I couldn't agree more, in fact I think this Hopkins was probably the best suited version of him for fighting Jones anyways. People just try to shut down Jones' best wins as much as possible. No one mentions that Jones was green when he fought Hopkins or that he was fighting with pretty much one hand.
Yep, right the Hopkins who went 12 rounds once before and beat such exquisite men as Gilbert Baptist and Wayne Powell is clearly a great fighter who should rank amongst the very best ever. Clearly better than the Hopkins who beat Trinidad, beat multiple ranked fighters and was the best mw for 4-5 years. :good
He looks great on film to me, regardless of what he had accomplished up to that point. It would be different if he was losing to lots of other fighters during this time period but he wasn't. Someone already mentioned he wouldn't lose again for something like 10 years. So if he looks good on film coming up to the fight, loses to Jones, and continues to look great going undefeated for years afterwards I'm gonna conclude he was a great fighter even then and that he lost because Jones was just better than him.
Yes but that´s not important when judging him as the fighter he was when they actually met. His experience and what he did up to that point and how he looked in there - better than all of Jones opponents until Tarver not named Griffin but still outclassed - is what counts. The loss helped Hopkins to improve and become who he became, he said so himself.
Okay Duran doesn't deserve much for his win over Leonard because Leonard improved from the experience their first fight gave him. Leonard doesn't deserve much for his win over Hearns because Hearns improved from the experience. You could pretty much apply this to anyone's win over and undefeated fighter.