Bernard Hopkins - Roy Jones Jr. Who is better All Time.

The fallacy you are committing here is known as "circular reasoning." You measure Jones' decline by noticing the first time he struggles and then announcing "Look, that's when his decline began!" What an honest person would do is give credit to the fighter who beat him, and look to see how Roy responds to this test.

You clearly have no objectivity b/c you love Roy jones, and I think it's time you admitted this.

 

You like to antagonize. You're wasting your time.

I already responded to your other post. If you did not notice, that is on you not me,

And no, I have always maintained that the decline of Roy Jones was noticable during the Derrick Harmon fight. I have said this numerous times, and have always maintained that Jones prime was from 1994-2001 with his peak being from 95-99 or so. If you have proof that I have said otherwise, then I challenge you to find it. Otherwise, you have simply just made something up and it doesn't give your argument validity.

Jones was not even the best P4P fighter in the world when he beat Ruiz, though he may have been rated that high due to not losing. Not losing is not a clear indication that you are as good as you were. Or do you think that all fighters are prime until they lose?

 

You are inserting thoughts and attributing things to people they have not said. Therefore you cannot be sure of their reasoning. That in itself is a fallacy.

 

My comment was to get your attention and help you get a grip on reality. You should realize that your response was shameful and I hope that you'll continue to chat with me so that I can help you learn to reason.

However, because you failed to construct any argument at all to the things I specifically just asked, we can end our discussion now. If you ever do decide to address the issues at hand, I will be here waiting to help you.

How comical to simply read "your logic is lacking" in response to my previous posts. Ah well, live and learn.

Oh, and nice one still clinging to outrageously idiotic idea that the biggest test for Roy wasn't his first KO by Tarver. :nut

 

When in all actuallity I didn't address your post because it lacked any solid foundation. You are guessing at things, then dismissing others guesses as being wrong.

I have no reason to address your arguments because you never made an argument. One cannot argue someones opinions on the thoughts and feelings of others, because you have no proof of what the thoughts of that person are. You are not a mind reader. That again is called logic. If I argued with you on it, you would never be able to prove any of it, and I would not be able to disprove it. Pointless.

Your comment was meant to antagonize. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone trying to teach would have tried to gain my attention in a way that made me receptive. But that was a nice try.

 

As you are well aware, fighters abilities change over time. So bringing up fights that happened many years ago will only complicate things. If you wish to be honest, simply look at the logic I provided and try to poke a hole in it. Do you really not think Roy was on top of the world when he met Tarver? Someone steps up and beats Roy - who dominated every other opponent he faced - and you don't see how silly it is to simply say "Oh, that doesn't mean this new fighter beat him, it means he's old now"

Not exactly what I said. I actually didn't make any value judgements at all. I simply pointed out what actually happened in reality. It's a shame you're having such trouble remembering, it wasn't that long ago.

At the end of the Round 1 of the second fight, what was going through your head? Be honest. Lamply and Merchant in talking about the sensational knock out, both said that at that point they expected Roy to begin his usual domination that he had always done to opponents. There was no reason not to think so.

More circular reasoning. Don't you ever get tired of sticking your foot in your mouth? Read this very carefully this time: Roy wasn't doing the same things as before because he got BEAT this time. Suppose he'd KO'ed Tarver and retired. Totally could have happened, but didn't. You'd be saying he retired on top of the world, and could have beaten anyone still, would you not? Or maybe he keeps fighting a few more years and eventually loses. It would now be this new loss where you would begin your same circular reasoning. See how it works? Try to understand your own biased mind as it desperately tries to suck the dick of Roy Jones.

You do not know this and this sort of reasoning cannot possibly lead anywhere. No one can know what would happen if we snatched late 90's Toney out of history and threw him in the ring with Tarver at this time, and so "reasoning" like this is simply your attempt to blur and confound the issue beyong all recoginition in hopes that you will not have to simply talk in a linear and honest fashion about the facts that actually occurred.

After Roy Jones sweats off a lot of weight to fight you and still beats you, you don't think it's impressive to then call the man a ***** in center ring with confidence and then *****-slap him to the canvas? I'm sorry then, what would be your definition of "good?"

Your arguments are all completely without merit. Be careful with your next response b/c if you make the same simple errors, I will not bother educating you further, I don't need the last word, I have the facts. And they speak for themselves.

 

Roy Jones cuz he could rap. Yall musta fo'got son.

 

Hehehe. Oh man, this is too much. For any readers interested in this man's failures in this post: My argument, which will apparently be haunting Kg2092342 until the end of time, was first made in post number 61.

This pitiful post of yours might fool someone if we were having a conversation and others walked in on us at the end, but unfortunatly for you, the entire conversation is in written format. I guess you must not be aware that when we make posts, they do not disappear, but rather other users will be able to trace back and read them. Uh-oh. :yikes

 

What?? Zero logic for...??? This is getting ridiculous, folks. I'm going to say this again, holding your hand through the whole thing so that you can understand. What I did (in post #61) was lay the facts out. No "logic" is even necessary - though you and another have both used logical fallacies (Red Herring, ad hominem, strawman) in order to avoid discussing these facts honestly. Was not Roy on top of the world when he told Tarver he'd beat his ass at his own post Ruiz press conference? Did not everyone in the world believe that would hapen? Was this not a conference where all boxing media worshiped Roy for an amazing 11 to 1 UD over a heavier, stronger, man? In Round 1 of the second fight, did Roy not look crisp and in shape? And how about the Glenn Johnson fight or Tarver 3 fight? Did Roy look like he faded a bit from the Ruiz fight or even Tarver 1, or didhe look like a completely different fighter - one who was crushed mentally? Did he not now look like a wounded animal, not able to beat anyone? These are the facts I mentioned, and I can see that you are unable to respond to them. Just cry, then. Stop wasting our time with your nonsense, please. It's getting tedious.

Take the "nothing" out of this sentence, and well, yeah. :smoke

What you said before is the same thing all from the Church of Roy Jones say: "He was weight drained." And by the way this is what the boxing community was saying before the second fight. He was weight drained before, now he'll kick Tarver's ass. Roys camp was saying this as well, and Roy looked great before the fight. He looked great in round one. The problem came when he got ***** slapped to the canvas. This would haunt him mentally for the rest of his life, he never recovered from that. For you ****s to look away from that and just make an excuse for him where there is NO grounds for an excuse, is absolutely pitiful.

Wow, I'm actually embarassed for you.

You're saying he's past his prime now, *after* the fact - after the KO in the second fight. Are you going to have us believe that before the second fight began you were saying "Oh man, Roy's past his prime he's prolly gonna lose." - Please. You were dancing in front of your TV with a boner as you awaited Roy's victory all the way up to the point your hero was slaughtered. AFTER he got knocked out and failed to recover in subsequent fights (and your boner was deflated), it was THEN that you decided he was "just past his prime" The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts that. How can people like you look yourself in the mirror? Just face it dude, Roy couldn't take the heat. He got his ass kicked and didn't do anything about it b/c he was a weak person on the inside. A little *****, just like his fans who make excuses for him. :hey

 

Anyone else seeing a pattern here.....

 

The exact opposite of all this is true. Espeically there at the end. It is you who does not understand the wonderful competitive nature of sports, sportsmanship, and the meaning that is behind it all. If you did, then you would simply give credit where it is due to the incredible accomplishlments of great fighters for their great performances.

 

Thank you, sir!

And so the rightful respect should be paid to Jones for beating Hopkins and Toney quite easilly, right?

Or is it unfair to look back on those wins because of how long ago they happened?

:huh

 

RJJ by far IMHO.

 

Of course. Is the head-scratching smiley to mock these clowns who I pwned earlier, or did you think I might personify hypocrisy? Heh.

 

imo hopkins slightly edges roy in atg status.