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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by sues2nd, Jul 22, 2007.


Page 6 of 7
  1. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected
    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    This content is protected



    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    Next....


    This content is protected


    Hakkar, but yes....they both fought mandatories...but again, and I cant stress this enough....HOPKINS STILL FOUGHT THE BETTER COMP!!!

    I dont have to...Im trying to show people how ridiculously biased most of the people weighing in on this subject are being.

    Again, go read my first post and tell me I wasnt being objective.

    Plus, Ive been posting on here forever....plenty of people will tell ya how much I love both fighters....its a rarity I know, kinda like wearing a Yankees cap with a Red Sox jersey. But what can I say???

    No, that is impossible. All I ask is that people at least attempt to be fair about things. I like to think that for the most part, I am....and I know more then a few posters out there agree. In the lounge theres a "favorite poster" thread, where a few people named me (LUV YA GUYS!!! :thumbsup ....except cash, he yelled at me again...:lol: ) saying I was "fair and unbiased" and "very knowledgable". I try to make my posts as much that way as I can...and its hard to come accross that way when your defending your opinion on a certain fighter against any other fighter....but trust me, I watch this sport as a boxing fan...not a fan of any certain fighter.

    :good

    (plus I love arguing, so...............:yep )
     
    sues2nd, Jul 24, 2007
    sues2nd, Jul 24, 2007
    #76
  2. 1lehudson

    1lehudson Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,789
    2
    Jul 27, 2004
    The point that you seem to be missing about Hopkins is that 99% of his big wins came vs fighterst that were moving up in weight.

    Now dont get me wrong here cuz I think that hopkins would murder Cazlaghe, but the facts remain that he didnt want to take that fight vs a bigger fighter, then there was the Toney fight that was out there for hopkins once again he didnt take that fight, not to mention the rematch with jones and the whole I'll fight Roy for 6 mill, then once he got that offer it was Ill fight roy for 50/50 at 164.

    Hopkins is a great fighter no doubt, it takes a great fighter to beat Tito, oscar, wright, my problem is what about Taylor, Jones really the only two elite fighters that hopkins fought that was his size or bigger and he lost all three fights. That is the thing that is holding me back from ranking him so high.

    As far as that other post you wrote about me not reading your topic, then agreeing with the other guy that said the same thing. I dont agree with either of you, it was just that he did his thing without bashing the other guy.

    Hopkins and Jones are two different types of fighters, hopkins is a guy that didnt have the great speed, power and reflexes, he was a guy that fought using other assets. Jones would natually fade faster due to the fact that he wasnt as great a technical fighter but used his god given gifts. So as age eat away at those gifts Jones slowly returned to the pack, starting with the fight with Woods.
     
    1lehudson, Jul 24, 2007
    1lehudson, Jul 24, 2007
    #77
  3. Mook

    Mook Member Full Member

    485
    0
    Nov 18, 2005
    RJJ is higher, but Bop is only marginally behind.
     
    Mook, Jul 24, 2007
    Mook, Jul 24, 2007
    #78
  4. Lupe

    Lupe Member Full Member

    350
    0
    Apr 25, 2006
    Sues: I, too, love debates like these as long as they are kept civil.

    On you points:

    1. I read your original post, in fact the entire thread and I understand your argument. But it's clear that it was readily biased i.f.o Hopkins (intentionally or otherwise). I could understand if you said you can't stand Roy, but it amazes me to see how hard you come on those that favour Roy. I mean, it should a win-win for you.
    I think my arguments are unbiased though I like Roy more than I do Hopkins.


    2. I never implied that Leonard, Tito, Duran,etc were not great fighters. I reminded you of the cliche because it has proved to be true, especially for Hopkins. So te quetion is: who has taken more risks and triumphed? The guy who took good smaller fighters or the guy who took "not-so-good" bigger fighters and beat them?
    3. "Better" is a relative subjective word, whereas "bigger" is relative BUT more objective because it's stuff you can see. So, is Hakkar better than Kelley? Is Hopkins bigger than Oscar? The latter is easier to answer.
    To your question about those bigger fighters that fought Roy...We are only comparing Hopkins and Jones.

    4. LOL at your answer. I stayed clear of "better" for reasons I've already explained. So, in you opinion, you won't mind if Cotto fought Pacman instead of, say, Ouma because you believe Pac is better. If that's how you feel then does Cotto have a greater chance of winning against Pacman than he does against Ouma?

    5. You, yourself stated that the comp level is more/less equal, so the fight against each other has to play a part especially that they fought in their physical primes. Why does that not count in Jones favour in your book? Why is it a "wash" to you?
    Interesting stat: Jones fought 17 world champions (3 losses) while Hopkins fought 14 (2 losses).

    6. Bigger does indeed not mean better but in boxing, bigger means riskier.
     
    Lupe, Jul 24, 2007
    Lupe, Jul 24, 2007
    #79
  5. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004
    :good

    I dont understand what I stated that one could construe as biased in anyway?

    :huh

    I stated Hops record was slightly (barely) better...seeing as how they have just about the same record (Roy fought a few more time, has a few more wins...but nothing that jumps out). The reason for me feeling this way is Hop has 4 losses...1 in his debut...1 clear UD loss to another ATG in RJJ and two razor thin losses to a top 10 p4p fighter (both losses HIGHLY debated since they happened), while Roy's 4 losses are DQ (throw that out the window...much like Hops debut), KO LOSS, KO LOSS and UD. Hops gets a close edge in this....nothing really biased there, is there?

    :huh

    Resume, I feel Hop fought the better comp (Tarver, Tayor...kinda, Tito, Oscar, Winky, Joppy, Holmes, Echols, etc....), but Jones beat Hopkins...which basically makes up for that difference on his resume. I called this one even. Nothing biased there is there?

    :huh

    Achievements I gave to Roy. He dominated a higher weight class. Moved up and won titles in 4 different divisions...including HW. Was the former p4p #1. Is considered arguably the best LHW ever. etc....Hop has accomplished ALOT...but not many people in history can claim to have done what Roy has done. Where is the bias there?

    :huh

    And finally longevity goes to Bernard. I dont really think I have to explain why, how or by how much...its quite obvious. Just as Roy has an obvious edge in achievements...Hop has a larger edge in longevity. I dont feel that is biased at all???

    :huh

    I dont mean to act condesending in way, but seriously, where did I state anything that isnt at least arguably true?

    Im sorry, but I just dont agree there. Roy moved up and won against bigger men. Oscar did. Floyd did. Shane "Im Requiem's cousin" Mosely did. Winky did. Hatton did. Duran did. Leonard did. Hearns did. The list goes on and on.

    Now that said, if you look at Hagler's record...what is a bigger, more impressive win, Hearns or Mugabi?

    The answer is the naturally smaller, better fighter. Cliches are just that, cliches.

    And even if you DID pick Mugabi (a great fighter btw), you still cant discount or dismiss the Hearns victory just because Hagler was naturally bigger.

    Of course bigger can be seen...but again, if you break down the resumes...the fact of Hops opponents being BETTER can also be seen just as easily.

    And since I already showed that the cliche of bigger is better doesnt really hold weight to often....again, Hops resume has the better fighters...but he also has a loss to Jones, which makes it alot closer. And since I dont buy into the fact that Jones fought bums (Griffith, Woods, McCallum, etc. are all damn good fighters....), I feel his win vs Bernard evens things up.

    Not a fair assessment. That is a three division difference. Tito was a WW/JMW...Winky at his best was the same....Oscar, not so much, I wont even try to argue that.

    But, with that said. Cotto has a very suspect chin. Pac has PHENOMINAL power, speed and output. That is a DAMN interesting matchup.

    :think

    I might make a post about this one!!!

    I didnt state is was more or less equal. I said on many different occasions that Hops level of comp was better. But, as I said (again), Roy beat Hop....hense why I feel it was a wash.

    Well, doesnt that give Hopkins the better winning % (Jones lost 1 out of every 6.33....Hop lost 1 out of every 7)?

    But, this is a simple answer. Hopkins was the undisputed champion of one division for a long period of time, mostly fighting to defend his title...where as Jones was contiuously moving up and grabbing more belts...which speaks to his edge in achievements. On top of that, Jones (as stated) has had more fights (also championship fights)...Hop in all probability has 2-3 fights left....this could look entirely different by then, which again, speaks to his longevity.

    Again, not really.

    Was Mugabi a bigger risk than Leonard for Hagler? He was bigger.

    Was Castillejo a bigger risk for Oscar than Sweet Pea? He was bigger.

    With great skill comes great risk. Another cliche for ya.

    Listen, I respect your opinion alot more now that you have broken it down. I dont nessessarily agree, but I at least see how and why you got to the point you were at.

    The reason again I called biased, was the whole beating up on smaller men thing. I just dont agree. And keep in mind...never in my posts defending Hopkins did I EVER discount anything Roy has done.

    The entire point of my post was to try and make an unbiased assessment of the two. MY TWO FAVORITES (well, after Pernell). I read posts about this same subject made by Bernard fans....just RIPPING Jones unfairly. I read posts by Jones fans just RIPPING Hop unfairly. I felt I could do a better job looking at it as a fan of both of them...and Im sorry, agree or not with my outcome, ya just CANT say I was biased in any way shape or form.

    But, again, great debating with ya!!!

    :good
     
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    #80
  6. DanePugilist

    DanePugilist God vs God - Death Angel Full Member

    6,837
    2
    Oct 14, 2006
    They should both be mentioned in the same breath. RJJ by brilliance, Hopkins by longivity.
     
    DanePugilist, Jul 25, 2007
    DanePugilist, Jul 25, 2007
    #81
  7. brooklyn1550

    brooklyn1550 Roberto Duran Full Member

    24,017
    47
    Mar 4, 2006
    :good
     
    brooklyn1550, Jul 25, 2007
    brooklyn1550, Jul 25, 2007
    #82
  8. PATSYS

    PATSYS Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,481
    18
    Aug 12, 2004
    Jones.

    Hopkins preyed on small guys. Jones fought bigger guys

    Jones beat prime Hopkins.

    Jones beat prime Toney and Ruiz.

    Hopkins only decided to move up from 160 when he got beaten by Taylor (the only other potential great MW fighter apart from Jones).
     
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    #83
  9. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004
    :-(
     
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    #84
  10. PATSYS

    PATSYS Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,481
    18
    Aug 12, 2004
    Ok because of your very thourough and in depth erbuttal, I changed my mind.

    Hopkins is it! :good
     
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    #85
  11. brooklyn1550

    brooklyn1550 Roberto Duran Full Member

    24,017
    47
    Mar 4, 2006
    :nono
     
    brooklyn1550, Jul 25, 2007
    brooklyn1550, Jul 25, 2007
    #86
  12. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004
    Well, considering your opinions have already been discussed at length and refuted for the most part...yeah, I think :-( is warrented.

    Now let me ask you...ya know, since he preyed on smaller men. Did Hagler? Did Monzon? I could go all night with this.

    Jones fought bigger guys....did they all prey on smaller men?

    Was Tarver smaller? Was Johnson smaller? Was Vanderpool? Eastman? Echols? Holmes? Well?

    Again....:-(

    And the Taylor comment....ya dont even deserve a head shake.

    Do you SEE WHAT I MEAN NOW Lupe? These were the type of posts I was talking about.
     
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    sues2nd, Jul 25, 2007
    #87
  13. PATSYS

    PATSYS Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,481
    18
    Aug 12, 2004
    First of all this is not betwen Hagler/Monzon and Hopkins. If that was the topic, then I would argue that, although tey fought guy coming up from lower divisions, Hagler fought greater quality opposition. SRL/Hearns/Duran/Mugabi are heads and shoulders above DLH/Tito. And SRL and Hearns even fought above 160, DLH and Tito never did.

    Now my original post does not cover everything I can say about Hopkins. Primarily he did preyed on smaller guys. I limited it at that because I have a monthly report to finish :oops:

    But now that you insist...

    Hopkins also had his list of legit 160 lbr BUT those are guys that are journeyman at best. I mean Vanderpool? Holmes? And his great trilogy with Allen? Please..

    He has only 4 meaningful wins as far as I'm concerned, Tarver, Wright, Johnson and Tito.

    Now compare that to Jones' list:

    Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, Tarver, Hill

    (plus guys like Griffin, Del Valle, McCallum, Johnson, Harding, Gonzales can arguably be mentioned if you were to mention Glen Johnson on Hopkins' side)

    Now some of you might say Hopkins was green when he fought Jones and suddenly shot when he fought Taylor. Too bad he was at both ends of his career when he fought the only 2 legit good 160 fighters in his career.

    Hopkins campaigned the entire 90s when the 154 to 168 division was deep with great fighters like Jones, Toney, Jackson, Mcclellan, McCallum, Nunn, Benn, Barkley. Count how many did he fight? Only 1 (Jones) and he lost to him.

    Don't get me wrong. I think Hopkins is a great fighter but he has a lot of catching up to do to overtake Jones. Lately he has been on the right track, beating Tarvet and Wright. If he beat Calzaghe and perhaps avenge his loss to Taylor, then I might be willing to re-examine how he stacks up with Jones.
     
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    #88
  14. PATSYS

    PATSYS Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,481
    18
    Aug 12, 2004
    What about the Taylor comment?

    Are you disputing that he lost or are you saying he was shot by the time he fought Taylor?

    Either way, you are delusional.

    Taylor did beat Hopkins.

    And Hopkins was at his prime. He looked good fighter before Taylor and he looked good after Taylor. The Hopkins who fought Tarver is every bit the prime Hopkins that we saw.
     
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    PATSYS, Jul 25, 2007
    #89
  15. Mook

    Mook Member Full Member

    485
    0
    Nov 18, 2005
    Very good poinnt, their achievements are very different.

    If I had one of them, at whatever we consider to be their best, to bet, ooo say, SUCKA's, life on (I ain't betting mi own...), in a given fight, I'd go with RJJ. Maybe that's the difference.
     
    Mook, Jul 25, 2007
    Mook, Jul 25, 2007
    #90
Page 6 of 7