Why am I even talking to you:hi:

Martini643

07-22-2007, 11:11 PM

Hopkins is the better overall talent and when you hear the term "legend" or "all time great" your mind immediately thinks of B-HOP. This guy at almost 43 is still beating guys at the top level, that is talent. Roy is no doubt an atg also but Bernard is the greatest or the number 2 middleweight of all time. Roy faded down the stretch and now is only fighting for money, he can't bring his A game like he used to. Hopkins is also fighting for money but he still brings his A game and wins fights over other legendary fighters. amazing..

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:14 PM

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:19 PM

You crazy, I was talking up Hopkins when you were in jr high. I wrote an article in RING before the the whole middleweight tourn, thing talking about how soo many people were over looking Hopkins. So No Im not a hater of hopkins and if one was to scan my post you would find that Im actaully in favor of hopkins most of the times. Im just not blind. I saw the fight with Jones, and I saw jones win 9 rounds most of which he had a broken hand. Once shame on me twice shame on you. hopkins hasnt and doesnt fair well vs big fighters his own size, and the 1-3 record proves that every thing eles is all bullshit. What happens in the ring matters. You dont get greatness from a few fans on the web that has a hard on for you.

First, you have no idea of my age....as I have been following boxing for over 20 years now intensely.

Second, if you were such a supporter of Hopkins how can you attempt to discount his quality wins vs fighters that came from lower weights...when most greats have resumes full of them also?

Third, I have already proven that just because a fighter loses to one fighter doesnt mean they can never surpass them in all time status. I could go on all night with examples....such a seasoned fight fan should KNOW this....

Fourth, you have made multiple posts showing your obviously biased views on the subject. While if you would have bothered to read my original post, you would see that I looked at this as a fan of both fighters....not a fan on the web with a hard on.

And as for your RING articles. Well, if you cant put up a well thoughtout arguement without showing ridiculous bias and opinions full of holes...I dont think I would be too into reading your work. AND, there are plenty of writers for plenty of sites/mags/papers, etc. that have their head firmly placed up their favorite fighters asses for that not to matter much.

Again, give me something well thought out and that actually is a fact, rather than biased opinion and I will take you more seriously....

Until THEN, go back and read my post....you may learn something.

:good

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:21 PM

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:24 PM

Now there is a decent agrument as to why one would rate hopkins over jones. All that crap those other two clowns are kicking around is bullshit.

I SAID BASICALLY THE SAME FUCKING THING IN MY ORIGINAL POST YOU JACKASS!!!!

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Now onto the other thing about Echols and the shoulder....

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Now tell me I imagined it again???

God you are a moron.

Now go read the original post and stop embarassing yourself.

minkyboodle

07-22-2007, 11:31 PM

Really great analysis on this. I have to agree with you its nice to see it presented in such a fair way

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:32 PM

Read it and weep dumbass:

Hopkins, making his 12th title defense and passing the legendary middleweight king Marvin Hagler, didn't end up on the deck from a punch but rather a body slam from the durable but crude Echols. The challenger wrapped up on the champion and drove Hopkins into the canvas in the in the sixth round. Hopkins injured his right shoulder during the take down and spent nearly three minutes on the floor but when offered the opportunity to win on an intentional foul, passed on the free ride and then went on to dismantle Mr. Echols.

Sad really, I tried to make a very unbiased look on the two fighters....two of my all time favorite fighters that is....careers. And an idiot that doesnt even read the post ruins it all.

:-(

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:33 PM

Really great analysis on this. I have to agree with you its nice to see it presented in such a fair way

:good

Well there were so many looking at it in the opposite way...totally discounting the other fighter....I wanted to do it in a more fair way.

sues2nd

07-22-2007, 11:44 PM

I give the slight edge to Roy as far as records because he beat Hopkins in his. I give him the slight edge in resume for the same reason. Accomplishments obviously goes to Roy. I'll give longevity to Hopkins due to age, but Roy's reign was longer.

In conclusion, it's close, but overall Roy's win over Hopkins and the fact that he was more dominant in his prime give him the edge.

I can accept that. Both record and resume are very very close with these two. Of course if Bernard gets two more quality wins (Calzaghe and whomever) its all relative....Hop takes record and resume...but...that will remain to be seen, so...

Its just that so many posts are just "ROY BEAT HOP...HE BETTAH!!!!" It just got old for me....I had to chime in fairly.!!!

:thumbsup

1lehudson

07-22-2007, 11:54 PM

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 12:06 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Note 2:12 you fuking morons and then tell me hopkins didnt get knocked on his ass. Question is why was the ref running in there to break it up, and what wasnt shown was hopkins doing a mini version of the judah dance.

THANK YOU FOR PROVING TO US ALL THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT FIGHT!

That was a dirty ass fight. Both fighters were clinching, roughing each other up, throwing BOMBS. The ref had called for the break and was stepping in as Echols threw, Hop had already released. It was the quiticential example of hitting on the break.

AND, if you had seen that fight, rather than the highlight you showed....you would have known he got up rather quickly from a blatent foul (one of MANY in that fight) and proceded to destroy Echols.

Dude, like I said, you are obviously biased. None of your arguements make sense....then you agree with a guy that basically gives a summary of my original post of this thread saying...and I quote.

Now there is a decent agrument as to why one would rate hopkins over jones. All that crap those other two clowns are kicking around is bullshit.

Basically admitting you never read the original post and you just came in here to spout ridiculous shit about Bernard. Your as bad as the Jones haters.

Go away or step your shit up......and dont reply to this shit again without reading my first post....because all your doing is embarrassing yourself.

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 12:10 AM

I've screen captured it to rub it in the moron's face
:lol:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Do you see the ref's hand across Hopkins chest moron? Notice the ref isn't holding Echols back, he's holding Hopkins back and thus preventing him from using either of his hands because the ref's arm is across his body so Hopkisn can't defend himself. Now notice Echols is swinging at his face while the ref is holding Hopkins back trying to break them apart.

Do you want me to keep owning you you dumb ass little bitch?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You've definitely just proved that you never seen the fight and just watch little clips on you tube.

What a fucking retard.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

WOW...now that is good.

Harsh but good.

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 12:42 AM

It's called hitting on a break and it's illegal, Learn your rules you fucking 12 year old moron. And you claim you wrote for Ring mag.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Echols did this foul shit he could have been disqualified for and then dislocated Hopkns shoulder by slamming him on the ground and Hopkins still brutally owned him and was never hurt from a punch in the fight. :rofl :rofl :rofl

Well looks like ya finally scared him off...maybe he can write about this experience for RING. I would read it!!!!

Anyway, let hope some people actually READ the post before embarassing themselves like that.....I actually started to feel bad for him.

paulfv

07-23-2007, 01:55 AM

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:03 AM

Early on, his only loss was a DQ in a fight he would have won easily (as he showed in the rematch). But, as his natural skills faded, his weaknesses started to show...namely chin. Regardless of how his career unfolded over the years, his name will always be synonmous with dwindling gifts and lack of skills to make up for it. His last few fights are as follows....KO loss, KO loss, UD loss and two wins vs two unknowns. He is no longer considered an elite fighter. A very sad end to a VERY amazing career.

You've made a terrible mistake here in that you are putting serious *effort* into making some kind of inexplicable "Roy faded" excuse to explain the end of his career, when in fact his career ended when he encountered an extremely difficult loss and was crushed mentally. Let's take a look at what REALLY happened to Roy.

Don't forget that Roy was on top of the world when he was called an excuse-making little bitch in the middle of the ring by Tarver, and then promptly BITCH SLAPPED to the canvas in one of the most humiliating/memorable defeats in boxing history. Many great champs suffer KO's and it's a testament to their greatness and mental toughness that they are able to bounce back quickly and avenge their losses. Roy never recovered mentally, but instead, was crushed. An ATG would have immediately made the Tarver 3 fight, not go fight Glenn Johnson. A sure sign that he wasn't right mentally after getting pimp slapped by Tarver. Our suspicions of his mental defeat became actualized when we saw him inexplicably afraid to throw any punches against Glenn Johnson, and then get KO'ed again in a very sad and telling fight. Still fighting with his mental demons, he made the Tarver 3 fight, but couldn't bring himself to try to win. He couldn't recover from that first bitch-slapping. Couldn't shake it from his mind. Not like an ATG would have. You'll notice he talked about "God" during this period of his career even more than he usually does, in desparation. Running to the fake daddy in the sky during a time of crisis, a sure sign of weakness! In the end, he was just a loser who cried in vain at night for "God" to win his fights for him, and it didn't happen.

Conclusion: Roy sure was fun to watch (albeit hard as hell to listen to) for several years. But we find out what we're really made of when we encounter our toughest test. And we all found out what Roy was made of, didn't we?

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:13 AM

You've made a terrible mistake here in that you are putting serious *effort* into making some kind of inexplicable "Roy faded" excuse to explain the end of his career, when in fact his career ended when he encountered an extremely difficult loss and was crushed mentally. Let's take a look at what REALLY happened to Roy.

Don't forget that Roy was on top of the world when he was called an excuse-making little bitch in the middle of the ring by Tarver, and then promptly BITCH SLAPPED to the canvas in one of the most humiliating/memorable defeats in boxing history. Many great champs suffer KO's and it's a testament to their greatness and mental toughness that they are able to bounce back quickly and avenge their losses. Roy never recovered mentally, but instead, was crushed. An ATG would have immediately made the Tarver 3 fight, not go fight Glenn Johnson. A sure sign that he wasn't right mentally after getting pimp slapped by Tarver. Our suspicions of his mental defeat became actualized when we saw him inexplicably afraid to throw any punches against Glenn Johnson, and then get KO'ed again in a very sad and telling fight. Still fighting with his mental demons, he made the Tarver 3 fight, but couldn't bring himself to try to win. He couldn't recover from that first bitch-slapping. Couldn't shake it from his mind. Not like an ATG would have. You'll notice he talked about "God" during this period of his career even more than he usually does, in desparation. Running to the fake daddy in the sky during a time of crisis, a sure sign of weakness! In the end, he was just a loser who cried in vain at night for "God" to win his fights for him, and it didn't happen.

Conclusion: Roy sure was fun to watch (albeit hard as hell to listen to) for several years. But we find out what we're really made of when we encounter our toughest test. And we all found out what Roy was made of, didn't we?

Jones was fading long before that. It's very easy to insert his first loss in the ring as his toughest test, but in fact it wasn't. Jones was on top for a decade. He faded at the same age most fighters fade....comparing him to exceptions to the rule certainly doesn't change that fact.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:19 AM

You stupid fuck, he was clearly out of his prime and past his best in the FIRST Tarver fight, the second fight he got caught, and the third fight he was even more badly faded. If you can't see that he was way past his prime in those fights and just write it off as "he didn't know how to handle a loss" then you're a fucking moron. I guess Sugar Ray Robinson didn't know how to handle a loss either, being as how he lost most of his last fights. Moron.

Sorry, Sugar Ray Robinson has nothing to do with Roy Jones, different person, different, circumstances, different eras, and I won't allow you to make a strawman fallacy. So that's thrown out. As for the point you did try (but fail) to make, ask yourself: How long before the first Tarver fight was it that Roy was totally dominating a man who out-weighed him by 25-30 lbs.? That was the pinnacle of Roy's career and it was felt by EVERYONE in the boxing community everywhere, without exception. He then struggles with Tarver, and suddenly it's not b/c he's against a fighter who matches up well with him stylistically, but b/c he magically is just "not prime anymore, even though the pinnacle of his career was just a few months ago." Please, that's just pathetic. You're going to have to do better than this. :nono

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:21 AM

Jones was fading long before that. It's very easy to insert his first loss in the ring as his toughest test, but in fact it wasn't. Jones was on top for a decade. He faded at the same age most fighters fade....comparing him to exceptions to the rule certainly doesn't change that fact.
This one is actually too ridiculous for comment. Facing the aftermath of that devestating and humiliating knock out WASN'T the toughest test Roy faced? :yikes

I guess I should have specified that I was referring to the Roy jones here on Planet EARTH, what planet were you referring to?

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:23 AM

Sorry, Sugar Ray Robinson has nothing to do with Roy Jones, different person, different, circumstances, different eras, and I won't allow you to make a strawman fallacy. So that's thrown out. As for the point you did try (but fail) to make, ask yourself: How long before the first Tarver fight was it that Roy was totally dominating a man who out-weighed him by 25-30 lbs.? That was the pinnacle of Roy's career and it was felt by EVERYONE in the boxing community everywhere, without exception. He then struggles with Tarver, and suddenly it's not b/c he's against a fighter who matches up well with him stylistically, but b/c he magically is just "not prime anymore, even though the pinnacle of his career was just a few months ago." Please, that's just pathetic. You're going to have to do better than this. :nono

It was the pinnacle ACCOMPLISHMENT beating Ruiz. Your prime has nothing at all to do with your accomplishments. Foreman's greatest accomplishment was winning the HW title in his comeback in his 40's. But he wasn't prime.

Jones kept winning past his prime, much like Hopkins is now. But that should not ever be confused for his prime. Just because you keep winning, doesn't mean you were as good as you were at your peak.

Hopkins and Jones prime were in the mid to late 90's. Hopkins simply didn't get the proper recognition until he beat Trinidad.

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:27 AM

This one is actually too ridiculous for comment. Facing the aftermath of that devestating and humiliating knock out WASN'T the toughest test Roy faced?:yikes

I guess I should have specified that I was referring to the Roy jones here on Planet EARTH, what planet were you referring to?

If it's too ridiculous to comment, why are you responding?

Your logic is lacking. You are guessing that this was Jones worst moment. You don't know what Jones considered his hardest or toughest moment. Jones for years had said he had lost his desire to fight....things have relativity attached to them.

You only say things that fit your theory.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:32 AM

It was the pinnacle ACCOMPLISHMENT beating Ruiz. Your prime has nothing at all to do with your accomplishments. Foreman's greatest accomplishment was winning the HW title in his comeback in his 40's. But he wasn't prime.

Jones kept winning past his prime, much like Hopkins is now. But that should not ever be confused for his prime. Just because you keep winning, doesn't mean you were as good as you were at your peak.

Hopkins and Jones prime were in the mid to late 90's. Hopkins simply didn't get the proper recognition until he beat Trinidad.

You did not respond to my argument, were you just hoping I wouldn't notice? :tong

You incorrectly said that Roys KO loss to Tarver was NOT the biggest challenge/test he faced. On what grounds do you make such a ridiculous conclusion?

I'll also fallacy you made above, even though you didn't make a proper response. The fallacy is this: He dominated John Ruiz and was on top of the world, period. You would have said this then, in fact you were saying it then. Do you deny this? There was NO reason to believe he was in decline in anyway until he struggled against Tarver. Because Tarver was the first person he ever failed to not just beat, but DOMINATE, proves that it is Tarver who is responsible for Jones' defeat - not some mysterious force of old age that coincidentally hit jones the second he stepped in the ring with Tarver. :lol:

Try again, and be honest with us and yourself this time.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:36 AM

It's because he was severely weight-drained from coming down from 193 pounds back down to 175, especially at the age he was. He clearly was not the same fighter he used to be in the first Tarver fight, and by my estimation should've retired after it. He was slower, less explosive, and just didn't have what he used to. But he pulled through on heart and showed what he had inside. Afterwards, the aging continued and he simply wasn't able to fight like he used to. He beat fighters better than Tarver before, and would've smoked him in his prime. You can't think he was at his best at all for any of the Tarver fights.

The fallacy you are committing here is known as "circular reasoning." You measure Jones' decline by noticing the first time he struggles and then announcing "Look, that's when his decline began!" What an honest person would do is give credit to the fighter who beat him, and look to see how Roy responds to this test.

You clearly have no objectivity b/c you love Roy jones, and I think it's time you admitted this.

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:38 AM

You did not respond to my argument, were you just hoping I wouldn't notice? :tong

You incorrectly said that Roys KO loss to Tarver was NOT the biggest challenge/test he faced. On what grounds do you make such a ridiculous conclusion?

I'll also fallacy you made above, even though you didn't make a proper response. The fallacy is this: He dominated John Ruiz and was on top of the world, period. You would have said this then, in fact you were saying it then. Do you deny this? There was NO reason to believe he was in decline in anyway until he struggled against Tarver. Because Tarver was the first person he ever failed to not just beat, but DOMINATE, proves that it is Tarver who is responsible for Jones' defeat - not some mysterious force of old age that coincidentally hit jones the second he stepped in the ring with Tarver. :lol:

Try again, and be honest with us and yourself this time.

You like to antagonize. You're wasting your time.

I already responded to your other post. If you did not notice, that is on you not me,

And no, I have always maintained that the decline of Roy Jones was noticable during the Derrick Harmon fight. I have said this numerous times, and have always maintained that Jones prime was from 1994-2001 with his peak being from 95-99 or so. If you have proof that I have said otherwise, then I challenge you to find it. Otherwise, you have simply just made something up and it doesn't give your argument validity.

Jones was not even the best P4P fighter in the world when he beat Ruiz, though he may have been rated that high due to not losing. Not losing is not a clear indication that you are as good as you were. Or do you think that all fighters are prime until they lose?

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:39 AM

The fallacy you are committing here is known as "circular reasoning." You measure Jones' decline by noticing the first time he struggles and then announcing "Look, that's when his decline began!" What an honest person would do is give credit to the fighter who beat him, and look to see how Roy responds to this test.

You clearly have no objectivity b/c you love Roy jones, and I think it's time you admitted this.

You are inserting thoughts and attributing things to people they have not said. Therefore you cannot be sure of their reasoning. That in itself is a fallacy.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 03:43 AM

If it's too ridiculous to comment, why are you responding?

Your logic is lacking. You are guessing that this was Jones worst moment. You don't know what Jones considered his hardest or toughest moment. Jones for years had said he had lost his desire to fight....things have relativity attached to them.

You only say things that fit your theory.

My comment was to get your attention and help you get a grip on reality. You should realize that your response was shameful and I hope that you'll continue to chat with me so that I can help you learn to reason. :D

However, because you failed to construct any argument at all to the things I specifically just asked, we can end our discussion now. If you ever do decide to address the issues at hand, I will be here waiting to help you.

How comical to simply read "your logic is lacking" in response to my previous posts. :lol: Ah well, live and learn.

Oh, and nice one still clinging to outrageously idiotic idea that the biggest test for Roy wasn't his first KO by Tarver. :nut

kg0208

07-23-2007, 03:47 AM

My comment was to get your attention and help you get a grip on reality. You should realize that your response was shameful and I hope that you'll continue to chat with me so that I can help you learn to reason. :D

However, because you failed to construct any argument at all to the things I specifically just asked, we can end our discussion now. If you ever do decide to address the issues at hand, I will be here waiting to help you.

How comical to simply read "your logic is lacking" in response to my previous posts. :lol: Ah well, live and learn.

Oh, and nice one still clinging to outrageously idiotic idea that the biggest test for Roy wasn't his first KO by Tarver. :nut
When in all actuallity I didn't address your post because it lacked any solid foundation. You are guessing at things, then dismissing others guesses as being wrong.

I have no reason to address your arguments because you never made an argument. One cannot argue someones opinions on the thoughts and feelings of others, because you have no proof of what the thoughts of that person are. You are not a mind reader. That again is called logic. If I argued with you on it, you would never be able to prove any of it, and I would not be able to disprove it. Pointless.

Your comment was meant to antagonize. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone trying to teach would have tried to gain my attention in a way that made me receptive. But that was a nice try.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 04:00 AM

He beat Hopkins and Toney easily,
As you are well aware, fighters abilities change over time. So bringing up fights that happened many years ago will only complicate things. If you wish to be honest, simply look at the logic I provided and try to poke a hole in it. Do you really not think Roy was on top of the world when he met Tarver? Someone steps up and beats Roy - who dominated every other opponent he faced - and you don't see how silly it is to simply say "Oh, that doesn't mean this new fighter beat him, it means he's old now" :lol:

and you think he struggles with Tarver because Tarver's the best challenge he's ever faced.
Not exactly what I said. I actually didn't make any value judgements at all. I simply pointed out what actually happened in reality. It's a shame you're having such trouble remembering, it wasn't that long ago.

It's not how hard it was for him to deal with Tarver, it's how Jones himself looked in the fight. Watch the fight, he's clearly not what he used to be.
At the end of the Round 1 of the second fight, what was going through your head? Be honest. Lamply and Merchant in talking about the sensational knock out, both said that at that point they expected Roy to begin his usual domination that he had always done to opponents. There was no reason not to think so.

Not in as good shape, cardio is short, not as quick, explosive. Simply not the same.
More circular reasoning. Don't you ever get tired of sticking your foot in your mouth? Read this very carefully this time: Roy wasn't doing the same things as before because he got BEAT this time. Suppose he'd KO'ed Tarver and retired. Totally could have happened, but didn't. You'd be saying he retired on top of the world, and could have beaten anyone still, would you not? Or maybe he keeps fighting a few more years and eventually loses. It would now be this new loss where you would begin your same circular reasoning. See how it works? Try to understand your own biased mind as it desperately tries to suck the dick of Roy Jones.

He handled better fighters than Tarver before in his prime.
You do not know this and this sort of reasoning cannot possibly lead anywhere. No one can know what would happen if we snatched late 90's Toney out of history and threw him in the ring with Tarver at this time, and so "reasoning" like this is simply your attempt to blur and confound the issue beyong all recoginition in hopes that you will not have to simply talk in a linear and honest fashion about the facts that actually occurred.

He faces Tarver and is clearly not what he once was in the fight, and you're meaning to tell me it's not because he was past it in any way, but rather because tarver was just that good? Get real.
After Roy Jones sweats off a lot of weight to fight you and still beats you, you don't think it's impressive to then call the man a bitch in center ring with confidence and then bitch-slap him to the canvas? I'm sorry then, what would be your definition of "good?"

Your arguments are all completely without merit. Be careful with your next response b/c if you make the same simple errors, I will not bother educating you further, I don't need the last word, I have the facts. And they speak for themselves.

Warfist

07-23-2007, 04:01 AM

Roy Jones cuz he could rap. Yall musta fo'got son.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 04:24 AM

When in all actuallity I didn't address your post because it lacked any solid foundation. You are guessing at things, then dismissing others guesses as being wrong.

I have no reason to address your arguments because you never made an argument. One cannot argue someones opinions on the thoughts and feelings of others, because you have no proof of what the thoughts of that person are. You are not a mind reader. That again is called logic. If I argued with you on it, you would never be able to prove any of it, and I would not be able to disprove it. Pointless.

Your comment was meant to antagonize. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone trying to teach would have tried to gain my attention in a way that made me receptive. But that was a nice try.
Hehehe. Oh man, this is too much. For any readers interested in this man's failures in this post: My argument, which will apparently be haunting Kg2092342 until the end of time, was first made in post number 61.

This pitiful post of yours might fool someone if we were having a conversation and others walked in on us at the end, but unfortunatly for you, the entire conversation is in written format. I guess you must not be aware that when we make posts, they do not disappear, but rather other users will be able to trace back and read them. Uh-oh. :yikes

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 05:03 AM

You've provided zero logic this whole time, so what logic would I be trying to poke a hole in?
What?? Zero logic for...??? This is getting ridiculous, folks. :lol: I'm going to say this again, holding your hand through the whole thing so that you can understand. What I did (in post #61) was lay the facts out. No "logic" is even necessary - though you and another have both used logical fallacies (Red Herring, ad hominem, strawman) in order to avoid discussing these facts honestly. Was not Roy on top of the world when he told Tarver he'd beat his ass at his own post Ruiz press conference? Did not everyone in the world believe that would hapen? Was this not a conference where all boxing media worshiped Roy for an amazing 11 to 1 UD over a heavier, stronger, man? In Round 1 of the second fight, did Roy not look crisp and in shape? And how about the Glenn Johnson fight or Tarver 3 fight? Did Roy look like he faded a bit from the Ruiz fight or even Tarver 1, or didhe look like a completely different fighter - one who was crushed mentally? Did he not now look like a wounded animal, not able to beat anyone? These are the facts I mentioned, and I can see that you are unable to respond to them. Just cry, then. Stop wasting our time with your nonsense, please. It's getting tedious.
You've done nothing but be a smartass the whole time.
Take the "nothing" out of this sentence, and well, yeah. :smoke

As I said before, Roy wasn't himself in the first fight they fought, not referring to the others, but the fight he clearly won he wasn't nearly as good as he used to be. Watch the fight. Jackass.
What you said before is the same thing all from the Church of Roy Jones say: "He was weight drained." And by the way this is what the boxing community was saying before the second fight. He was weight drained before, now he'll kick Tarver's ass. Roys camp was saying this as well, and Roy looked great before the fight. He looked great in round one. The problem came when he got bitch slapped to the canvas. This would haunt him mentally for the rest of his life, he never recovered from that. For you cunts to look away from that and just make an excuse for him where there is NO grounds for an excuse, is absolutely pitiful.

Roy was winning the fight and got caught with a big punch straight on the jaw that he would've been able to dodge earlier in his career. Not to mention it was a 1/100 punch. Tarver wasn't even looking and had his eyes closed,. If that's not lucky what is?
:lol: :lol: :lol: Wow, I'm actually embarassed for you.

I was talking about their FIRST FIGHT you moron! I said he didn't look the same in their first fight because he was out of shape and past his prime. Their first fight, got it. So it had nothing to do with losing and not being able to bounce back, it had to with him not being his usual self. Tard.
You're saying he's past his prime now, *after* the fact - after the KO in the second fight. Are you going to have us believe that before the second fight began you were saying "Oh man, Roy's past his prime he's prolly gonna lose." - Please. You were dancing in front of your TV with a boner as you awaited Roy's victory all the way up to the point your hero was slaughtered. AFTER he got knocked out and failed to recover in subsequent fights (and your boner was deflated), it was THEN that you decided he was "just past his prime" The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts that. How can people like you look yourself in the mirror? Just face it dude, Roy couldn't take the heat. He got his ass kicked and didn't do anything about it b/c he was a weak person on the inside. A little pussy, just like his fans who make excuses for him. :hey

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 05:10 AM

First of all, many people think hagler beat SRl, and Hagler was not in his prime at all when he fought SRL.
Anyone else seeing a pattern here.....

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 06:03 AM

Dude, shut the fuck up! Just because you are winning past a certain point doesn't mean you are still in your prime. Was Chavez in his prime when he lost to Randall? Was Leonard in his prime when he lost to Norris? I could do this all day. You seem to be of the impression that if a certain fighter is winning fights that he is still in his prime until he loses. That isn't the case. You can still win but not be at your best. Hagler showed clear signs of slowing down in the Mugabi fight and even earlier. It's about how you look in the ring, not about whether you win or not, that determines whether you're still prime. Do you comprehend this? This basic reality of sports seems to go right in one ear and out the other for you.

The exact opposite of all this is true. Espeically there at the end. It is you who does not understand the wonderful competitive nature of sports, sportsmanship, and the meaning that is behind it all. If you did, then you would simply give credit where it is due to the incredible accomplishlments of great fighters for their great performances.

KO Boxing

07-23-2007, 06:13 AM

If you did, then you would simply give credit where it is due to the incredible accomplishlments of great fighters for their great performances.
Thank you, sir!

And so the rightful respect should be paid to Jones for beating Hopkins and Toney quite easilly, right?

Or is it unfair to look back on those wins because of how long ago they happened?

:huh

TheGreat

07-23-2007, 06:13 AM

RJJ by far IMHO.

HauntingTheHoly

07-23-2007, 06:41 AM

Thank you, sir!

And so the rightful respect should be paid to Jones for beating Hopkins and Toney quite easilly, right?

Or is it unfair to look back on those wins because of how long ago they happened?

:huh

Of course. Is the head-scratching smiley to mock these clowns who I pwned earlier, or did you think I might personify hypocrisy? Heh.

Carlos Primera

07-23-2007, 09:11 AM

imo hopkins slightly edges roy in atg status.

1lehudson

07-23-2007, 09:47 AM

1lehudson - that was embarrassing.

The ref had forced both of Hopkins' hands down, and that means he could not defend himself against a clean right hand from Echols. Instead of moaning and whining, he just proceeded to whip Echols' ass.

And in the other fight, instead of quitting with the shoulder injury, Hopkins continued fighting and destroyed Echols.

I'm actually glad you pointed out that youtube video, because it shows just how much heart and will Hopkins had. In that second fight, Hop was 35 years old! And he still DESTROYED Echols even though his shoulder was damaged and he had a way out of the fight if he wanted!

That is, Hopkins was OLDER than when RJJ got KTFO twice and he fought through an injury he didn't have to and still KTFO of one of the premiere punchers in the division.

RJJ was a great frontrunner, but not good at digging down deep when he needed to. Contrast that with BHop, who was outstanding at closing the show when he needed to and could come from behind as necessary. Just like he did against Winky last night. Even on Lederman's biased card, Hop won, what, the last 3+ rounds?

RJJ was a great talent, but his heart and will isn't close to Hopkins.' Maybe it didn't need to be, given his talent, but it wasn't. Not close.

Sues, Evisc and Sweet Pea -- great job. Sues, excellent breakdown and objectivity. Look, I'm a Hops fan, and I don't hide that, but I have full appreciation for RJJ's talents. That said, just looking at that highlight that 1le linked it is incredible how much Hopkins' style has evolved. RJJ never has shown any of that ability, and that is just one reason why, IMO, Hopkins is the better fighter. Not athlete, fighter.

Props to all mentioned above. :goodNo it wasnt, if you read the entire thread you would be laughing at these two, heckle and jeckle. That made a statement that Hopkins was never hurt in a fight, I said that Echols hurt him and if the ref wasnt running in to break the action Echold may have knocked him out. this morons responded by saying that Echols never knocked him down and that he bodyslammed Hopkins, they even posted an article that spoke of the bodyslam, in an effort to prove me wrong. I never said that it was ruled a knockdown only that Echols knocked him down that was what was being argued. Those morons were wrong, and once i showed them the video they turned it into a "OH THE REF did this and that" which wasnt the point, because in the first post I said that the punch was on the break, and my questions was WHY. I knew that by memory before I even looked for the video, these clown were flat out claiming it never happend, thats all.

Lupe

07-23-2007, 11:21 AM

I think Roy is better than Hopkins, all time but I think it's close.
Hopkins definately has the edge in longetivity but:

1. Roy fought and beat better competition. Why? While Hopkins fought guys who were bigger names, those guys were moving up in weight and were smaller fighters than him. Roy on the other had dominated every division he was in beating the best available fighters (bar Calzhage & D-Michalzski).

2. Roy beat Hopkins. Yes, this counts because we're comparing them with each other. They fought at their primes (22 fights each) and Roy clearly won, albeit with broken hand. This fight is very important because given all other things the same, it decides who was better of the two.

3. Roy took a bigger risk by going up in weight seeking better challenges while Hopkins stayed and "milked" a dead MW division..especially when he was a natural LHW and were bigger challenges above MW.

What makes it close though is the fact that Hopkins beat all the fighters that beat Jones and did so impressively. But you can argue that Jones was past his prime the moment he went up to the HW division..as he was never the same after that.

Lupe

07-23-2007, 12:07 PM

Fab2333

07-23-2007, 04:00 PM

The Game

07-23-2007, 05:31 PM

someone might already of said this but jones did beat hopkins quite easliy, they were both in there prime and jones had a broken hand. What was hopkins record going into that fight?

magnificentdave

07-23-2007, 05:40 PM

RJJ's legacy is essentially over, Hopkins still has an oppurtunity to cement his status more

TheGreat

07-23-2007, 05:48 PM

Prime RJJ beat Prime Hopkins so you got to go with RJJ.

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 05:48 PM

bottom line is who wins if they are both at there peaks and the majority of people would say rjj. i think roy is top 5 all time so its roy 4 me.

I have alot of you guys posts to answer here, but Im gonna start with this one....

That is not the "bottom line". Plenty of fighters would be favored over other fighters prime for prime, yet it doesnt mean that they would be better all time.

This is the same train of thought as "ROY BEAT HOPKINS....HE BETTAH!!!"...which is another load of rubbish if you are trying to assess all time rankings.

Put it this way, you may find quite a few people that will tell you that Lennox Lewis would be a very tough matchup for Ali....but even those who believe he would win head to head will tell you that Lewis didnt have near the career Ali had and would easily put Ali ahead All Time.

Your train of thought shows you are one thing....a Roy Jones fan. Attempt to look at this more subjectively then post again....

I may leave a few posts in row here, as there are alot of you I want to reply to...

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 05:51 PM

Roy Jones cuz he could rap. Yall musta fo'got son.

:lol: :lol:

This one actually made me laugh....:good

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 06:05 PM

No it wasnt, if you read the entire thread you would be laughing at these two, heckle and jeckle. That made a statement that Hopkins was never hurt in a fight, I said that Echols hurt him and if the ref wasnt running in to break the action Echold may have knocked him out. this morons responded by saying that Echols never knocked him down and that he bodyslammed Hopkins, they even posted an article that spoke of the bodyslam, in an effort to prove me wrong. I never said that it was ruled a knockdown only that Echols knocked him down that was what was being argued. Those morons were wrong, and once i showed them the video they turned it into a "OH THE REF did this and that" which wasnt the point, because in the first post I said that the punch was on the break, and my questions was WHY. I knew that by memory before I even looked for the video, these clown were flat out claiming it never happend, thats all.

OKAY, hudson, you have already shown you have no idea what you are talking about.

You never read my original post, then started bashing it....I know this, because someone later posted basically an EXACT summary of what I wrote and you said....and I quote.

Now there is a decent agrument as to why one would rate hopkins over jones. All that crap those other two clowns are kicking around is bullshit.

Now you said that about someone who said everything I said, only less in depth.

Then, when someone (Evis, not myself asshole) that Hopkins had never been hurt. AND YOU BROUGHT UP THE ECHOLS THING!!! To which I said, the only thing that hurt Hopkins in that fight was the bodyslam.

Evis, posted a screenshot to show that the punch Echols dropped Hopkins with was an illegal punch....one in which Hopkins got right back up from and proceeded to destroy Echols afterward. This punch didnt hurt him at all....and you would know this if you ACTUALLY SAW THE FIGHT...something we have proven you havent.

Now, if you wanted to argue that Hopkins had been hurt with a (legal) punch in the ring, and you had really known you shit...you would have mentioned Mercado...who dropped Hopkins twice...tho both were flash KDs. But at least you wouldnt be arguing that Echols hurt Hop with an illegal punch first of all....AND, in reality, Hopkins got right up and wasnt fazed by it.

Now, noone claimed it didnt happen, we said that the only time Hopkins was hurt was by the bodyslam...something that EVERYONE who watched the fight knows as the truth. Your continued lack of sense by arguing this is only further embarassing you.

You sir are full of shit. Please, let it die. We have proved you wrong enough, get over it. Your only marring a good, unbiased, fairly assessed post.

:hi:

stevexx28

07-23-2007, 06:05 PM

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 06:11 PM

someone might already of said this but jones did beat hopkins quite easliy, they were both in there prime and jones had a broken hand. What was hopkins record going into that fight?

Well, one also might add that Hopkins was not in his prime...and by most accounts neither was Jones.

But, that should be counted as a quality win for Jones....but not the end all be all of ones arguement on whom is better all time.

Douglas beat Tyson...Tyson is better all time.

Garcia beat Raph Marquez...Marquez is better all time.

I could go on and on all day with examples....examples of not past their prime fighters losing to lesser all time fighters.

Just because Jones beat Hopkins, it doesnt automatically rate him higher.

I wish people would stop saying this nonsense....it is the dumbest arguement going.

sues2nd

07-23-2007, 06:22 PM

Another myth by Hopkins nuthuggers: Hagler fought and beat up welterweight in Duran and Hearns.

The truth is Hearns and Duran are all-time-greats who would whoop Tito, Oscar..and even Hopkins anyday.

Listen, I am far from a Hopkins nut hugger/Roy hater....if you read my post you would know this...but if people want to point out that Tito and Oscar were smaller fighters, then by the simple laws of physics show us the Duran, Leonard and Hearns were also.

You are an obvious a Jones fan....which is fine, but this post is supposed to be an objective look on the subject....so bring the rubbish somewhere else.

Plus, even back on what you said. Oscar, Tito and Wright (the three WWs that Hop beat at higher classes) were just as good if not better than anyone else he could have fought.

Another thing that you are not looking at fairly is the fact of the weak MW division that Hopkins dominated....but you fail to mention the weak LHW division that Jones dominated. So while Hopkins was fighting Tito, Oscar and Wright (all former top 5 p4p fighters I might add), Roy was fighting Glen Kelley and Richard Hall. Roy didnt fight the better fighters....that is undeniable...he fought the bigger ones....not the better ones.

Listen I am a fan of both fighters....I find myself amazed at how unfairly most people are attempting to look at this. This was my reason for making this post....too many garbage, one sided ones out there.

Please, attempt to keep it unbiased.

sues2nd

07-24-2007, 01:16 AM

hopkins is better all time great. How good you are i think does not matter, its your legacy and your battles/rivals and achievements that make you great. Prime Roy would of course kill even a prime bernard, no matter what weight class,(Im not even talking about thier 93 middleweight fight) but the way he ended his career killed him, since he showed the lack of ability to bounce back after a loss, even though he was faded. there are few fighters who could ever handle roy in his prime, but there are many who are "greater" just cause of thier "legacy".

I dont agree so much on the prime vs prime thing, but you bring up some great points...most notably that their fight in 93 WAS NOT EITHER OF THEIR PRIMES...

But back to the prime vs prime thing....

Hopkins in his prime was not the high output KO artist he was early in his career (in this fight in other words). Roy WAS the same type of fighter he was in that fight....tho admittingly much improved. The point is, the fighter that Roy beat that night had entirely reinvented himself by the time he hit his prime (which is an arguable point when his prime even was....probably the hardest fighter in history to pinpoint). The fight would not have unfolded like it did that night.

Now Im not saying Jones would have lost or won...just that the defensive, savy, almost perfect BOXER that Hopkins became would have given Jones a tough night.

Lupe

07-24-2007, 04:31 AM

Listen, I am far from a Hopkins nut hugger/Roy hater....if you read my post you would know this...

Just a thought: if you’re a fan of both fighters why do you argue so vehemently against Roy being viewed as the better of the two ATG-wise?

but if people want to point out that Tito and Oscar were smaller fighters, then by the simple laws of physics show us the Duran, Leonard and Hearns were also.

Digression...Let me remind you that Roy never fought Duran, Leonard or Hearns..neither did he fight Tito and Oscar. In fact, name 1 fighter that Roy fought that was moving up a weight division.

You are an obvious a Jones fan....which is fine, but this post is supposed to be an objective look on the subject....so bring the rubbish somewhere else.

Why was I screaming at my TV with excitement when Tarver KTFO Jones!

Plus, even back on what you said. Oscar, Tito and Wright (the three WWs that Hop beat at higher classes) were just as good if not better than anyone else he could have fought.

Another digression..the point was that Hopkins career defining fights were against natural WWs..good smaller men (remember the cliché about a good bigger man and a smaller man right?). Jones never had that luxury because he sought better challenges (risks) in heavier divisions.
Do you give points to a fighter for winning fights he should win or a fighter that challenges himself against bigger guys?
Answer:---------------------

Another thing that you are not looking at fairly is the fact of the weak MW division that Hopkins dominated....

Good that you agree with me on this one.

but you fail to mention the weak LHW division that Jones dominated.

In fact the LHW division might have been weak. But still props to Jones because he was fighting guys that we inherently bigger than him and dominating them and even climber 2 divsions to HW to challenge himself even further.

So while Hopkins was fighting Tito, Oscar and Wright (all former top 5 p4p fighters I might add), Roy was fighting Glen Kelley and Richard Hall. Roy didnt fight the better fighters....that is undeniable...he fought the bigger ones....not the better ones.

For every Hall and Kelley there is a Mokkar and Allen.

Listen I am a fan of both fighters....I find myself amazed at how unfairly most people are attempting to look at this.

Why are you trying so hard to convince us that you are?

This was my reason for making this post....too many garbage, one sided ones out there.

I’m sure you did not make these post hoping that everyone will agree with you. Did you?

sues2nd

07-24-2007, 05:20 AM

Just a thought: if you’re a fan of both fighters why do you argue so vehemently against Roy being viewed as the better of the two ATG-wise?

I wasnt actually, I was showing that some people (such as yourself) are not looking at it fairly. Go back and read my original post and tell me I did not asses the two of them in a fair light. In fact, there were a few people that posted well thoughtout reasons why they picked Roy and I said I disagreed but respected the way they formed the opinion. Go look, its all on this post.

Digression...Let me remind you that Roy never fought Duran, Leonard or Hearns..neither did he fight Tito and Oscar. In fact, name 1 fighter that Roy fought that was moving up a weight division.

My point bringing up Leonard, Duran and Hearns was to show that just because they come from smaller weight classes, it doesnt mean that they arent great fighters or great wins.

Roy did continue to move up and fight the bigger stronger fighters....this was one of my favorite things about Roy...but that doesnt mean he fought the better fighters.

And think about it, should those fighters that fought Roy (a naturally smaller man) be chastized in the same way Hopkins is for doing the same thing??? Or is it different because Hopkins won those fights?

Why was I screaming at my TV with excitement when Tarver KTFO Jones!

So your not a Jones fan...ok....well your quite obviously not a Hopkins fan either....so.....

Another digression..the point was that Hopkins career defining fights were against natural WWs..good smaller men (remember the cliché about a good bigger man and a smaller man right?). Jones never had that luxury because he sought better challenges (risks) in heavier divisions.
Do you give points to a fighter for winning fights he should win or a fighter that challenges himself against bigger guys?
Answer:---------------------

Answer: The man who fought the BETTER fighters. BUT, if you would bother to read my original post (I was the thread starter...seriously go read it). I said....and I quote....

Hopkins has wins over Trinidad, De La Hoya, Wright, Tarver & Johnson to name a few.

Jones has wins over Hopkins, Toney, Tarver & Ruiz to name a few.

Although the slight edge in quality wins goes to Hopkins, Roy does have one thing that jumps out at you.....a win OVER Bernard. For those two facts, I would call this one a wash (even).

Next....

Good that you agree with me on this one.

In fact the LHW division might have been weak. But still props to Jones because he was fighting guys that we inherently bigger than him and dominating them and even climber 2 divsions to HW to challenge himself even further.

Bigger does not mean better. I dont understand how that is even arguable???

For every Hall and Kelley there is a Mokkar and Allen.

Hakkar, but yes....they both fought mandatories...but again, and I cant stress this enough....HOPKINS STILL FOUGHT THE BETTER COMP!!!

Why are you trying so hard to convince us that you are?

I dont have to...Im trying to show people how ridiculously biased most of the people weighing in on this subject are being.

Again, go read my first post and tell me I wasnt being objective.

Plus, Ive been posting on here forever....plenty of people will tell ya how much I love both fighters....its a rarity I know, kinda like wearing a Yankees cap with a Red Sox jersey. But what can I say???

I’m sure you did not make these post hoping that everyone will agree with you. Did you?

No, that is impossible. All I ask is that people at least attempt to be fair about things. I like to think that for the most part, I am....and I know more then a few posters out there agree. In the lounge theres a "favorite poster" thread, where a few people named me (LUV YA GUYS!!! :thumbsup ....except cash, he yelled at me again...:lol: ) saying I was "fair and unbiased" and "very knowledgable". I try to make my posts as much that way as I can...and its hard to come accross that way when your defending your opinion on a certain fighter against any other fighter....but trust me, I watch this sport as a boxing fan...not a fan of any certain fighter.

:good

(plus I love arguing, so...............:yep )

1lehudson

07-24-2007, 05:52 AM

The point that you seem to be missing about Hopkins is that 99% of his big wins came vs fighterst that were moving up in weight.

Now dont get me wrong here cuz I think that hopkins would murder Cazlaghe, but the facts remain that he didnt want to take that fight vs a bigger fighter, then there was the Toney fight that was out there for hopkins once again he didnt take that fight, not to mention the rematch with jones and the whole I'll fight Roy for 6 mill, then once he got that offer it was Ill fight roy for 50/50 at 164.

Hopkins is a great fighter no doubt, it takes a great fighter to beat Tito, oscar, wright, my problem is what about Taylor, Jones really the only two elite fighters that hopkins fought that was his size or bigger and he lost all three fights. That is the thing that is holding me back from ranking him so high.

As far as that other post you wrote about me not reading your topic, then agreeing with the other guy that said the same thing. I dont agree with either of you, it was just that he did his thing without bashing the other guy.

Hopkins and Jones are two different types of fighters, hopkins is a guy that didnt have the great speed, power and reflexes, he was a guy that fought using other assets. Jones would natually fade faster due to the fact that he wasnt as great a technical fighter but used his god given gifts. So as age eat away at those gifts Jones slowly returned to the pack, starting with the fight with Woods.

Mook

07-24-2007, 05:56 AM

RJJ is higher, but Bop is only marginally behind.

Lupe

07-24-2007, 06:15 AM

Sues: I, too, love debates like these as long as they are kept civil.

On you points:

1. I read your original post, in fact the entire thread and I understand your argument. But it's clear that it was readily biased i.f.o Hopkins (intentionally or otherwise). I could understand if you said you can't stand Roy, but it amazes me to see how hard you come on those that favour Roy. I mean, it should a win-win for you.
I think my arguments are unbiased though I like Roy more than I do Hopkins.

2. I never implied that Leonard, Tito, Duran,etc were not great fighters. I reminded you of the cliche because it has proved to be true, especially for Hopkins. So te quetion is: who has taken more risks and triumphed? The guy who took good smaller fighters or the guy who took "not-so-good" bigger fighters and beat them?
3. "Better" is a relative subjective word, whereas "bigger" is relative BUT more objective because it's stuff you can see. So, is Hakkar better than Kelley? Is Hopkins bigger than Oscar? The latter is easier to answer.
To your question about those bigger fighters that fought Roy...We are only comparing Hopkins and Jones.

4. LOL at your answer. I stayed clear of "better" for reasons I've already explained. So, in you opinion, you won't mind if Cotto fought Pacman instead of, say, Ouma because you believe Pac is better. If that's how you feel then does Cotto have a greater chance of winning against Pacman than he does against Ouma?

5. You, yourself stated that the comp level is more/less equal, so the fight against each other has to play a part especially that they fought in their physical primes. Why does that not count in Jones favour in your book? Why is it a "wash" to you?
Interesting stat: Jones fought 17 world champions (3 losses) while Hopkins fought 14 (2 losses).

6. Bigger does indeed not mean better but in boxing, bigger means riskier.

sues2nd

07-25-2007, 03:58 AM

Sues: I, too, love debates like these as long as they are kept civil.

:good

On you points:

1. I read your original post, in fact the entire thread and I understand your argument. But it's clear that it was readily biased i.f.o Hopkins (intentionally or otherwise). I could understand if you said you can't stand Roy, but it amazes me to see how hard you come on those that favour Roy. I mean, it should a win-win for you.
I think my arguments are unbiased though I like Roy more than I do Hopkins.

I dont understand what I stated that one could construe as biased in anyway?

:huh

I stated Hops record was slightly (barely) better...seeing as how they have just about the same record (Roy fought a few more time, has a few more wins...but nothing that jumps out). The reason for me feeling this way is Hop has 4 losses...1 in his debut...1 clear UD loss to another ATG in RJJ and two razor thin losses to a top 10 p4p fighter (both losses HIGHLY debated since they happened), while Roy's 4 losses are DQ (throw that out the window...much like Hops debut), KO LOSS, KO LOSS and UD. Hops gets a close edge in this....nothing really biased there, is there?

:huh

Resume, I feel Hop fought the better comp (Tarver, Tayor...kinda, Tito, Oscar, Winky, Joppy, Holmes, Echols, etc....), but Jones beat Hopkins...which basically makes up for that difference on his resume. I called this one even. Nothing biased there is there?

:huh

Achievements I gave to Roy. He dominated a higher weight class. Moved up and won titles in 4 different divisions...including HW. Was the former p4p #1. Is considered arguably the best LHW ever. etc....Hop has accomplished ALOT...but not many people in history can claim to have done what Roy has done. Where is the bias there?

:huh

And finally longevity goes to Bernard. I dont really think I have to explain why, how or by how much...its quite obvious. Just as Roy has an obvious edge in achievements...Hop has a larger edge in longevity. I dont feel that is biased at all???

:huh

I dont mean to act condesending in way, but seriously, where did I state anything that isnt at least arguably true?

2. I never implied that Leonard, Tito, Duran,etc were not great fighters. I reminded you of the cliche because it has proved to be true, especially for Hopkins. So te quetion is: who has taken more risks and triumphed? The guy who took good smaller fighters or the guy who took "not-so-good" bigger fighters and beat them?

Im sorry, but I just dont agree there. Roy moved up and won against bigger men. Oscar did. Floyd did. Shane "Im Requiem's cousin" Mosely did. Winky did. Hatton did. Duran did. Leonard did. Hearns did. The list goes on and on.

Now that said, if you look at Hagler's record...what is a bigger, more impressive win, Hearns or Mugabi?

The answer is the naturally smaller, better fighter. Cliches are just that, cliches.

And even if you DID pick Mugabi (a great fighter btw), you still cant discount or dismiss the Hearns victory just because Hagler was naturally bigger.

3. "Better" is a relative subjective word, whereas "bigger" is relative BUT more objective because it's stuff you can see. So, is Hakkar better than Kelley? Is Hopkins bigger than Oscar? The latter is easier to answer.
To your question about those bigger fighters that fought Roy...We are only comparing Hopkins and Jones.

Of course bigger can be seen...but again, if you break down the resumes...the fact of Hops opponents being BETTER can also be seen just as easily.

And since I already showed that the cliche of bigger is better doesnt really hold weight to often....again, Hops resume has the better fighters...but he also has a loss to Jones, which makes it alot closer. And since I dont buy into the fact that Jones fought bums (Griffith, Woods, McCallum, etc. are all damn good fighters....), I feel his win vs Bernard evens things up.

4. LOL at your answer. I stayed clear of "better" for reasons I've already explained. So, in you opinion, you won't mind if Cotto fought Pacman instead of, say, Ouma because you believe Pac is better. If that's how you feel then does Cotto have a greater chance of winning against Pacman than he does against Ouma?

Not a fair assessment. That is a three division difference. Tito was a WW/JMW...Winky at his best was the same....Oscar, not so much, I wont even try to argue that.

But, with that said. Cotto has a very suspect chin. Pac has PHENOMINAL power, speed and output. That is a DAMN interesting matchup.

:think

I might make a post about this one!!!

5. You, yourself stated that the comp level is more/less equal, so the fight against each other has to play a part especially that they fought in their physical primes. Why does that not count in Jones favour in your book? Why is it a "wash" to you?

I didnt state is was more or less equal. I said on many different occasions that Hops level of comp was better. But, as I said (again), Roy beat Hop....hense why I feel it was a wash.

Interesting stat: Jones fought 17 world champions (3 losses) while Hopkins fought 14 (2 losses).

Well, doesnt that give Hopkins the better winning % (Jones lost 1 out of every 6.33....Hop lost 1 out of every 7)?

But, this is a simple answer. Hopkins was the undisputed champion of one division for a long period of time, mostly fighting to defend his title...where as Jones was contiuously moving up and grabbing more belts...which speaks to his edge in achievements. On top of that, Jones (as stated) has had more fights (also championship fights)...Hop in all probability has 2-3 fights left....this could look entirely different by then, which again, speaks to his longevity.

6. Bigger does indeed not mean better but in boxing, bigger means riskier.

Again, not really.

Was Mugabi a bigger risk than Leonard for Hagler? He was bigger.

Was Castillejo a bigger risk for Oscar than Sweet Pea? He was bigger.

With great skill comes great risk. Another cliche for ya.

Listen, I respect your opinion alot more now that you have broken it down. I dont nessessarily agree, but I at least see how and why you got to the point you were at.

The reason again I called biased, was the whole beating up on smaller men thing. I just dont agree. And keep in mind...never in my posts defending Hopkins did I EVER discount anything Roy has done.

The entire point of my post was to try and make an unbiased assessment of the two. MY TWO FAVORITES (well, after Pernell). I read posts about this same subject made by Bernard fans....just RIPPING Jones unfairly. I read posts by Jones fans just RIPPING Hop unfairly. I felt I could do a better job looking at it as a fan of both of them...and Im sorry, agree or not with my outcome, ya just CANT say I was biased in any way shape or form.

But, again, great debating with ya!!!

:good

DanePugilist

07-25-2007, 04:08 AM

They should both be mentioned in the same breath. RJJ by brilliance, Hopkins by longivity.

brooklyn1550

07-25-2007, 04:11 AM

They should both be mentioned in the same breath. RJJ by brilliance, Hopkins by longivity.

:good

PATSYS

07-25-2007, 04:19 AM

Jones.

Hopkins preyed on small guys. Jones fought bigger guys

Jones beat prime Hopkins.

Jones beat prime Toney and Ruiz.

Hopkins only decided to move up from 160 when he got beaten by Taylor (the only other potential great MW fighter apart from Jones).

sues2nd

07-25-2007, 04:23 AM

PATSYS

07-25-2007, 04:39 AM

:-(

Ok because of your very thourough and in depth erbuttal, I changed my mind.

Hopkins is it! :good

brooklyn1550

07-25-2007, 04:52 AM

sues2nd

07-25-2007, 05:06 AM

Ok because of your very thourough and in depth erbuttal, I changed my mind.

Hopkins is it! :good

Well, considering your opinions have already been discussed at length and refuted for the most part...yeah, I think :-( is ******ted.

Now let me ask you...ya know, since he preyed on smaller men. Did Hagler? Did Monzon? I could go all night with this.

Jones fought bigger guys....did they all prey on smaller men?

Was Tarver smaller? Was Johnson smaller? Was Vanderpool? Eastman? Echols? Holmes? Well?

Again....:-(

And the Taylor comment....ya dont even deserve a head shake.

Do you SEE WHAT I MEAN NOW Lupe? These were the type of posts I was talking about.

PATSYS

07-25-2007, 06:57 AM

Well, considering your opinions have already been discussed at length and refuted for the most part...yeah, I think :-( is ******ted.

Now let me ask you...ya know, since he preyed on smaller men. Did Hagler? Did Monzon? I could go all night with this.

Jones fought bigger guys....did they all prey on smaller men?

Was Tarver smaller? Was Johnson smaller? Was Vanderpool? Eastman? Echols? Holmes? Well?

Again....:-(

And the Taylor comment....ya dont even deserve a head shake.

Do you SEE WHAT I MEAN NOW Lupe? These were the type of posts I was talking about.

First of all this is not betwen Hagler/Monzon and Hopkins. If that was the topic, then I would argue that, although tey fought guy coming up from lower divisions, Hagler fought greater quality opposition. SRL/Hearns/Duran/Mugabi are heads and shoulders above DLH/Tito. And SRL and Hearns even fought above 160, DLH and Tito never did.

Now my original post does not cover everything I can say about Hopkins. Primarily he did preyed on smaller guys. I limited it at that because I have a monthly report to finish :oops:

But now that you insist...

Hopkins also had his list of legit 160 lbr BUT those are guys that are journeyman at best. I mean Vanderpool? Holmes? And his great trilogy with Allen? Please..

He has only 4 meaningful wins as far as I'm concerned, Tarver, Wright, Johnson and Tito.

Now compare that to Jones' list:

Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, Tarver, Hill

(plus guys like Griffin, Del Valle, McCallum, Johnson, Harding, Gonzales can arguably be mentioned if you were to mention Glen Johnson on Hopkins' side)

Now some of you might say Hopkins was green when he fought Jones and suddenly shot when he fought Taylor. Too bad he was at both ends of his career when he fought the only 2 legit good 160 fighters in his career.

Hopkins campaigned the entire 90s when the 154 to 168 division was deep with great fighters like Jones, Toney, Jackson, Mcclellan, McCallum, Nunn, Benn, Barkley. Count how many did he fight? Only 1 (Jones) and he lost to him.

Don't get me wrong. I think Hopkins is a great fighter but he has a lot of catching up to do to overtake Jones. Lately he has been on the right track, beating Tarvet and Wright. If he beat Calzaghe and perhaps avenge his loss to Taylor, then I might be willing to re-examine how he stacks up with Jones.

PATSYS

07-25-2007, 07:07 AM

And the Taylor comment....ya dont even deserve a head shake.

What about the Taylor comment?

Are you disputing that he lost or are you saying he was shot by the time he fought Taylor?

Either way, you are delusional.

Taylor did beat Hopkins.

And Hopkins was at his prime. He looked good fighter before Taylor and he looked good after Taylor. The Hopkins who fought Tarver is every bit the prime Hopkins that we saw.

Mook

07-25-2007, 07:18 AM

They should both be mentioned in the same breath. RJJ by brilliance, Hopkins by longivity.

Very good poinnt, their achievements are very different.

If I had one of them, at whatever we consider to be their best, to bet, ooo say, SUCKA's, life on (I ain't betting mi own...), in a given fight, I'd go with RJJ. Maybe that's the difference.

Lupe

07-25-2007, 11:38 AM

You see Sues, I wanted to keep the debate clear of comparing Hagler comp to Hopkins comp because it means nothing to the debate, and it's infact a matter for another thread.

I have to take your word about being biased and I also want to remove it from the debate.

You've also admitted that Roy's achievements are greater, albeit marginally.

So here's the point we disagree on:

1. Comp vs achievement: You cannot admit superior achievement without admitting that the level of competition. Why? Because in boxing, the magnitude of an achievement is directly proportional to the level of comp. So, Cotto has achieved more than Hatton because he fought and beat "better" comp than Hatton period.

2. Bigger vs better: my argument still stands there. A big guy will beat a small guy (ceteris paribus). But if a smaller guy succeeds then he should get more credit. That means that if Cotto beats Ouma then he get more credit that if he beats Pacman.
And of course, this is not a rule...

3. Next I wanted to break down and compare their comp (but I don't have time today). But compare Joppy-Tarver, Tito-Toney, Oscar-Hopkins, Tarver-Johnson, Wringht-Mcullum, Brown-Tate/Hill...which are fighters that Hopkins-Jones beat. On top of my head, I would go with..Tarver, Toney, Oscar, Johnson, Mcullum and Brown...thus giving Jones 4-2. But again, this is top of my head.

I have to go and I'll check this thread tomorrow to see what you think, especially with "3."