Who's greater all time? Bhop or RJJ?

I wouldn't really call it a handicap, because hopkins is the exception and not the rule. Some fighters just age better than others, even though I don't know any fighter who has aged quite as well as B-hop.

 

Well, reading what you wrote really answers your own question. "What he has achieved" is clearer than what "good" or "better" means.

--That is what ESB is practically built around and look at the number of conflicts that erupt.

Why not look at who they did in fact beat? Consider the quality of those opponents -not the "name" but the dangerous of that opponent, and start there. That's why I insist on and browbeat everyone about the criteria used for The Gods of War series:

Experience/Quality of Opposition (25 pts)

Longevity (15 pts)
Ring Generalship (15 pts)
Dominance (15 pts)

Durability (10 pts)
Intangibles (10 pts)
Performance Against Larger Men or "P/LO" (10 pts)

 

Roy Jones beating Hopkins in 1993 does not even itself out with Hopkins beating a 41 year old Roy Jones in 2010...at all.

Hopkins was only 2-3 years away from his absolute prime. It was a very good win for Jones in '93. The 2010 win shouldn't have been made and was a terrible win for Hopkins, only to get revenge.

 

and based on those criteria, the answer is clearly hopkins:good the only categories that jones may hold an advantage in is dominance and intangibles

however, i may be biased (well AM biased) but what about skill sets and talent? your criteria is about as objective as possible and based mostly on observable and relatively measurable factors which means it's a better what to judge a fighters merits than most.

still at the end of the day, there could be someone said for just the brilliance that fighters show...even against lesser fighters you can clearly see skill and ability. jones wins that hands down but has not displayed it in the same way as hopkins has and in a balanced criteria like yours, that matters more

 

Yeah Hopkins in the first fight was probably as bad or worse than Jones was in the second. :blood

 

This is close. Close, close, close. I'd still shade Roy, though- The better h2h win of their pair and his near decade atop the sports highest throne slightly, ever so slightly outweigh Hopkins longevity and consistency for me.

Though, if BHop keeps taking young, talented champs to school, it wont be long till its not even an argument. Another couple of wins like that? He passes. Not yet, though.

 

This I agree with.

 

I see Jones's not winning like Hopkins as a reflection of his lack of foundation in skills. 'Skills' isn't 'talent'. These are different things and I and others out here have been harping on it for years now (and happily Kellerman -who I suspect reads this forum- is finally getting it). Jones's formidability sank when his reflexes slowed. When guys could get to him, it was the begining of the end. Hopkins has the foundation, so even sans speed and reflexes and pretty soon even balance, he's beating novices like Pascal.

Jones was, WAS, loaded with talent. But his skills were not developed near the Hopkins level.

Before Jones's mini-mes have nervous breakdowns let me state for the record again that 'talented Jones' beats 'skillful Hopkins' prime for prime and nto only that, I'd give Jones a 15 or damn near it for "Ring Generalship" based on the formidability of his style.

 

Roy Jones. Hopkins' longetivity, resilience and ring smarts are certainly something to behold, but in his prime, Jones was from another planet. He was that good. He didn't drop a single round to 44-0 p4p ranked James Toney. Beat Hopkins effortless. Came all the way from middleweight to beat a heavyweight title holder. He looked unbeatable until he was 35 years old.

Watch his fights with Toney, Brannon, Griffin II, Pazienza, Hill or Ruiz. I could watch those a million times, and in fact I have. Hopkins is great but none of his fights blow me away like those. While his recent bouts with Pascal have been surprisingly entertaining, most Hopkins fights are rather boring. Watch Jones finish Pazienza. I don't care if Teddy "***** licking" Atlas says Jones holds his left too low, that's a spectacular finish.

When Hopkins was beating a former 140lbs Dela Hoya, Jones was beating a 230lbs Ruiz. Although Roy had plenty of soft touches, I feel he took more risks. James Toney was 44-0, pound-for-pound rated and from a higher weight class. He then went up to destroy all light-heavies for seven years and beat a heavyweight title holder to top it off. In the meantime, Hopkins put together a winning streak against one of the weaker middleweight divisions ever seen, the biggest wins being smaller men like DLH and Trinidad. He didn't seem driven to make the Jones rematch at all, pricing himself out. He didn't challenge himself to avenge that loss... until he knew it was an easy win and paycheck, almost two decades later. I will add that Hopkins did partially redeem himself later during his career.

The means by which Jones won his fights also impresses me more. Hopkins is notoriously dirty and what annoys me more, he acted like a total ***** against Calzaghe, crying about fake low blows. He even pulled that **** against Roy Jones who was undergoing rigos mortis at that point. When competing resumes are close, these are factors that contribute to separating them for me.

Edit: Hopkins doing pushups between rounds - at 46 years of age - does sort of make up for those moves. That was awesome.

 

True, of course, but Hopkins has also been better at adapting his style. Brawling and mauling has become an ever bigger part of his arsenal to make up for declining speed and skill. And let's not forget that he's also in remarkable physical condition for someone his age.

 

Good post.

 

i disagree a bit with the firm divide between talent and skills. jones has natural athletic talent but so do many other professional athletes but that doesn't mean that they can box. the talent that roy jones is similar to other "savants" and the analogy can be made to charley burley, who was quite unconventionally brilliant. jones downfall is as you said attributed to his lack of fundamentals and that is related to his dependence on natural gifts. his style however, much like tyson's and zudah's, is reliant on having reflexes and speed intact and it is just as much a factor of jones' style as his skills

 

Sure.

 

I don't see Burley as too far athletic side of the technician-athlete continuum (and it is an continuum, not so compartmentalized as I seem to unwittingly suggest). His style was a throw back style -to the 20s.

Many great fighters have both athleticism and skill as well as 'will' or character. As to Tyson and Judah, I see both of them as having some well-developed technique. Their problem wasn't a lack of skill or an overreliance on athleticism so much as a problem of will/character.

 

Beating 15 Tarver's means less to me, than beating 1 Bernard Hopkins and 1 James Toney, when it comes to judging greatness for me.