Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

Good points.

 

It's hard to say who's greater.

Remember that Hopkin's very defensive style lends towards longevity.
Also, no one should hold Roy's post-Tarver career against him. The guy is shot and needs saving from himself.


Trinidad, Joppy, Tarver, Pascal are very good wins. Cloud is a good win given Bernard's age and how much he had diminished, too.
I don't really rate the Pavlik win much at all tbh.
Oscar had no business being in the ring vs a big Hopkins, I also think he took a dive anyway.
I don't hold losses to Kovalev, Calzaghe or Dawson against him, it's not fair to do so.

Roy has:
Toney
Green Hopkins
Johnson
Tarver after having lost 25lbs of muscle and being past prime
Past prime Virgil Hill
Picking up an ABC belt at heavy

I don't really rate the other wins of either fighter. Both fought such terrible, terrible opposition.

Roy feasted on bums as well as a couple of very good fighters, a green great and another great - this being a pure domination.

Roy dominated his opponents unlike I've ever seen in a fighter. He's the best I've seen on tape. I know he dominated many terrible opponents, but he also dominated Toney, and beat a green Hopkins in a 9-3 decision IMO.

I sway towards Roy though.

 

I don't mind you replying I always enjoy our debates.

I haven't ignored the factors you mentioned I am well aware of the circumstances surround the Tarver fights.

Yes Tarver may have been drained but we can't know for sure, you and Shilstone can only speculate on that. But I agree that Roy was definitely drained for the first Tarver fight, I recall thinking he didn't look the same before the opening bell.

But RJJ's circumstances doesn't change that he beat who he beat that night, him being weight drained doesn't alter how good or bad Tarver was that night. Just like Hopkins being 41 and coming of 2 losses doesn't change how good or bad Tarver was. Sure RJJ was not have been at his best that night being drained but neither was Hopkins at 41 and coming off to losses while fighting at a new weight. Both RJJ and Hopkins had to deal with something they hadn't had to before when they first fought Tarver, Jones struggled while Hopkins dominated.

Tarver in that interview says he lost 50lbs which means he was about 225lbs for Rocky but then in the interview below he denies he even weighted 218lbs which is only a 43lbs difference. He was clearly exaggerating.

He said he was walking around at 203lbs 2 months prior to the Hopkins fight and his normal walk around weight prior to Rocky was around 200lbs as he was always a big light heavy. So 2 months prior to the fight he was close to his normal weight and I doubt Tarver ever got to 218lbs as an older, fatter roided version of him wasn't much heavier than that. It's in Tarver interest to suggest he was weight drained though he even says himself it wasn't just the weight that was a factor in his loss to Hopkins. Hopkins has a habit of making fighters leave the ring wondering what went wrong.

http://espn.go.com/sports/boxing/columns/story?columnist=rafael_dan&id=2475525

Yes Shilstone says he was amazed that Hopkins physiologically made middleweight but I think he was just tryiing to be complimentary to Hopkins well known self discipline, as later on he says how 2 weeks prior to the fight Hopkins was too light at 178lbs and they tried to bulk him back up to 183lbs and even then when the camp was over Hopkins was only 179lbs. Hopkins may have had to work harder at the end to make middleweight but he wasn't a light heavy, maybe a super middle, so middle may have been a struggle at the end but he still had to bulk up to get to light heavy.

 

I don’t think the win over Roy meant nothing for the reason you are giving here. Yes, Hopkins said that after watching RJJ vs Calzaghe. But then Roy came back with two impressive wins where Roy looked better and it re-ignited the buildup between RJJ vs Hopkins.

The personal war of words kept going and it became more about that than how the rest of the world viewed Roy Jones. In 2008, Hopkins wasn't sure what Roy had left and if there was even any point. He saw that Roy had slowed down, and said to the media “what’s the point”? (meaning everyone thinks Roy Jones is done, then how do I benefit from beating a seemingly washed up fighter?) Well as time went on it obviously became more personal for Hopkins to fight Roy. Hopkins probably didn’t think Roy would even want to fight Hopkins after the losses Roy took.

It became very funny because like even after the Green stoppage, you could tell that Hopkins realized that Roy’s stock had plummeted once again. Though with Green not many people saw it or even knew it was on. At that point Hopkins changed his tune and said that he did think it was a quick stoppage and that Roy didn’t look hurt. At that point Hopkins still wanted the fight, it didn’t matter how bad Roy looked in his last fight, Roy kept smack talking on Hopkins and got Hopkins to agree to a fight.

You seem to think that win meant nothing because Bernard already thought Roy was done. To me, that rematch actually meant more probably than any one of Roy’s other past-prime fights because these two were rivals and are known as really the best of their Era (at least at MW / LHW). The reason why I don’t rate this as legit is because Hopkins really didn’t perform well in this fight. Roy performed better. Hopkins from the opening bell was fouling Roy and generally was being way more offensive than we ever seen Hopkins. This made the fight more interesting, that obviously RJJ was causing Hopkins to change from his normal tactics. And this extra aggression from Hopkins provided Roy with many counter-punching opportunities in the middle to late rounds.

So it’s not that I don’t put much weight on this fight for the reason you cited.. what B-Hop said after RJJ - Calzaghe. I put more weight on this fight than pretty much any of Roy’s post-prime fights. In this fight though Roy looked better. Roy was never in danger of being hurt or stopped, and did some good work in this fight. Was it enough to win a decision vs a B-Hop that threw more punches than normal? Debatable, but it certainly was NOT the B-Hop domination over Roy that pretty much everyone expected it to be going in. And for that reason, this certainly isn’t a victory that can be used to push B-Hop past Roy. Now if B-Hop had truly dominated and hurt Roy or stopped Roy, then it would be different. That didn’t happen, in fact Roy sent B-Hop down in this fight and hurt him badly to the body that was ruled a low blow. In the post fight interview Roy looked fresh and ready to go another 12 rounds while Hopkins was taken back to the locker room.

I don’t think you can truly have this “better legacy” debate without understanding what happened in this fight and how it speaks volumes about both fighters. It turned out to be very different than what many people thought it would be based on Roy’s poor performances. I also think it’s important to note that this was a highly underrated fight. Many people thought this fight was terrible, but I thought it was a great fight and one of Roy’s best since the start of his decline in 2004.

 

I thought the scores of 118–109 and two with 117–110 in favor of Bhop were right on. Bhop beat up on him and bloodied him all night long. Something RJJ could not do to bhop.

I think at that point Roy looked great if he did not get knocked out in the first round or later as was the case in his fight prior to being dominated by bhop and the one after. That's not bhops fault. That's just how bad Roy was.

 

Imo, clearly, Bhop is the superior fighter and has the better legacy. I see he is starting to run away with it in the poll now. It's good to see most people are sensible since it is easy to not like Hopkins with some of his comments. I know he has ticked me off. I suspect without that he might have an even higher poll number.

What's happening here in my view is an ongoing ignoring of the big picture and instead a biased micro****ysis of every little tiny thing and many, many speculations being asserted as fact, when they are not at all. You can never know what would have happened for sure if it did not actually happen. And you can't read minds. And you cannot give full credit to a win if you are going to excuse a loss that results from it. Anyone stating otherwise has issues.

In short, these are all excuses.

Bhop has the best win on his resume in TKO'ing an undefeated legend, and he did not have to hurt himself to do it.

Bhop also beat up and dominated the guy that knocked out Roy and started Roy on his path to super-mediocrity and a future of shattered glass. He has two wins against guys that have knocked out Roy.

He is the longest reigning middleweight champ EVER. Oldest champ EVER. There are facts not what ifs or biased interpretations or future telling and mind reading.

He is the better smarter fighter with a style not built soley on athleticism and reflexes, but also fundamentals. They both have declined in the reflexes and speed department, the difference is bhop has strong fundamentals and knows how to actually fight and also has a chin and thus has never been knocked out and battered in a fight like Roy has many times.

Once Roy got a little slower, he got knocked out or TKO'ed 5 times (so far). And this is not something very recent like some like to dismiss. He has been tasting the canvas since 2004! It's going on nearly half his career already.

5 times! Has any great champion or fighter in serious consideration for "best ever" been KO'ed technically or otherwise so many times in a career?

Roy has a lousy chin to understate it. It's not all poor fundamentals imo.

Recently...Bhop goes the distance with the most feared fighter in the sport, an undefeated young dangerous double threat guy whose jabs are haymakers and who can also skillfully box already being compared to some of the best of all time.

What's Roy doing? He get's knocked out by the 33 and 7 Enzo Maccarinelli.

Bhop owns Roy.

End of story.

 

When it's all said and done it's about who you fought and Jones has the better resume and is more accomplished. Being old isn't an accomplishment hell he waited for the top guys to fade before making a name for himself at lhw. And to me there isn't my standout win for Hopkins speak of' I mean Tito Trinidad ? Jean Pascal ? Jones will be remembered as the greater of the two as time passes on.

 

My last comment on this. I do think Roy was very talented in the 90's in terms of his athletic gifts and achievements. His speed and what he could get away with his hands down was astounding. I never liked him much though because he was so arrogant and also it seemed to me he should be regularly fighting better fighters, to make those fights no matter what (fairly or unfairly on my part) though of course he did beat some very good fighters.

I always thought once he slowed down a little, he would become vulnerable and imo that's what happened. I used to tell people that and they were like "never happen". I never thought his career would take the turn it did though ...after the Tarver knockout. I do give the last decade or so of his career almost equal weight to the decade before because in my opinion he always had this vulnerability, it was just protected by super reflexes and amazing athleticism. He was an unbalanced fighter.

I do hope he quits fighting for his health's sake since it is not a good idea to get knocked out so much and I believe he only can hurt his legacy further. I personally don't mind him as a commentator and I do wish him well.

 

did anyone score jones vs hopkins 2 for roy?

 

I respect your opinion, but Roy didn't feast on bums, and you've got to rate his 1st round knockout over Griffin.

It seems to me that everyone on this thread apart from myself, isn't taking a number of things into consideration.

Again, such as:


Bernard shrunk himself down to fight in a weak MW division for 12 years.

He was bigger than almost all of his opponents there.

He had no intention of fighting Roy when it mattered.

He only moved up to LHW after he'd suffered back to back defeats against Taylor.

The majority of his best wins came against fighters who'd had their greatest achievements at lower weights.

Roy was once a JMW.

Roy showed much more ambition during his career.


If everyone is willing to have an objective debate, those are the points that need addressing, along with any other factors/circumstances.

:good

 

Let's look at a couple of things


First off the Tarver win well Hopkins beat him after Roy beat him or did you forget that Roy beat him first after he came back from HW to recapture the lhw title ? An accomplishment that trumps everything Hopkins did at lhw with the exception of Hopkins age ..Last I checked Hopkins was never undisputed lhw champ !


And getting beat down when your past your prime doesn't impact ones legacy it doesn't work that way ,if that were true Larry Holmes would have been considered the greatest HW after Ali since he beat the shell of Ali .


Let's look at Hopkins most signifigant wins

Tito never a true MW ..
Oscar Never a true MW

Hopkins win over Johnson was good but that version of Johsnon was not the same one who beat Jones and Tarver ..Two diffrent versions there

Pavlik fought him at lhw a weight class he never competed at
Wright also fought him at lhw if I'm correct maybe MW the man spent the majority of his career as a Jmw

Pasacal and who is Pacal ?Hill,R Johnson and Tarver all beat that version of Pasacal ..Two these guys are hall of famers ..Pascal won't even come close,to being a Hall of famer ..Well maybe in Canada !

Roy never fought guys smaller than him or made them come up out their best weight to fight him..That's what we call fogahze !




Or like his peers like to call him a front runner !


Also Roy has a win over a close to his prime Hopkins don't forget at the time Hopkins had 1 more pro fight as a pro and was ranked higher than Roy at MW ..After that loss Hopkins didn't lose another fight for 10 yrs ! Had Roy not move up Hopkins would,have never had those title defenses .Also Hopkis didn't bother to move up until Roy was shot it speaks volumes as to how much he feared losing to Roy again that's why he took the rematch in 2010 that's 7 yrs after his first Tarver fight and 6 yrs after his first brutal KO loss by then Roy was in his mid to late 30's and was long past his best !

So like I said nothing Hopkins has done has elevated him past Roy ! Al,he has is his age but as far as oppoennets Roy's legacy is better by miles !

 

I agree with the sentiment of your post and for certain I believe RJJ to be both better and greater than BH. I and am sure others, do factor in things like the losses to Taylor (which really sticks out like a sore thumb in his legacy), as well as his victory over Trinidad who was in better condition as a welter, and that Hopkins was a big middleweight.

It's fairly obvious to me that the best fighter I've ever seen on tape would annihilate Montel Griffin. A genuinely good fighter but an over-romanticised one for his decisions vs Toney.

As for both of their opposition, I'm increasing my standard for them given they're both Top 50 ATGs. I give Mayweather a lot of heat for his opposition, it's only fair that I do the same for RJJ and BHop who undeniably largely fought considerably worse opposition apart from a small few.

Roy Jones Jr's career does puzzle me though. He didn't fight a number of good fighters during his reign at MW/SMW i.e Julian Jackson, JDJ, McClellan, Benn, Liles, Eubank.
He doesn't get much props for his late 96 win against a LHW Mike McCallum either. That was a lose-lose fight for Mike.
He also didn't fight Dariusz.
So we cling onto James Toney.

 

Both have good to great legacies and neither are greater than the other. It's all subjective so, you actually can't be right or wrong when there's no true measuring stick from yr to yr or decade to decade.

Hops longevity is unmatched buy during his prime he fought strictly in the all time weakest ever division. It's a testament to his learned skills that he could move up and be successful well into his 40's.

The bad towards hops is his 2 greatest wins by far are to 2 former great ww's.

Jones claims a hw title, but if there is anything regarded as a paper title, that's the one. If you move up to look for "challenges" you do not fight the weakest title holder, but still an accomplishment, fighting the awkward ruiz.

If rjj wasn't on roids for especially that fight, I'm Peter pan.. as soon as he stopped the roids and shriveled back to 174 from 193 he was crushed.

He did NOT win that first Tarver fight, he took such a beating that he left everything in that ring.

Idk, both are very over rated legacies, very good, yes but too many losses hurt any career.

 

The biggest name on Joppy's resume prior to his fight with Trinidad was an over 40 Roberto Duran..Joppy was no killer he was merely a showcase fight for Tito nothing more !


And again Jones had already beaten Tarver before Hopkins beat him so what we are dismissing that to elevate Hopkins ? Hell Richard Hall beat Tarver years ago even breaking his jaw ..So what Hopkjns only gets credit for beating Tarver ?:huh

Pascal was nothing special that's why Hopkins was the favorite in those fights..


Only the hype boys who believed that nonsense about Pavlik and picked him to beat Hopkins no die hard fan picked him ..And he was made to fight at lhw a weight class he never competed at.


Hopkins has a solid resume but when we are comparing the two he doesn't come close to Roy ..I can't see it any other way ..