How would you rate these ten fighters P4P

[quintonjacksonfan]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

[Loewe]

In no order:
SRL
RJJ
Sweet Pea
MMH
BHOP
JCC
Hearns
PBF
Holmes
Lenox Lewis

Those are all great fighters.

[the cobra]

MMH is Hagler right? I've never seen it abreviated so it threw me off for a moment.

As it is, against each other

1. SRL
2. Whitaker
3. Jones
4. Chavez
5. Hopkins
6. Hagler
7. Hearns
8. Mayweather
9. Lewis
10. Holmes

I think Holmes could be argued over Lewis, Hagler and Hearns over Hopkins, and possibly Chavez over Jones, but I like the way this list looks right now.

Floyd seems a bit low at #8, but I can't see him placing over anyone else.

[Stonehands89]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

1. Chavez
2. Leonard
3. Hearns
4. Whitaker
5. Hopkins *
6. Hagler
7. Lennox
8. Holmes
9. Jones
10. Mayweather

Hopkins is subject to rise. If he faces the winner of Calzaghe-Jones (hopefully Calzaghe) at 168 and wins, and then whips Pavlik again only at 160 to reclaim his old territory, I'd seriously consider putting him at #1 of this group.

[PopeJackson]

(1) SRL
(2) Sweet Pea
(3) JCC
(4) RJJ
(5) Hagler
(6) BHop
(7) Hearns
(:cool: PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

[Sweet Pea]

1. Chavez
2. Leonard
3. Hearns
4. Whitaker
:?

[Robbi]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Bernard Hopkins
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Roy Jones
8. Floyd Mayweather
9. Larry Holmes
10. Lennox Lewis

It might change. Never spent 45 mins here thinking about placing them with accuracy. More time, more definite with my placings. The first two was easy for me, apart from that it's tough.

[the cobra]

Why is Jones so low Robbi?

[Robbi]

Why is Jones so low Robbi?

I might well put him in Chavez's place just to annoy Divac. What you think? I would need more time to think about it, honest.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Robbi
I might well put him in Chavez's place just to annoy Divac. What you think? I would need more time to think about it, honest.
I put him at #3 but could easily see him at #4 behind Chavez.

As big of a fan of Hopkins as I am (A massive fan), I personally don't see the argument for him to rank higher as of this moment.

Roy was arguably the most dominant of these fighters during his prime and even though several had better competition, it's still good enough to be a clear top 4 of these fighters IMO.

The knockout losses hurt very badly, but with Leonard and Whitaker as the clear top 2, I think wins over Toney, Hopkins, Hill, Ruiz, Tarver, McCallum, Griffin, Gonzales, etc along with just how good he was in his prime is as good a case for #3 as anyone else on the list.

[Stonehands89]

It's craziness to put Jones over Whitaker or Chavez for that matter. It's goofy to put Jones over Hearns. It's getting more outlandish to put Jones ahead of Hopkins as time goes on. I can't for the life of me justify putting Jones over Lennox.

... and yet there's Jones at 2 or 3 in posts above. Roy was reluctant. His "legacy" is a rip-off thus far. Jones spent his prime years jerking off. And you know what's most interesting for those who are about to justify his record? Jones himself knows this and admits this. That's why he's fighting now -to try to salvage something.

Greatness untested is supposition, it isn't affirmed. To many boxing fans get all starry eyed about speed and power and highlights... and can't distinguish between style and substance. Jones is still trying to affirm what he himself suspects is not affirmed.

[sweet_scientist]

It's craziness to put Jones over Whitaker or Chavez for that matter. It's goofy to put Jones over Hearns. It's getting more outlandish to put Jones ahead of Hopkins as time goes on. I can't for the life of me justify putting Jones over Lennox.

... and yet there's Jones at 2 or 3 in posts above. Roy was reluctant. His "legacy" is a rip-off thus far. Jones spent his prime years jerking off. And you know what's most interesting for those who are about to justify his record? Jones himself knows this and admits this. That's why he's fighting now -to try to salvage something.

Greatness untested is supposition, it isn't affirmed. To many boxing fans get all starry eyed about speed and power and highlights... and can't distinguish between style and substance. Jones is still trying to affirm what he himself suspects is not affirmed.

You don't beat, scratch that, DOMINATE the likes of Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill, Johnson and Ruiz with all flash and no substance Stoney.

Jones is a lock for top 5 and and he is above the likes of Hopkins (to say nothing of Lennox, wtf? ), unless longevity forms about 50% of your criteria for greatness.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
It's craziness to put Jones over Whitaker or Chavez for that matter. It's goofy to put Jones over Hearns. It's getting more outlandish to put Jones ahead of Hopkins as time goes on. I can't for the life of me justify putting Jones over Lennox.

... and yet there's Jones at 2 or 3 in posts above. Roy was reluctant. His "legacy" is a rip-off thus far. Jones spent his prime years jerking off. And you know what's most interesting for those who are about to justify his record? Jones himself knows this and admits this. That's why he's fighting now -to try to salvage something.

Greatness untested is supposition, it isn't affirmed. To many boxing fans get all starry eyed about speed and power and highlights... and can't distinguish between style and substance. Jones is still trying to affirm what he himself suspects is not affirmed.
Jones has no place over Whitaker, I agree. Chavez does not have a clearly superior resume and had close calls with LaPorte and Lockridge, I don't think either Chavez or Jones is clearly above the other.

As to Hopkins, whether Roy could have fought more fighters or not, do you Hopkins has a superior resume? Do you think given their styles that Hopkins in his prime could beat a peak Jones?

I am by no means a die-hard fan and much prefer Hopkins, but Roy is a greater fighter. IMO, Jones deserves more credit than you give him for being as dominant as he was for a decade against a solid level of opposition.

[Robbi]

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Pernell Whitaker*
3. Bernard Hopkins*
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler*
6. Thomas Hearns*
7. Roy Jones
8. Floyd Mayweather
9. Larry Holmes*
10. Lennox Lewis*

* Donates the fighters who would make my top 10 favourites of all-time.

[sweet_scientist]

How the hell is Hopkins getting in above Jones? Based on what he's done after losing to Jermain Taylor? For struggling with an old/fat Winky? For beating Kelly Pavlik who Reggie Johnson would have shut out? This is ridiculous..... Maybe it was for losing to an old sloppy Joe? Come on now....

[Sweet Pea]

Greatness untested is suppositionNo but tested against the likes of Bernard Hopkins and James Toney it can be justified, especially in dominating performances like the ones he put on in those displays (less so for Hopkins) and pretty much every other fight in his career.

[Robbi]

No but tested against the likes of Bernard Hopkins and James Toney it can be justified, especially in dominating performances like the ones he put on in those displays (less so for Hopkins) and pretty much every other fight in his career.

I hope you give Hopkins credit dominating Tarver after coming off two defeats to Taylor. He also moved up two weights and many had him down for his first knockout loss, me included. He was pretty much at an all-time low with Tarver being on a high going into their fight. Jones was the underdog against Toney, who was #2 'pound for pound'.

My point is that Tarver and Toney were weight drained and it clearly showed in their performances. Even Pavlik got off with more punches on Saturday night than those two.

Toney was better than Tarver, but thats not my point. Just credit both ways to Jones and Hopkins.

[Sweet Pea]

I hope you give Hopkins credit dominating Tarver after coming off two defeats to Taylor. He also moved up two weights and many had him down for his first knockout loss, me included. He was pretty much at an all-time low with Tarver being on a high going into their fight. Jones was the underdog against Toney, who was #2 'pound for pound'.

My point is that Tarver and Toney were weight drained and it clearly showed in their performances. Even Pavlik got off with more punches on Saturday night than those two.

Toney was better than Tarver, but thats not my point. Just credit both ways to Jones and Hopkins.Fair enough, though Pavlik has always been a volume puncher, so he's naturally going to get off more than a natural counter-puncher in Tarver who was unable to get anything going for stylistic reasons as well as the weight draining. Same goes for Toney from a stylistic standpoint. Neither fighter at their best would've been a lot more active, though they'd likely have been a bit more effective in losing efforts.

[rekcutnevets]

SRL
Sweet Pea
RJJ
JCC
BHOP
MMH
Holmes
Lennox Lewis
Hearns
PBF

[Robbi]

Fair enough, though Pavlik has always been a volume puncher, so he's naturally going to get off more than a natural counter-puncher in Tarver who was unable to get anything going for stylistic reasons as well as the weight draining. Same goes for Toney from a stylistic standpoint. Neither fighter at their best would've been a lot more active, though they'd likely have been a bit more effective in losing efforts.

I prefer to look at the positives than the negatives in both those wins for Hopkins and Jones. It's only fair. On paper they were tough tests. Hopkins had a tougher job on paper mainly based on coming off two defeats, being past his prime, and stepping up two weights. Jones stepped up one weight, was approaching his prime, and was up against a superb technician rated #2 'pound for pound'. And Toney rates a lot higher than Tarver as an ATG.

Excuses are made for the vast majority of fights anyway. Injuries, weight problems, wrong tactics, point deductions, trainers, etc.

[Ezzard]

Leonard
Whittaker
Chavez
Hopkins
Hagler
Hearns
Jones
Mayweather

[Senya13]

Jones
Mayweather
Leonard
Whitaker
Hopkins
Chavez
Hagler
Hearns
Lewis
Holmes

[Rise Above]

SRL
Whitaker
RJJ
JCC
Hopkins
Hagler
Hearns
Mayweather
Lewis
Holmes

[fists of fury]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

Whitaker
Chavez
Leonard
Hopkins
Hearns
Mayweather
Jones
Hagler
Holmes
Lewis

I have a feeling many will moan about Hagler's placement here which is fair. To be honest I'm undecided about it myself. Heavyweights I generally place lower as a rule, although here I feel I cannot rate them above the others.

[Stonehands89]

You don't beat, scratch that, DOMINATE the likes of Hopkins, Toney, Griffin, Hill, Johnson and Ruiz with all flash and no substance Stoney.

Jones is a lock for top 5 and and he is above the likes of Hopkins (to say nothing of Lennox, wtf? ), unless longevity forms about 50% of your criteria for greatness.
SS, You'll have to excuse my tendency to vent at times -I'll clarify. Jones is not all flash, nor is he purely "style" instead of substance. However, I don't see nearly as much substance in him as I do in Leonard, Chavez, Hearns, and the like. He is lacking in that department and compared to the greatest fighter ever, it glares so much that I question the placement he is assumed to have by so many. He looked magnificent against Vinnie Paz and commentators and fans alike drooled. I didn't. It was a horrendous mismatch. You should see how great I look on the heavy bag.

How many times in his career was Jones an underdog?

Jones was more blessed with athelticism (power, timing, speed, rythym...) than anyone on the list. That enabled him to do well against those he did choose to fight. It would enable him to compete against the best all-time in three divisions. His head-to-head ranking is above his actual legacy in my opinion. He did not face a real challenge for a 8/9 year stretch -he protected his prime. That is not what great fighters do. And it costs him.

[sweet_scientist]

SS, You'll have to excuse my tendency to vent at times -I'll clarify. Jones is not all flash, nor is he purely "style" instead of substance. However, I don't see nearly as much substance in him as I do in Leonard, Chavez, Hearns, and the like. He is lacking in that department and compared to the greatest fighter ever, it glares so much that I question the placement he is assumed to have by so many. He looked magnificent against Vinnie Paz and commentators and fans alike drooled. I didn't. It was a horrendous mismatch. You should see how great I look on the heavy bag.

How many times in his career was Jones an underdog?

Jones was more blessed with athelticism (power, timing, speed, rythym...) than anyone on the list. That enabled him to do well against those he did choose to fight. It would enable him to compete against the best all-time in three divisions. His head-to-head ranking is above his actual legacy in my opinion. He did not face a real challenge for a 8/9 year stretch -he protected his prime. That is not what great fighters do. And it costs him.
Fair enough mate, though I'm not too concerned with you ranking him lower that the likes of Leonard, Chavez and Hearns. I'm more so concerned with you putting him below the likes of Lewis and Hopkins. I don't see that at all.

Jones did fight a lot of sub par fighters for quite a few years, but really, what more could he have done? Fight Michalczewski in Germany? Sure. He could have. How many other greats would have done that? Fight Hopkins again? As we all recall "60/40 I kick yo ass". Reasonable terms. Hopkins wanted none of it. Fight Lennox Lewis? He had no business up at heavyweight. It's unreasonable to suggest he fight him there. Fight Calzaghe? Well, that SHOULD have happened, but hey if we are going to criticize Jones for facing duds, what in the world was Calzaghe doing for the first 10 years of his career?

[Stonehands89]

Fair enough mate, though I'm not too concerned with you ranking him lower that the likes of Leonard, Chavez and Hearns. I'm more so concerned with you putting him below the likes of Lewis and Hopkins. I don't see that at all.

Jones did fight a lot of sub par fighters for quite a few years, but really, what more could he have done? Fight Michalczewski in Germany? Sure. He could have. How many other greats would have done that? Fight Hopkins again? As we all recall "60/40 I kick yo ass". Reasonable terms. Hopkins wanted none of it. Fight Lennox Lewis? He had no business up at heavyweight. It's unreasonable to suggest he fight him there. Fight Calzaghe? Well, that SHOULD have happened, but hey if we are going to criticize Jones for facing duds, what in the world was Calzaghe doing for the first 10 years of his career?
Lewis faced everyone that he could and beat every man that he faced. Jones can't say that Bowe got away, but that's no shame on Lewis. Some, like Holyfield and Tyson he faced late, but he did face them. He was stopped twice, but came roaring back and returned the favor. Jones wouldn't and I'd argue that by that point of his career, couldn't erase the Tarver and Johnson fights. Lewis destroyed Ruddock. He beat a live and dangerous Ray Mercer. Then he stopped Tommy Morrison who had just wrecked Ruddock. He destroyed Golota when Golota was still dangerous. He beat Briggs, Tua, and exposed Grant. His last fight was a sloppy, amateurish mess, but he did stop Vitali.

Hopkins later. Gotta work!

[Stonehands89]

Fair enough mate, though I'm not too concerned with you ranking him lower that the likes of Leonard, Chavez and Hearns. I'm more so concerned with you putting him below the likes of Lewis and Hopkins. I don't see that at all.

Jones did fight a lot of sub par fighters for quite a few years, but really, what more could he have done? Fight Michalczewski in Germany? Sure. He could have. How many other greats would have done that? Fight Hopkins again? As we all recall "60/40 I kick yo ass". Reasonable terms. Hopkins wanted none of it. Fight Lennox Lewis? He had no business up at heavyweight. It's unreasonable to suggest he fight him there. Fight Calzaghe? Well, that SHOULD have happened, but hey if we are going to criticize Jones for facing duds, what in the world was Calzaghe doing for the first 10 years of his career?
Hopkins was the first man to beat Felix Trinidad who had just demolished titlist Joppy in his first MW engagement. Bernard is the only man to stop De La Hoya in 44 fights. Both were smaller men granted, but Hopkins showed them where they did not belong -and that was in the ring with a great MW champion. He's the first man to beat Jones' conqueror Glen Johnson -Hopkins beat Glenhoffe when Glen was about 28 whereas Jones lost to him when he was Glen was 35. Hopkins made a fool out of Jones' conqueror Tarver, when he was 40. He made 20 or so title defenses over 9 years.

At 42, he beat Winky Wright who hadn't been defeated in 8 years. At 43, he schooled an undefeated 26 year old MW champion who defeated the man who took Bernard's title twice. That latest bout proves much. And I believe could have and should have beaten Calzaghe but that's not worth jack.

In sum, I think it is easy to rank Hopkins over Jones -particularly after Saturday night's performance.

...
Roy Jones Jr.

Roy Jones Jr didn't just avoid Michalczewski and Calzaghe. There are others. Jirov signed to fight him, Jones backed out. This after talking all kinds of bravado. Jones didn't just fight many duds... he was more evasive outside the ring against real contracts than he was inside the ring against rights and lefts.

Michalczewski, around the time that Jones was avoiding him, said "I always like to face good opposition. Only the best opponents bring out the best in me.". This is something that Jones never said, or if he did, he LIED. Jones went hurrying through three divisions and did not want tough opponents. Did he face McClellan or Eubank at middleweight? No. Did he try to fight Liles, Benn, or Stevie Collins at super middleweight? No. Michalczewski gives Virgil Hill a beating and takes two titles and what does Jones do? You'd expect that he'd face Michalczewski. He didn't. He faces .... Virgil Hill...! And I still hear the praise for that body shot. How many know that Jones threw that body shot on the wrong guy??

No one in their right mind should get away with excusing Jones for not fighting Michalczewski. Jones hid behind unrealistic purse demands: He wanted 10 million. Come on. His reign at LHW is questionable. Did you know that he actually had to share his WBC belt with Graciano Rocchigiani after Jones refused to face his mandatory (Michael Nunn) in '98 and Rocchigiani stepped in and beat Nunn in Marchl, 98 to claim 1/2 the title? What was Jones doing instead? The Hill fight was in April. Hill, a name fighter who was 34, barely ever fought out of Bismark, North Dakota, who was laid off a year, and was dominated by Dariusz in his last fight. Jones was conveniently avoiding Nunn and Michalczewski by taking an easy out.

Those who tout Roy's greatness at LHW are often honest men. They should prove there honesty by pausing and remembering that Jones shamelessly avoided a fellow champion in Dariusz Michalczewski, who unified three titles at LHW with his defeat of Hill and who had the most defensive in his division in 25 years.

[Pat_Lowe]

Hopkins was the first man to beat Felix Trinidad who had just demolished titlist Joppy in his first MW engagement. Bernard is the only man to stop De La Hoya in 44 fights. Both were smaller men granted, but Hopkins showed them where they did not belong -and that was in the ring with a great MW champion. He's the first man to beat Jones' conqueror Glen Johnson -Hopkins beat Glenhoffe when Glen was about 28 whereas Jones lost to him when he was Glen was 35. Hopkins made a fool out of Jones' conqueror Tarver, when he was 40. He made 20 or so title defenses over 9 years.

At 42, he beat Winky Wright who hadn't been defeated in 8 years. At 43, he schooled an undefeated 26 year old MW champion who defeated the man who took Bernard's title twice. That latest bout proves much. And I believe could have and should have beaten Calzaghe but that's not worth jack.

In sum, I think it is easy to rank Hopkins over Jones -particularly after Saturday night's performance.

...
Roy Jones Jr.

Roy Jones Jr didn't just avoid Michalczewski and Calzaghe. There are others. Jirov signed to fight him, Jones backed out. This after talking all kinds of bravado. Jones didn't just fight many duds... he was more evasive outside the ring against real contracts than he was inside the ring against rights and lefts.

Michalczewski, around the time that Jones was avoiding him, said "I always like to face good opposition. Only the best opponents bring out the best in me.". This is something that Jones never said, or if he did, he LIED. Jones went hurrying through three divisions and did not want tough opponents. Did he face McClellan or Eubank at middleweight? No. Did he try to fight Liles, Benn, or Stevie Collins at super middleweight? No. Michalczewski gives Virgil Hill a beating and takes two titles and what does Jones do? You'd expect that he'd face Michalczewski. He didn't. He faces .... Virgil Hill...! And I still hear the praise for that body shot. How many know that Jones threw that body shot on the wrong guy??

No one in their right mind should get away with excusing Jones for not fighting Michalczewski. Jones hid behind unrealistic purse demands: He wanted 10 million. Come on. His reign at LHW is questionable. Did you know that he actually had to share his WBC belt with Graciano Rocchigiani after Jones refused to face his mandatory (Michael Nunn) in '98 and Rocchigiani stepped in and beat Nunn in Marchl, 98 to claim 1/2 the title? What was Jones doing instead? The Hill fight was in April. Hill, a name fighter who was 34, barely ever fought out of Bismark, North Dakota, who was laid off a year, and was dominated by Dariusz in his last fight. Jones was conveniently avoiding Nunn and Michalczewski by taking an easy out.

Those who tout Roy's greatness at LHW are often honest men. They should prove there honesty by pausing and remembering that Jones shamelessly avoided a fellow champion in Dariusz Michalczewski, who unified three titles at LHW with his defeat of Hill and who had the most defensive in his division in 25 years.

Forget what Roy didn't do, thats common knowledge. Instead have a look at what he did accomplish. The DOMINANT wins over Bernard Hopkins and James Toney should at least put him way up the rankings. Its convenient that you fail to mention them and instead rank Hopkins way above him. Why do you take credit away for Roy because he was never an underdog? Who would he have to fight in order to have that happen. The only fight in his career that could be made where the other person would be favoured is at heavyweight against Lewis.

[Robbi]

Forget what Roy didn't do, thats common knowledge. Instead have a look at what he did accomplish. The DOMINANT wins over Bernard Hopkins and James Toney should at least put him way up the rankings. Its convenient that you fail to mention them and instead rank Hopkins way above him. Why do you take credit away for Roy because he was never an underdog? Who would he have to fight in order to have that happen. The only fight in his career that could be made where the other person would be favoured is at heavyweight against Lewis.

I agree, Jones' skills and superiority were the reasons why he was hardly ever an underdog. I might be wrong, but I think he was the underdog against Ruiz and Tarver III. He's 1-1 with those two fights.

[Stonehands89]

Forget what Roy didn't do, thats common knowledge. Instead have a look at what he did accomplish. The DOMINANT wins over Bernard Hopkins and James Toney should at least put him way up the rankings. Its convenient that you fail to mention them and instead rank Hopkins way above him. Why do you take credit away for Roy because he was never an underdog? Who would he have to fight in order to have that happen. The only fight in his career that could be made where the other person would be favoured is at heavyweight against Lewis.
"Forget what Roy didn't do -that's common knowledge"? -Not on this this thread it ain't and very often I have to remind too many out here that there glorification of Roy at times defies reality. It is amusing how you want me to wave off "the common knowledge of what Roy didn't do" and then turn around and pretend that his defeats of Toney and Hopkins aren't common knowledge. These were mentioned 4 or 5 times on this thread alone. I did acknowledge these big wins in an earlier post, if you read it. After he beat Toney, Jones effectively skated for almost 9 years before facing Ruiz. Are you denying that?

I suspect that you did not know much of what I posted. The details are undeniably uncomfortable for any Jones fan. You sound like someone who would have given Jones a shot against Tyson or Klitschko. Are you?

[Stonehands89]

Jones has no place over Whitaker, I agree. Chavez does not have a clearly superior resume and had close calls with LaPorte and Lockridge, I don't think either Chavez or Jones is clearly above the other.

As to Hopkins, whether Roy could have fought more fighters or not, do you Hopkins has a superior resume? Do you think given their styles that Hopkins in his prime could beat a peak Jones?

I am by no means a die-hard fan and much prefer Hopkins, but Roy is a greater fighter. IMO, Jones deserves more credit than you give him for being as dominant as he was for a decade against a solid level of opposition.
I believe that Hopkins is the greater fighter. He dominated a division more than Jones ever did, he has far better longevity, and he holds his own well against larger men -including an unconverted conqueror of Jones. However, I do not believe that Hopkins could have or even should have beaten Roy. Roy's style, for what it was, was the foil for many technicians who could not match his intensity or were a bit to deliberate as Hopkins was and is.

The purest measure of a fighter in my estimation is not how he looks in the ring. It is not even his "dominance"... it is how he responds to adversity, the caliber of his competition, and how consistently he accepted real challenges. Jones fails on the first, is subpar on the second (compared not to other champions but to the greatest among them), and fails on the third.

[Robbi]

Jones did face some serious duds when in or around his prime. The Toney win established him as a world class fighter of the highest order. He had just beaten a fighter who was arguably 'pound for pound' the best fighter in the world. You would have thought it would have been a superfight for him every 3 or 4 fights and keep on even ground. Yet he took on the likes of Pazienza, a former lightweight, Bryant Brannon a club fighter, 40 year old Mike McCallum who was well past his sell by date. Then the likes of Policeman, Ricky Frazier, who should never have been sparring with Jones, far less a title fight. After the millenium came garbage collector, Glen Kelley, which proved to be a farce.

I do give Jones credit for beating Hill, Del Valle, Sosa, Griffin, and Ruiz.

When Hopkins gained the same merit beating Trinidad as Jones did after shutting out Toney, he can't be accused of such poor opposition.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
I believe that Hopkins is the greater fighter. He dominated a division more than Jones ever did, he has far better longevity, and he holds his own well against larger men -including an unconverted conqueror of Jones. However, I do not believe that Hopkins could have or even should have beaten Roy. Roy's style, for what it was, was the foil for many technicians who could not match his intensity or were a bit to deliberate as Hopkins was and is.

The purest measure of a fighter in my estimation is not how he looks in the ring. It is not even his "dominance"... it is how he responds to adversity, the caliber of his competition, and how consistently he accepted real challenges. Jones fails on the first, is subpar on the second (compared not to other champions but to the greatest among them), and fails on the third.
It's a good argument to rate Hopkins higher, and as a big fan of his I enjoyed it and now understand your reasoning for him being higher.

While these are big factors when determining greatness, I personally see the biggest criteria as who did they beat and how did they beat them. Jones must rank higher than Hopkins by that criteria, so I have him higher, but that is my way of rating fighters, and by the way you rate greatness Hopkins could certainly be higher. Even if I disagree, your reasoning is understandable (and I'm not going to argue much with a high ranking of Hopkins).:D

[Stonehands89]

I agree, Jones' skills and superiority were the reasons why he was hardly ever an underdog. I might be wrong, but I think he was the underdog against Ruiz and Tarver III. He's 1-1 with those two fights.
A loose hypothetical for you:

Fighter "A" fights 10 times. Five of these challengers are now counted among the great or near-great. He loses twice against great, with one draw, and is knocked down twice. He's a workman, and his skills are more subtle. He was an underdog for half of those fights and avenged one loss.

Fighter "B" fights 10 times. All ten are contenders but are ordinary at best. Fighter B dominates and destroys most of them. He's flashy and crowd-pleasing with vicious power. He's never an underdog.

Applying ceteris paribus, Who would you lean toward to be the greater of the two?

[Robbi]

A loose hypothetical for you:

Fighter "A" fights 10 times. Five of these challengers are now counted among the great or near-great. He loses twice against great, with one draw, and is knocked down twice. He's a workman, and his skills are more subtle. He was an underdog for half of those fights and avenged one loss.

Fighter "B" fights 10 times. All ten are contenders but are ordinary at best. Fighter B dominates and destroys most of them. He's flashy and crowd-pleasing with vicious power. He's never an underdog.

Applying ceteris paribus, Who would you lean toward to be the greater of the two?

Jones' superiority was gained through fighting poor opponents. For the most part anyway. If he stepped up his opposition then then his 'so called' superiority would have been tested, more so. Perhaps people would not have seen him as a dominating force had he fought tougher opposition. Which comes to the conclusion why he wasn't the underdog.

[dpw417]

A loose hypothetical for you:

Fighter "A" fights 10 times. Five of these challengers are now counted among the great or near-great. He loses twice against great, with one draw, and is knocked down twice. He's a workman, and his skills are more subtle. He was an underdog for half of those fights and avenged one loss.

Fighter "B" fights 10 times. All ten are contenders but are ordinary at best. Fighter B dominates and destroys most of them. He's flashy and crowd-pleasing with vicious power. He's never an underdog.

Applying ceteris paribus, Who would you lean toward to be the greater of the two?
SH, I see your point. But what if fighter "B" outpointed fighter"A" back in '93?

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
A loose hypothetical for you:

Fighter "A" fights 10 times. Five of these challengers are now counted among the great or near-great. He loses twice against great, with one draw, and is knocked down twice. He's a workman, and his skills are more subtle. He was an underdog for half of those fights and avenged one loss.

Fighter "B" fights 10 times. All ten are contenders but are ordinary at best. Fighter B dominates and destroys most of them. He's flashy and crowd-pleasing with vicious power. He's never an underdog.

Applying ceteris paribus, Who would you lean toward to be the greater of the two?
First, I would lean towards fighter A in this hypothetical, but I don't think this really fits the Jones-Hopkins comparison.

Hopkins has Trinidad, Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, De La Hoya, Holmes, Johnson, Echols, Joppy, Eastman, David Jackson, Vanderpool, etc.

Jones has Toney, Hopkins, Tarver, Hill, Ruiz, Griffin, Gonzales, Del Valle, Reggie Johnson, Sosa, Malinga, etc.

Hopkins' resume isn't any better IMO. Both beat their share of ordinary contenders, both beet some excellent fighters, both beat two ATG fighters (with Jones' wins over Toney and Hopkins being more impressive than B-Hop's wins over Trinidad and DLH).

Jones was more dominant and flashy, but he was so against what is IMO a better list of victims.

[Stonehands89]

To proclaim Jones' magnificent skill and superiority is not the whole story. He didn't submit to enough tests. He lived on the dusty victories over Hopkins and Toney and later Ruiz and that IS enough to call him a great fighter... it is NOT enough to launch him up where Robinson (the elite) is or where Leonard (top 15) is.

This is not directed at you necessarily Robbi, but Jones is being given a pass for 9 years -his prime years, between Toney and Ruiz. Nine years of not fighting the best. Nine years of avoidance.

Sam Langford and his children begged to fight the best out there. In my opinion, Jones has not lived up to that mentality, and he has not carried on that old legacy of the great African American fighter. If you're going to look at top 20 all time, no one with Jones record of avoidance should be there. He should have faced the best he could. He didn't.

[Stonehands89]

SH, I see your point. But what if fighter "B" outpointed fighter"A" back in '93?
That is a good question, but it is not a stumbling block. If Fighter B outpointed Fighter A (let's say B was an unavenged loss), and then rested on his laurels for a decade, while Fighter A claimed blood-soaked victories over live guys, then A should still better than B in terms of greatness, though not in H2H.

(This is not coded language for Jones and Hopkins necessarily...)

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
To proclaim Jones' magnificent skill and superiority is not the whole story. He didn't submit to enough tests. He lived on the dusty victories over Hopkins and Toney and later Ruiz and that IS enough to call him a great fighter... it is NOT enough to launch him up where Robinson (the elite) is or where Leonard (top 15) is.

This is not directed at you necessarily Robbi, but Jones is being given a pass for 9 years -his prime years, between Toney and Ruiz. Nine years of not fighting the best. Nine years of avoidance.

Sam Langford and his children begged to fight the best out there. In my opinion, Jones has not lived up to that mentality, and he has not carried on that old legacy of the great African American fighter. If you're going to look at top 20 all time, no one with Jones record of avoidance should be there. He should have faced the best he could. He didn't.
I Fully agree, he has no place inside the top 25 IMO. However, going back to your initial list, you had Hopkins over Jones, and just because he isn't of the Robinson, Langford, Leonard level (obviously), doesn't mean he is not greater than Hopkins. He beat better fighters than Hopkins, is that not the key criteria for determining greatness?

[Stonehands89]

I Fully agree, he has no place inside the top 25 IMO. However, going back to your initial list, you had Hopkins over Jones, and just because he isn't of the Robinson, Langford, Leonard level (obviously), doesn't mean he is not greater than Hopkins. He beat better fighters than Hopkins, is that not the key criteria for determining greatness?
I'm not convinced that Hopkins' conquests are less than Jones, and if so that they are less enough to overcome the other deficits of Jones (avoidance, 2 devestating stoppages -unavenged) and the continuing saga of Hopkins (who has serious victories after 40).

(For what it's worth, I'm impressed with your argumentation. Good stuff. We haven't went any rounds yet but I always appreciate intelligence in the opposite corner.)

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
I'm not convinced that Hopkins' conquests are less than Jones, and if so that they are less enough to overcome the other deficits of Jones (avoidance, 2 devestating stoppages -unavenged) and the continuing saga of Hopkins (who has serious victories after 40).

(For what it's worth, I'm impressed with your argumentation. Good stuff. We haven't went any rounds yet but I always appreciate intelligence in the opposite corner.)
It's been an interesting debate, I'm arguing against a high ranking of one of my absolute favorite fighters ever, which is strange.

I think they're close in terms of conquests, but Toney is better than anything on Hopkins' resume IMO. As in the previous post I find that win plus wins over Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Ruiz, Gonzales, etc better than what Hopkins has.

Also, Hopkins could have fought the same men that Jones is accused of avoiding, and if the argument is that he was a middleweight his entire career until recently and beat everyone there in that 10 year span of champion, then I think Jones should be given considerable credit for moving through divisions, beating Hopkins at 160, becoming the best at 168, and while not linear champion becoming in all likelyhood the best at 175. I also don't believe Jones outright ducked DM, as it probably went both ways, but in terms of greatness you are correct that he should have made the fight happen. Also, I think Ruiz gets underrated now. It is not his best win, and yes he was the easiest of the top heavyweights for Jones to beat, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavyweight at the time and Jones, 30lbs above his previously higher weight, outclassed him. It's not some massive achievement like some of his fans try to argue given the level of the opponent, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavy and he wasn't even competitive against a natural 168lbs man.

Jones has never overcome adversity, a serious mark on his legacy, but in reverse of your view, Hopkins has only challenged himself against one physically larger man (whom despite the losses in the 2nd and 3rd fight, Jones did beat in their first meeting), where as Roy was arguably the smaller man in all of his lightheavyweight fights as well as against Ruiz and for a lengthy time dominated these physically bigger men.

Your arguments have puersuaded me to having it closer than I did previously (which makes me happy), but I still rate Roy higher. I don't think Hopkins' remarkable success past his prime in contrast to Jones poor showings past his own is enough to overlook the fact that prime for prime Jones was for the most part more dominant against a slightly higher level of competition, several of these men being bigger than him as compared to the one naturally bigger man Hopkins beat.

To each his own though, If you think Hopkins is greater you have made an excellent argument as to why, and it's downright shocking to me that I'm on the Jones side of this.

[sweet_scientist]

Lewis faced everyone that he could and beat every man that he faced. Jones can't say that Bowe got away, but that's no shame on Lewis. Some, like Holyfield and Tyson he faced late, but he did face them. He was stopped twice, but came roaring back and returned the favor. Jones wouldn't and I'd argue that by that point of his career, couldn't erase the Tarver and Johnson fights. Lewis destroyed Ruddock. He beat a live and dangerous Ray Mercer. Then he stopped Tommy Morrison who had just wrecked Ruddock. He destroyed Golota when Golota was still dangerous. He beat Briggs, Tua, and exposed Grant. His last fight was a sloppy, amateurish mess, but he did stop Vitali.

Hopkins later. Gotta work!

Lewis faced everyone that's true, but I don't think the fighters on his resume are more impressive than the fighters on Jones' resume.

Furthermore, whilst Lewis did avenge his losses, Jones' losses came at a later stage in his career when avenging them was not the task it was for Lewis.

Quite frankly, that Lewis got sparked twice by journeymen in or near his prime is a lot more damaging for his legacy than what Jones' losses at the tail end of his career are.

Lewis' struggles with Mercer and an old Evander Holyfield in their rematch also have to be taken into account. Jones struggled all of once in his prime, against Montell Griffin, and was on the verge of knocking him out in any case when he got DQ'ed.

[Stonehands89]

It's been an interesting debate, I'm arguing against a high ranking of one of my absolute favorite fighters ever, which is strange.

I think they're close in terms of conquests, but Toney is better than anything on Hopkins' resume IMO. As in the previous post I find that win plus wins over Hopkins, Hill, Tarver, Ruiz, Gonzales, etc better than what Hopkins has.
The Hill fight was already addressed -he avoided Dariusz and Nunn. Outrightly. Tarver easily took the series against Jones -and no one confuses him with great. Ruiz was impressive, but he was not only made to order, he fought precisely the fight he should have had he wanted to lose. I don't want to nitpick. Jones has some solid wins... but we agree it's not enough to put him in the top 20.

Also, Hopkins could have fought the same men that Jones is accused of avoiding, and if the argument is that he was a middleweight his entire career until recently and beat everyone there in that 10 year span of champion, then I think Jones should be given considerable credit for moving through divisions, beating Hopkins at 160, becoming the best at 168, and while not linear champion becoming in all likelyhood the best at 175. I also don't believe Jones outright ducked DM, as it probably went both ways, but in terms of greatness you are correct that he should have made the fight happen. Also, I think Ruiz gets underrated now. It is not his best win, and yes he was the easiest of the top heavyweights for Jones to beat, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavyweight at the time and Jones, 30lbs above his previously higher weight, outclassed him. It's not some massive achievement like some of his fans try to argue given the level of the opponent, but Ruiz was a top 10 heavy and he wasn't even competitive against a natural 168lbs man.
I strongly, strongly suspect that Jones was on steroids. And I have since the Pazienza fight. BOTH of them were in that bout. If you have a clear tape, watch it. I believe that Jones was roided more so than I believe that Holyfield was!

Dariusz wanted nothing more than to fight Roy Jones. Jones called the shots and left him alone. "It's my great aim to face Roy Jones jr," said he. I believed him.

Jones has never overcome adversity, a serious mark on his legacy, but in reverse of your view, Hopkins has only challenged himself against one physically larger man (whom despite the losses in the 2nd and 3rd fight, Jones did beat in their first meeting), where as Roy was arguably the smaller man in all of his lightheavyweight fights as well as against Ruiz and for a lengthy time dominated these physically bigger men.
Hopkins is 43 and still fighting elite guys. Jones fought Trinidad for crying out loud. A worn-out WELTERWEIGHT. I'll tell you this much, if Jones beats Calzaghe, I will be impressed. (Roid) Jones fought big -and vulnerable- guys. Many will tell you that they were easier than the smaller guys he avoided.

Your arguments have puersuaded me to having it closer than I did previously (which makes me happy), but I still rate Roy higher. I don't think Hopkins' remarkable success past his prime in contrast to Jones poor showings past his own is enough to overlook the fact that prime for prime Jones was for the most part more dominant against a slightly higher level of competition, several of these men being bigger than him as compared to the one naturally bigger man Hopkins beat.

To each his own though, If you think Hopkins is greater you have made an excellent argument as to why, and it's downright shocking to me that I'm on the Jones side of this.
Before Pavlik, I wouldn't have argued it. After Calzaghe-Jones, my thinking may be pre-Pavlik!

PS/I'll encourage to reflect further on his placement at #3. Consider your own arguments and take a good hard look at Hearns -to begin with. Without getting to literal, think about the Fighter "A" vs. Fighter "B" in terms of greatness.

[Stonehands89]

Lewis faced everyone that's true, but I don't think the fighters on his resume are more impressive than the fighters on Jones' resume.
Taken in toto, I disagree.

Furthermore, whilst Lewis did avenge his losses, Jones' losses came at a later stage in his career when avenging them was not the task it was for Lewis.

Quite frankly, that Lewis got sparked twice by journeymen in or near his prime is a lot more damaging for his legacy than what Jones' losses at the tail end of his career are.

Lewis was 35 when Rahman got him. Jones was 35 when Tarver got him. Lewis was 36 when he avenged it. Jones avenged nothing, his claim that he was a victor by "not getting knocked out" in Tarver III gives us a glimpse into his career-long psychology. Lennox got caught by a formidable powerhouse in Oliver McCall when he was 29. Who was Jones fighting when he was 29? He got dropped by Del Valle.

Lewis' struggles with Mercer and an old Evander Holyfield in their rematch also have to be taken into account. Jones struggled all of once in his prime, against Montell Griffin, and was on the verge of knocking him out in any case when he got DQ'ed.
Consider context my friend. Jones was fighting mailman and midget testosterone freaks. Lennox's conquests were consistently good. And the Mercer that Lennox faced was the best Mercer there ever was -Jones would have avoided a Mercer counterpart at 175. Count on it.

[sweet_scientist]

Stoney, what do you think about Hopkins not avenging two losses to Jermain Taylor?

I want to say something about Hopkins. It is amazing that he is still as good as he is at his age, but his wins in the last 3 or 4 years are extraordinary wins CONSIDERING HIS AGE, not really per se.

I mean, if Jones was in his prime, is there really any doubt that he would destroy Tarver, outpoint a fat Winky, beat Calzaghe (yes Calzaghe will embarrass and knock Jones out when they fight) and easily outpoint an 170 pound slow at the best of times cement footed Pavlik? In his prime Jones would knock Jermain Taylor out in about 6 rounds tops.

I have no doubt about all of this. That Hopkins has been able to beat some of these guys or hang with them at an old age makes it look super impressive, but it speaks very little about his level as a fighter in his prime COMPARED to Jones. Jones would have trounced Hopkins' competition in the last 4 years were he in his prime.

That he is hanging around now and making a clown of himself makes it easy to forget how good he was, and i think we SHOULD remember, because Jones, in his prime, clowns all the guys above.

[Robbi]

This is not directed at you necessarily Robbi, but Jones is being given a pass for 9 years -his prime years, between Toney and Ruiz. Nine years of not fighting the best. Nine years of avoidance.

You obviously never read my post at - 11:20 PM.

[sweet_scientist]

Taken in toto, I disagree.
Agree to disagree then we shall.


Lewis was 35 when Rahman got him. Jones was 35 when Tarver got him. Lewis was 36 when he avenged it. Jones avenged nothing, his claim that he was a victor by "not getting knocked out" in Tarver III gives us a glimpse into his career-long psychology. Lennox got caught by a formidable powerhouse in Oliver McCall when he was 29. Who was Jones fighting when he was 29? He got dropped by Del Valle.
Primes aren't measured by age mate, you know that. Lewis obviously had more left when he avenged Rahman than Jones did going into the Tarver rematches/Johnson fights. Roy was finished, Lewis was not.

And since when is McCall a formidable powerhouse? Physically perhaps, mentally he is a 3 year old child devoid of mother's love.

Consider context my friend. Jones was fighting mailman and midget testosterone freaks. Lennox's conquests were consistently good. And the Mercer that Lennox faced was the best Mercer there ever was -Jones would have avoided a Mercer counterpart at 175. Count on it.
Jones would have avoided a guy who had just lost to a fossilized Holmes, Jesse Ferguson and got comprehensively beat by Evander Holyfield? Sounds just the kind of fighter Jones WOULD face, and dominate.

And yes, Mercer put up a gallant performance but please don't make more of him that what is the case. He is NOT better than a Montell Griffin, nor even a faded version of Virgil Hill for that matter.

[the cobra]

Originally posted by Stonehands89
PS/I'll encourage to reflect further on his placement at #3. Consider your own arguments and take a good hard look at Hearns -to begin with. Without getting to literal, think about the Fighter "A" vs. Fighter "B" in terms of greatness.
I've always found Hearns as one of the hardest fighters to rate.

Given that he was never dominant at any weight other than 154 where he had 3 fights I believe, was knocked out in his prime by Leonard and never avenged it (i don't consider the rematch avenging the loss as Ray was clearly furhter past his best), by Hagler and never avenged it, and by Barkley and although he tried, he failed to avenge that loss as well (he was past his best fot the rematch though).

Duran was significantly smaller than Hearns and past his best days, Benitez as well was post-prime, Cuevas was a murderous puncher but nothing more, The Hill win is fantastic, and he had some excellent showings against Schuler, Roldan, and a nice win over Kinchen and a few others. Tommy did however show tremendous heart in losing efforts unlike Jones, and even though he lost in the end he was outboxing Leonard before he was caught.

I'll move Jones below Chavez now, so he's at #4 with Tommy at #7, and as I said in that original post Hagler and Hearns could be argued for higher placing. Hearns is difficult to rate (knockout losses in prime-none avenged, never really dominant at any weight, but multi-weight success and excellent performances against some top level opponents).

As for Jones using steroids, it's very possible (i'm not sure on the full details of that and whether he used drugs that were still legal at the time or whatever else), but it isn't proven and as of now only a suspicion (though there are some signs to support it), I give Jones credit for moving through divisions and still dominating.

Quite honestly I have nothing else to argue in favor of Jones. I will concede that your arguments have persuaded me to rank Jones and Hopkins much closer now and that there is little seperating them, but not enough for me to have Hopkins higher.

Hopefully Jones pulls off the upset and beats Calzaghe and then he and Hopkins have a rematch and Bernard wins, my perfect scenario for this situation.

[Robbi]

Stoney, what do you think about Hopkins not avenging two losses to Jermain Taylor?

The rematch hurts him more than both fights to a certain extent. He had the chance to gain revenge and failed. When Hopkins started to fight aggressively during the late rounds of the first fight he hurt Taylor, backed him up, and generally bossed the fight. His cautious approach clearly never worked over the first 7 rounds or so. And when his punches landed cleanly on Taylor down the stretch, alarm bells were ringing.

Hopkins should have upped his punch output during the rematch. I thought he would have picked up from where he left off during the first fight. But he decided to stand at long range, looking for Taylor to force the issue, then counter-punch. And with Taylor not willing to oblige, it became 'cat and mouse' yet again with Taylor winning the rounds mainly on activity rather than accuracy. He never learned his lesson. When you look at his busy hands against Pavlik at the weekend, it makes you wonder. Taylor's style and the whole manner in which he fought Hopkins must be credited. He gave Hopkins an almost mirror image of himself, and obviously B-Hop was taken out of his comfort zone. But Hopkins should have gambled and became the hunter much earlier. He had some success during the late rounds, but again, too late.

Can you imagine Hagler having a rematch with Leonard 5 months after their controversial decision and deciding to stand off over the first 4 rounds...........again.

Holmes learned his lesson against Spinks. Plodding forward behind the jab wasn't enough. Rematch; he comes out smoking with a higher jab output as well as a thundering right hand. He also mixes it too the body and sweeps the first 5 rounds convincingly. I thought Holmes won the fight. Ok, he lost officially, but was far more effective throughout the return.

Leonard's strategy was like 'night and day' for the first and second Duran fights.

Holyfield's strategy against Bowe. First fight he fights like a man obsessed with trench warfare and finds that Bowe is too strong inside and gets pounded. Rematch; lateral movement, double jabs, feints, ocassional bursts, then spinning away. He gets the win.

The Taylor rematch is the biggest 'black mark' on Hopkins' resume.

[ripcity]

1. Sweet Pea
2. RJJ
3. SRL
4. PBF
5. BHOP
6. JCC
7. MMH
8. Hearns
9. Lenox Lewis
10. Holmes

[sweet_scientist]

The rematch hurts him more than both fights to a certain extent. He had the chance to gain revenge and failed. When Hopkins started to fight aggressively during the late rounds of the first fight he hurt Taylor, backed him up, and generally bossed the fight. His cautious approach clearly never worked over the first 7 rounds or so. And when his punches landed cleanly on Taylor down the stretch, alarm bells were ringing.

Hopkins should have upped his punch output during the rematch. I thought he would have picked up from where he left off during the first fight. But he decided to stand at long range, looking for Taylor to force the issue, then counter-punch. And with Taylor not willing to oblige, it became 'cat and mouse' yet again with Taylor winning the rounds mainly on activity rather than accuracy. He never learned his lesson. When you look at his busy hands against Pavlik at the weekend, it makes you wonder. Taylor's style and the whole manner in which he fought Hopkins must be credited. He gave Hopkins an almost mirror image of himself, and obviously B-Hop was taken out of his comfort zone. But Hopkins should have gambled and became the hunter much earlier. He had some success during the late rounds, but again, too late.

Can you imagine Hagler having a rematch with Leonard 5 months after their controversial decision and deciding to stand off over the first 4 rounds...........again.

Holmes learned his lesson against Spinks. Plodding forward behind the jab wasn't enough. Rematch; he comes out smoking with a higher jab output as well as a thundering right hand. He also mixes it too the body and sweeps the first 5 rounds convincingly. I thought Holmes won the fight. Ok, he lost officially, but was far more effective throughout the return.

Leonard's strategy was like 'night and day' for the first and second Duran fights.

Holyfield's strategy against Bowe. First fight he fights like a man obsessed with trench warfare and finds that Bowe is too strong inside and gets pounded. Rematch; lateral movement, double jabs, feints, ocassional bursts, then spinning away. He gets the win.

The Taylor rematch is the biggest 'black mark' on Hopkins' resume.

Well said Rob, I agree wholeheartedly. For as good a tactician as Hopkins usually is, he made a glaring error there.

The Jermain Taylor fights in a way reinforce my scepticism about Hopkins beating Jones in a prime for prime match up (not saying Hopkins was prime for Jermain of course).

Hopkins basically became intimidated by Taylor's speed, and chanced his arm when it was too late. Can easily see the same thing happening against a prime Roy.

[Robbi]

Well said Rob, I agree wholeheartedly. For as good a tactician as Hopkins usually is, he made a glaring error there.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The robbery claims really pissed me off. I thought he lost the first Taylor fight, 115-113.

[sweet_scientist]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The robbery claims really pissed me off. I thought he lost the first Taylor fight, 115-113.

:lol:

I had him down by a point in the first fight my self. The only people robbed that night were the fans.

[My2Sense]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

1) Leonard
2) Pea
3) Chavez
4) Hopkins
5) Hearns
6) Mayweather
7) Jones
8) Hagler
9) Lennox
10) Holmes

[My2Sense]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The robbery claims really pissed me off. I thought he lost the first Taylor fight, 115-113.

Exactly the way I scored it.

In fact, I thought both fights were either draws or close wins for Taylor.

And I agree that Hops' failure to adjust is somewhat of a black eye on his legacy.

[Bill Butcher]

Here is my list

(1) SRL
(2) RJJ
(3) Sweet Pea
(4) MMH
(5) BHOP
(6) JCC
(7) Hearns
(8) PBF
(9) Holmes
(10) Lenox Lewis

This is too hard as I cant separate some fighters so Im going to have to go with the old tier system, sorry, here goes.....

Tier 1 - Leonard, Chavez, Whitaker,
Tier 2 - Mayweather, Hopkins, Hagler, Jones, Hearns, Holmes,
Tier 3 - Lewis,

Ps. Even tho it would be very hard to pick a winner between Holmes & Lewis H2H & both make my top 10 HWT list, I placed him on a higher tier because he is naturally a lot smaller & IMO deserves the greater HWT ranking.

Sorry I couldnt separate the tier 2 guys a bit more but a difficult thread = a good thread I suppose.

:thumbsup

[Stonehands89]

Stoney, what do you think about Hopkins not avenging two losses to Jermain Taylor?
It was disappointing that he lost in the first place to be perfectly frank. And it does some damage.

I want to say something about Hopkins. It is amazing that he is still as good as he is at his age, but his wins in the last 3 or 4 years are extraordinary wins CONSIDERING HIS AGE, not really per se.

I mean, if Jones was in his prime, is there really any doubt that he would destroy Tarver, outpoint a fat Winky, beat Calzaghe (yes Calzaghe will embarrass and knock Jones out when they fight) and easily outpoint an 170 pound slow at the best of times cement footed Pavlik? In his prime Jones would knock Jermain Taylor out in about 6 rounds tops.
I don't believe that he would destroy Tarver. Tarver's power, awkward southpaw style, height and reach would have, I believe, always cause problems. Jones believes it as well and said it. Wright didn't look good against Hopkins, tis true. I'd give you that prime Jones would have made an easy time of him. Calzaghe? Jones himself is fighting Calzaghe for one reason -regret for not fighting him before.

I'm not convinced that Jones would have fought anyone who he feared, and that question has to be asked first with this particular champion.

I have no doubt about all of this. That Hopkins has been able to beat some of these guys or hang with them at an old age makes it look super impressive, but it speaks very little about his level as a fighter in his prime COMPARED to Jones. Jones would have trounced Hopkins' competition in the last 4 years were he in his prime.
Ah, but you forget that "longevity" and "ability to compete past one's prime" is indeed a measure of greatness. And Hopkins isn't done yet...

That he is hanging around now and making a clown of himself makes it easy to forget how good he was, and i think we SHOULD remember, because Jones, in his prime, clowns all the guys above.
Jones cannot be counted on to fight all the guys above, never mind clown them.

Jones has said as much and I think it's clear that he is seeking to salvage his career -he's looking for redemption. I think that "Ebenezer" Jones had a visit from 3 ghosts recently for being so miserly with his challenges during his prime years. They probably looked like Gans, Langford, and Burley...

[slicksouthpaw16]

1)Leonard
2)Holmes
3)Hagler
4)Jones
5)Mayweather
6)Hopkins
7)Lewis
8 Hearns
9)Whitaker
10)Chavez

[Holmes' Jab]

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Roy Jones Jr
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Marvin Hagler
6. Bernard Hopkins
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Floyd Mayweather
9. Larry Holmes
10. Lennox Lewis

[JohnThomas1]

1. SRL
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Julio Cesar Chavez
4. Bernard Hopkins
5. Roy Jones
6. Thomas Hearns
7 - 9 Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Marvin Hagler
10. PBF

[Bill Butcher]

I too, think its very close between Jones & Hopkins.... whats rarely mentioned about their H2H fight in the 90s is the fact that Roy was naturally the bigger, more muscular & powerfull man + Roy was at or fast approaching his peak where as Hopkins was still a long way away from his own peak.

You can bet anything that had they fought in 02 - probably the best time as far as both being closest to their peaks at the same time - then RJJ wouldnt have had it so easy, in fact, Im starting to doubt if he would even win.