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

Silver · Feb 15, 2010

probably not, but ask yourself, how many people could?

Ripple633 · Feb 15, 2010

BigBone said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

Hopkins was in his prime from 1997-2002, he wasn't in his prime in 2003 but he wasn't past it either. From 2004-onwards he looked really sloppy and in some fights just looked flat out awful.

Silver · Feb 15, 2010

Ripple633 said: ↑

Hopkins was in his prime from 1997-2002, he wasn't in his prime in 2003 but he wasn't past it either. From 2004-onwards he looked really sloppy and in some fights just flat out awful.
Click to expand...

yup, he advanced age couple with fact that he had to maintain his weight 160, began to take it toll.

Log in or Sign up

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

Silver The Champ is Here Full Member

Ripple633 Boxing Addict Full Member

Silver The Champ is Here Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

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

Silver The Champ is Here Full Member

Ripple633 Boxing Addict Full Member

Silver The Champ is Here Full Member