Who Won The Roy Jones Vs Bernard Hopkins Rivialry?

Roy had a fractured hand in their first fight.

In their rematch, Roy only retaliated to how Bernard had acted. Go and watch the fight. Bernard did his best to try and force a DQ.

Roy was rightly DQ'd against Griffin. That was a moment of madness. But that's not the same as repeatedly pulling stunts to try and get out of a fight. You talk about Bernard being a legend fighting at an advanced age, but you don't want to discuss how he threw himself on the floor against Dawson etc.

Let's be real. Bernard did have great longevity, but again, it came with his antics, and those risks were never taken earlier.

He's getting far too much credit in my opinion. There were no Dawson's, Kovalev's and Tarver's on his resume when he was in his 30's. Why was that? If he hadn't have lost to Taylor twice in 2005, the chances are, he probably would never have moved up to LHW in 2006.

 

How did Roy duck him?

 

I appreciate what you've written. But if you want the biggest fights, you have to take risks.

The same thing has been said of Calzaghe. I've had many people say to me: "why should Joe have dropped his WBO belt and gone to LHW, without a guaranteed shot at a big fight?"

Well, there were 4 organisations, and both guys could have moved up the rankings. Sooner or later, they'd have been in a mandatory position.

Bernard stayed at MW for over 6 years before King's MW tournament. And that tells me that he was more than content, just like Joe was at SMW. I appreciate that Roy had more appeal, with his name and his fighting style, but again, if Bernard had been ultra ambitious, I'm sure he could have got himself a big fight at SMW-LHW within a 6 year period. I respect your opinion. Always. But Bernard remained at MW for a further 4 years after he'd beaten Tito. So that speaks volumes to me.

What about the Roy rematch in 2002? That would have ticked all the boxes. You've said that in your opinion, Bernard would have moved up sooner had he have had a big fight opportunity and a title shot. Well there it was. It didn't get any bigger than fighting Roy Jones in 2002. Yet he didn't want it. So how ambitious was he there? He turned Roy down and then spent 13 months out of the ring before fighting Morrade Hakkar. Then in 2008 just prior to fighting Joe, he said that he could have moved up to LHW 5-6 years earlier than he did, had he have wished too. Don't forget that a fight against Roy in 2002, would have been at a 168 CW.

Again, I appreciate the points you have made. But for me, they're not enough. In my opinion, he gets far too much credit.

 

Uppercut,

Please give me your thoughts on post 86, page 6.

:good

 

yes true cowardzaghe couldda moved up earlier than when he did move up to take on ONLY 2 40something/virtually 40somethings (which by some strange coincidence coincided with his next mando defences becoming more arduous), no one in history has done that before. another first for cowardzaghe.

 

Exactly my point. Jones turned into his motivation to last as long as he did and try to out do Roy's accomplishments.

 

Could he of moved up sooner than he did, of course he could, any fighter could, but prior to the Tito fight it's a move that didn't make sense for the reasons I've mentioned before.

Jones Jr only ever moved up when he had a guaranteed title fight, he vacated his middleweight belt and immediately fought Toney for his IBF belt, he vacated his super middle belts and immediately got a shot for the WBC belt against McCallum and he didn't just move up to heavy and be a contender either he got a shot at a title immediatelty as well. Why should Hopkins think any differently to Jones Jr.

Why would a fighter who has two options, one being a champion at a weight they can easily make or two move up without a title, wait a year or more making less money hoping to get a title shot and hoping you don't get frozen out, choose the second option. It's unrealistic to expect a fighter to make such a choice and this was the case prior to beating Tito.

Now after the Tito fight he could of moved up in 2002 as you mentioned, he had options with Calzaghe and Jones Jr. From that period I agree he could have moved up earlier, you believe it was due to a lack of ambition, maybe you are right but there were other circumstances as to why he didn't move up earlier.

Firstly in 2002 he wanted to break Hagler's record for number of title defenses and so fought his mandatory Carl Daniels to do that and so moving up then was simply not going to happen as any big fights offered could be delayed until after he broke the record.

He then spent the rest of 2002 inactive while turning down deals with HBO to fight Jones Jr and a Showtime deal to fight Calzaghe and Simon. Why did he turn them down, personally I think he had an over inflated self worth back then, he thought just because he beat Tito he deserved the kind of money Tito was making and it took him a while to realise that was not going to happen. But it wasn't a case of not wanting to push himself and go up but more of believing that now he had finally reached the top he deserved more than what was being offered, which to be fair was unrealistic.

In 2003 he fought another mandatory in Hakkar and was already talking of making 20 defences so it was clear that was his aim and moving up had to be for the right fight. That fight was almost Toney in August that year but we all know King tried to reduce BHop's purse at the last minute and Hopkins wasn't going to jump 3 divisions for anything less than what had been contractually agreed. And of course Jones Jr was now a heavyweight and quite frankly didn't need Hopkins.

Then in 2004 the reason why he didn't move up was obviously because he had De La Hoya in his sights. The fight with Allen was promoted by Arum, it was clear Hopkins was close to getting a lucrative fight with Oscar so any talk of moving up then is ridiculous you don't walk away from that kind of payday.

Then in 2005 Hopkins was getting close to 20 defences, he wanted that and by then Jones Jr had been KO'ed twice so that was no longer a viable fight to move up for and expect a good payday.

 

Roy, of course, for winning the first fight. Roy was in his prime, and it's not his fault that B-Hop was not in his prime in his mid-twenties.

 

They both lost to faded Calzaghe who had gone up in weight to face them and would likely have lost sooner to him had they agreed to face him sooner, but high risk low reward etc

 

Bhop surpassed Roy's legacy a long time ago.

 

B Hop ain’t surpass Roy you must be out your damn mind.

 

Cal-Slappy out volumed B Hop. Hopkins just wasn’t offensive enough to win a decision vs Calzaghe. He didn’t land enough punches. This is why Hopkins loses, he is too inactive and he doesnt land enough punches to win rounds. It was competitive but Joe won a close but clear decision.

Calzaghe vs RJJ became one sided after the severe cut that Roy experienced. Both B Hop and Roy knocked down Joe early on, but Joe was more hurt from Roy’s knockdown than he was from B Hop’s. In fact it took Calzaghe a few rounds to recover from that KD by Roy, and during that time Roy was toying with Calzaghe in clinches and Calzaghe couldn’t do anything to Roy. But then the cut happened and it changed the fight and Roy was taken out of his game and that gave Joe momentum. Had Roy not sustained the cut, Calzaghe RJJ would have been more competitive and it would have been a closer decision.

 

Depends how you base it. On just who's the better fighter, Jones, can't debate that, they both fought each other in their prime, Jones won. What happened 15 years later doesn't hold much value.

Or Who's had the better career? That is debatable. Jones was UNREAL in his prime and unbeatable and had some amazing moments, but shorter lived so to speak. While Hopkins was able to sustain such a high level for so long and have so many great moments. Apples to oranges really.