Does anyone honestly believe Hopkins could have beat Jones anytime between 1998-2002

Bernard Hopkins is my fav fighter,But no...PRIME FOR PRIME,B-Hop would never beat Roy Jones JR,He wouldve recieved a second L from Roy,No Doubt about it

 

This content is protected

 

If this fight happened in 2001, it would have been an incredible duel between two of the most skilled fighters since the early 80s. No way is it a foregone conclusion that Jones would have won. If I had to bet, I'd back Jones, but I wouldn't be over-confident the way you guys are. Hopkins was the first guy to make Tito Trinidad stay down, and not long before he stopped Glen Johnson (the only man to this day to do so). Hopkins had great power and accuracy, you can't rule out that he would have been the one to crack Jones's shell of invincibility instead of Tarver a few years later.

 

I'd say Hopkins wins a few times out of 10, just not sure how many.

My biggest problem with your suggestion of "Roy of 1998-2002" is the same with "the Tyson of 1989 vs. XY". The problem is called James Buster Douglas and Antonio Tarver, who beat Tyson and Jones 12 months later, and nobody suggested BEFORE THE FIGHT that they are past their best, all the talk came AFTER the loss. The Jones of 1998-2002 fought mediocre and handpicked opposition, OF COURSE his non-human athletic abilities looked even better than before. But what Roy (and actually most) fans fail to realize is that Tarver was his first legit test and non-handpicked live opponent in years, there's absolutely nothing to debate here. And this first legit, non-handpicked test came just a year of this so-called Prime Roy of 2002, and a few months after the career-best Roy of 2003, beating John Ruiz.

In reality, boxers don't go from prime untouchable to shot to **** in months, especially those who don't take punishment at all. The reason Roy was KO'd in the SECOND Tarver fight is that the he took a beating the the FIRST. "Shot Roy" callers simply look past that first fight, but for me the explanation of "he barely beat Tarver then got KO'd THEREFORE he's shot" is not good enough, in fact, it's laughable.

Entering the 1st Tarver fight, nobody said a damn thing about Roy looking old, but even back then unbiased experts said non-handpicked Tarver is Roy's most dangerous opponent in years and would most likely give him hell, which he did.

Now if you give credit to Tarver taking the fight to any version of Roy, we can talk. Nobody is untouchable and the first fight was a serious reality check for Roy and his fans despite the excuses AFTER like cutting weight and others which might or might was a real effect at all. What was a real effect was called Antonio Tarver.


Now on topic. The Hopkins who lost to Jones got knocked down multiple times vs. Mercado a year later and wasn't really more than skilled pressure fighter who became good, great then elite with experience - including the Roy fight, his first world-class opponent in his ENTIRE CAREER. Roy on the other hand, being the supremely athletic fighter who was pretty much ready for anything right after the Olympics and beat Toney in IMO his best performance ever just a year after Hopkins, was the prime Roy in there. And green Hopkins took off 4 rounds of prime Roy.

Hopkins' improvement actually took a loooong time, even years later vs. Johnson and John David Jackson he pretty much went in there beating down opposition, the elite skills were forged with the many title defenses. Entering the Tito fight in 2001, he was 2 or 3 full levels better than the Roy version who won 4 rounds back then. It was about 2000 when Hopkins became the supreme fighter neutralizing speed, power and athletic abilities and became the upper elite with his defense, timing, adapting, taking away advantages and turning any fight into his kind of physical/skilled battle.

Back to Tarver. Antonio, a ****ing anti-Jones monk studying the guy in his revenge-driven years purposefully used Roy's countering-on-the-ropes tactic against him, closing the distance in the corners and not letting Jones getting any air to pull back and land his short hooks. Among many smart tactics, Tarver's work at the ropes helped him making the first fight even, and (I know you're gonna debate it), Calzaghe used that as well, putting his forehead on Roy's closed gloves, not giving him the space which was required to beat the living **** of the Richard "B-Level" Halls at the ropes.

Roy never really changed his style, so if not his punches, his strategy became predictable. So it's safe to say that if Tarver came up with his successful tactics, an A++ strategist like Hopkins would've used the similar stuff back in 2002 as well. I do believe Hopkins (very strong at 175 too) would've found great success at the ropes, and he would've used a hell lot of old school tricks Tarver hasn't even heard before. I do not accept that "Roy was shot because of this and that BECAUSE he didn't put Tarver away, and Hopkins is much better in every area than Tarver, with the ability of applying the same strategy Antonio used in 2003.

So. I do think that in 10 imaginary fights the Hopkins of 2001 is more than capable of winning a few vs. that "prime" Roy.

 

If I had to bet, I'd have bet Hopkins during that period. Hopkins was a primed and ready machine at that period and would have the perfect strategy to defeat Roy. The experience of the first loss, coupled with Hopkins' ability to lay out and follow a gameplan to the last letter, spells trouble for Roy. It would have been ugly as HELL, because Hopkins would have stuck like glue to Roy and likely thrown intentional fouls along the way to slow Roy up and make it a rough fight.

 

Prime Jones is just all wrong for Hopkins, great footwork + fast handspeed will always give Hopkins trouble.
Also wasn't Hopkins the one that ducked the 60-40 offer from Jones, which was more than fair at the time? Wonder why was that...


Now let's wait for the haters(e.g. Rico) to say that Hopkins would have KOd him, even thought he couldn't do it in their first fight where he DID land
solid shots on Jones from time to time.

 

of course not, its a stylistic nightmmare for Hopkins who is a natural counterpuncher with average speed. Hopkins isnt agressive enough to have beat him at that time. Jones wouldve landed the showier punches, stiffer counters, and used better ring generalship.

Its not a coincidence Hopkins wants the fight after Jones fell off and was kayoed 3 times already. When Jones was 48-1 he didnt want any part of him.

 

No. Mostly because stylistically he is all wrong for Bhop, partly because he was 15 pounds heavier at that time. Prime Jones never loses to any version of Hopkins IMO.

 

That'a a man in your avatar isn't it?

 

The young, uncultivated version of Hopkins in 1993 took several rounds off of Roy at that point. Why wouldn't the experienced version take more and win?

Absolute prime experienced Hopkins would be a definite favourite against that version of Roy when you consider what the inexperienced version of Hopkins did..

 

IMO, I think Roy would have outworked him...Lets not forget that Hopkins has\had a history of starting rather slow in some fights...This would be his downfall against Roy.

 

LEt not forget that was also a hurt handed Roy Jones who took his foot off the (offensive) gas in that fight, giving Bernard rounds.

 

This.

And when you watch Jones-Hopkins you see Hopkins winning the last 2-3 rounds. It may be that Hopkins figured Jones out by then. I'm not sure of it but it very well may be. If he figured him out then I would favour him to beat Jones.