And thats why he is barely known..he would never leave his comfort zone. More people know of William Joppy than Nigel Benn. At least Joppy had the guts to fight Jones and Tito
Where did benn win his first title ? Ceasers hotel, atlantic city new jersey and his 1st defense was in las vegas :good
this is all i read but i can tell you are delusional, and it just seems like so much bull**** to read. and lance_uppercut is dead on with saying you are a self absorbed *****. you're saying one of b-hops loss was his best performance, including his wins. LMFAO. explain yourself. you are a roy jones and calzaghe **** grabber.
Sometimes you can prove a lot in a loss. Hopkins was one of the only guys to take rounds off a prime Jones and to the best of my knowledge, the only one who was truly competitive with him. If that doesn't count as a better measuring stick to how good someone is over simply shutting out an overmatched, smaller and 1 dimensional Trinidad then I am done discussing this. It's similiar in the way that Duran giving Hagler a very competitive bout is a good 'credit' to him. Other than the competitive loss to Jones, he has a resume lacking of quality natural MW-LHW fighters. DLH's, Trinidad's and blown up Wright's just aren't the most impressive marks for a huge ****ing MW like Hopkins was. Or are you 'that' stupid not to see that being very competitive with a prime RJJ when nobody else was is a good little mark on your overall career?:yep
That HUGE ****IN MW has a small waist often weigned in under 160. He's just over 6' too, so it's not like he's massive. OK...ok...he fought @ LtHW early on...got it. :good Either way, he made a ton more money beating Tito and DLH, and despite your lack of ackowledgement, both top quality opponents in major fights. I doubt he's basking in on that loss to Jones as a 'highlight' of his career Amsterdam.
words that you should stop using. there are so many variables to a fight that mentioning the word 'prime' doesn't have much value. sure a 40 yr old jones was in good condition in that time frame, but what if he got the flu the night before a fight. Or what if roys close uncle died shortly before the fight? The answer is it would have a HUGE affect, probably much more than age. So "prime" does not have much value because there are way to many variables that can affect ones performance in a fight, variables that you or I may never know. now back to your original comment about HOW B-HOPS LOSS TO JONES WAS HIS BEST PERFORMANCE (sorry just want everyone to know what you said). lets look at jones late career, because I'm assuming you will not credit b-hop for the tarver clinic. roy was considered p4p top 4 atleast when he got ktfo, i mean he was still looking good. ..... then along came tarver, jones was put to sleep, and all of his fans claim his loss only came because of his own 'shotness', he was "done". nevertheless tarver managed to beat roy pretty convincly twice, right? yet you still think that hopkins best performance was losing to a ''''prime roy''' when hopkins SHUT OUT the man that put roy to sleep, the same man who was at the height of his career, and a 3:1 favorite. do you think hopkins would agree with you when saying his best performance was a loss? You have no respect for bernard which shows your emotinoal bias towards calzaghe.
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxin...t-predictions/ Thirteen boxing writers. Twelve picked Lacy, eight of them by brutal KO. It's easy to say he was a bum AFTER Calzaghe MADE him nothing. No-one was saying that BEFORE he faced Calzaghe.
All that I mentioned was that a loss can be a good credit, and that doing this to Roy Jones in the 90's means a good bit when rating Hopkins' ability and skill. That fight proved more than the smaller Hoya's and Trinidad's could ever prove. Tito is a good win on domination, Hoya is not much of a win at all and he was quite a big MW, not a Pavlik monsterous MW, but significantly larger than Tito and Hoya. I don't care what Hopkins would think of me saying that the loss to Jones is a good credit, more so a credit than Tito or Hoya, because Roy Jones in the 90's operated on a level 5x over both of those guys did at MW and higher, so taking 4 to 5 rounds depending off of him is much more of a merit in EVALUATING a fighter's ability than doing whatever to those two guys. If you can't understand that logic, even if you don't agree with it, then let's stop now.
I love the way ****s like you try to be clever by starting off with "I have a lot of respect for [insert name of boxer about to be dissed here]" and then go on to deride said boxer Yes, he will be an ATG, based purely on the fact he is the greatest SMW in the world today, has the most title defences of any SMW in the world, and will move up and possibly defeat the Ring recognised LHW champ. Like another poster once did in response to one of these dumb threads - I'll ask you to provide a list of Hopkins' greatest wins :deal
Oh, wow, I can highlight you using 'me' and 'I' also. Very difficult to talk about points of view in a debate of comparison without them yes? You tools never cease to entertain me. So you are saying that Roy wasn't on his level against Hopkins? Of course there are variables, but the effects would be noticeable if they were so great to actually effect performance, such as a fighter being overly lazy or tentative because his head isn't in it. That wasn't the case here, Roy was on. Is there a difference between the Roy Jones of the 90's and the Roy Jones coming back down from HW? And please, Roy looked ****ing terrible in the first fight against Tarver, even though he edged the victory, if you thought he looked good then please just stop. I give him credit for the clinic, because it was a clinic, but Tarver looked like **** in there to top it off, about as bad as Roy did draining down the first time around. Tarver having to drain down had the same effects, ironic. Roy was shot and is shot. Again, can you even tell the difference between the Jones of the 90's and the Jones of now? Yes, because a peak Roy blows Tarver out of the water and Tarver looked like garbage that night vs. Hopkins to top of it. Evident on film by the way, not an opinion of mine alone. Taking 4 to 5 rounds off of a peak Jones is vastly superior to anything he's ever done since, this is my opinion. Go back to Jones' career in the 90's, find me the other guys who managed to do this, then when grading Hopkins' consistency, it is up there with the best and any objective analysis will rate him as a great fighter, but you ****s blow his wins over big name little fighters out of proportion. No, because Hopkins is an arrogant, annoying ****. I have given him plenty of respect, most Calzaghe fans just trash his overrated resume completely, I am putting it into perspective but giving the credit where it's due. Another note of merit to Hopkins is the fact that he really didn't drop too many rounds in his 20 title defences and was extremely consistent, dominating many B levels as if they were amatuer's, a show of class. He's a great fighter, when have I said otherwise? I just think that his resume overall is no better than Calzaghe's, with the competitive mark with Jones giving him a slight edge, as that's quite a good feat for Hopkins being at a big stylistic disadvantage against Roy. I don't expect you to comprehend this in the slightest, what a waste of 5 minutes replying