Who Has The Better Legacy: Roy Jones Jr Or Bernard Hopkins?

That's a great argument.

 

I know a lot of people in this era disqualify it because of the antipathy we feel towards Ruiz, but I think in terms of accomplishment, the most enduring legacy by far is Jones' winning of the heavyweight title coming up from middleweight. When all is said and done, and everybody forgets who John Ruiz was and just see "heavyweight champion" in the books, it will be looked upon as a staggering achievement - literally once in a few generations. It will keep Jones' names in the record books far longer than Hopkins, especially if the weight differential between middleweights and heavyweights continue to grow like they have been.

 

Agreed.

That's a huge accomplishment. Only 2 men have EVER done it.

 

Apart from Tarver, every notable win Hopkins has on his resume has been against a smaller man. He's a horrible, boring, fight wasting arse.

 

RJ by far. Bhop has aged better. But on the whole RJ will be remembered as gr8er than Bhop imo.

 

I disagree.
At that time everyone knew the heavyweight champion was Lennox Lewis.
Boxing is one sport where the event is looked at more closely than just the wins/loss columns. What will also be looked at negatively is that Jones never fought at heavyweight again, making his claims to be a "heavyweight champion" highly dubious. In fact, Jones decision to move up fight one guy and then move back down, hurts more than if he just stayed down at light heavy. I really like Jones, but this was one of his worse moves, IMO. Not because of the weight drained bs, but accentuates the "cherry pickiness" of the decision to fight Ruiz.

 

But the whole cherry pick concept falls by the wayside when you're looking at history. Marciano is considered an all time great because he accomplished what no other heavyweight could, despite the extremely questionable quality of opposition during that time.

When all is said and done, the record books won't say, "Jones beat John Ruiz for a heavyweight title and then went back down", it won't say, "John Ruiz was hated by every boxing fan at the time", and it won't say, "John Ruiz was considered the easiest of the beltholders to beat". All it will say is "Roy Jones Junior was only the second middleweight to move up in weight and win a heavyweight title".

You can accurately state that way back then it was a much harder thing to accomplish when there was only one title. But way back then there wasn't a 6'6" 250lb heavyweight champion, either. Also note that it hasn't been done other than by RJJ even during the multi-title era.

 

I call it for Bernard. He stayed at one division and unified the belts, whereas Roy division-hopped so much as not to make a long-term impact. He ruled there for years and years, and will always be remembered as one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. His record is better, too; he fought a far higher calibre of opposition. When people flick back through his record, the fact that he took out ATGs like Trinidad and de la Hoya as well as top fighters like Tarver, Pavlik, Johnson and Winky stands above Roy's tally of Toney, Ruiz and a pre-prime Hopkins. Roy's losses have also been more significant: Hopkins can at least point to the fact that his losses to Taylor and Calzaghe were dubious, whereas Roy was decisively beaten by Tarver, Calzaghe and Johnson. Sure, Roy was past it; but so was B-Hop.

 

One last thing to note - as much as we all hate Ruiz (and we all hate Ruiz), one thing we can't debate is that after Lewis and the Klits, Ruiz is the most decorated and accomplished heavyweight of the past 15 years. I cringe to think of that, but Ruiz earned his titles and defended them against the best with honor, if not panache.

 

I'm a fan of Roy Jones. But I honestly think he gets too much credit for beating Ruiz in a glorified sparring session. Beating John Ruiz, of all people, and winning a belt does not make you "the heavyweight champion", I'd be more inclined to admire Roy's achivement if he had stayed at HW and proved himself a legitimate force at that weight.

Roy was deservedly the P4P Fighter of the 90's, but some of the opposition he fought during his career wasn't great. Sometimes it wasn't even "good". But he has that win against Toney which proves he could look impressive, even against the elite.

I don't believe the H2H counts for a lot either, given that Hopkins hadn't yet developed the style that would turn him into the great fighter we know him to be.

The issue with Roy is eveything that has happened post-Ruiz. Arguably losing to Tarver x 3, including a brutal KO loss is very damaging. Especially considering that an old Hopkins schooled Tarver. Throw in the KO loss to Johnson and compare those losses to Bernard's close disputed decsions against Calzaghe and Taylor, and I think Hopkins probably has the better resume and record.

Bernard circa 2009 is still the P4P #3. There has been no slump. No brutal KO losses, and no marked decline in his skills or quality of his opponents. Bernard Hopkins wins hands-down in the longevity stakes.

 

By that logic, then, was Ruiz himself a heavyweight champion to you? Does that mean that there's never been a latino heavyweight champion because he didn't unify? Does that mean that neither of the Klits are heavyweight champions and never will be because they're sharing the belt and therefore can't unify?

The only truly objective way of looking at feats over the long run of history is with the record books. And according to the record books, Ruiz was the first latino heavyweight champion, Valuev was the tallest heavyweight champion and Jones was only the second middleweight to become heavyweight champion. Everything else is subjective favoritism or bias.

Roy's plan at the time was to attempt to be a simultaneous heavyweight and light heavyweight champion. After winning the title from Ruiz, he said he was going to move down, beat up Tarver, then move back up and defend the heavyweight strap and go back and forth. Of course we all know what happened when he moved back down.

 

I never hears of that simultaneous light heavy and heavy line.

The thing that highlights is not Ruiz, it's Roy's immediate departure. If winning the heavyweight championship is such an accomplishment, then why give it up to go back to the other (lesser) title? It shows that Roy was never serious about being heavyweight champion. A champion defends the title. Roy's mving back down is what mitigates his feat at heavyweight. Moving back down anslo highlights that he was somehow not willing to face other heavyweights. Why? The only conclusion is that he could not beat them...it's not like the world was begging for Jones vs Tarver. There was no need to run away from the heavyweight division. It really sticks out, and puts that heavyweight win in a negative light.

 

But that's the thing - he say he wasn't going to give up the heavyweight title. Immediately after the Ruiz fight, he announced that he was going to go back and forth and defend both titles. The evidence of that is that he didn't give up the heavyweight title. He held on to it until after the Tarver fight when he realized how much of a toll the weight drain would take. But by then, the pressure mounted to rematch Tarver, rather than move up and face a mandatory at heavyweight. It was THEN he gave up his title.

That said, Jones also mentioned that he had no intent of ever attempting to grab a title from Lewis. But really...can you blame him?

 

Jones, he was better to wach too

 

Indeed. This is, after all, a thread about legacy - not who was better. In terms of consistently achieving at the top level and pulling off the most legendary and memorable performances, Hopkins takes this.