Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

exactly, your biggest name being a fortysomething is only evidence of a weak resume.

Although to be fair Joppy doesn't pretend its a great win to beat 40something duran. there is a word for that kind of behaviour..

 

What word is that?

 

He gets credit for thoroughly dominating him and not getting knocked out by him. RJJ did not dominate Tarver like that. It was much closer. And then RJJ gets TKO'ed by Tarver in their next fight. Something that has never happened to Bhop. Not by Tarver or anyone else. It was even new to Roy at that point. And then Roy loses again to Tarver and then promptly gets ko'ed in his next fight. Roy was the titanic and Tarver was his iceberg while Bhop had a titanic win over Tarver. If you make the contrast there is a subtle difference going on here.

Roy also had a longer amateur career with more experience than bhop and bhop beat roy worse than Roy beat him later. He also knocked out fighters that knocked Roy out.

I suggest if Roy were truly "great" he would not have such a high percentage of knockout losses among his losses.

 

This is a fascinating debate.
Roy has the win over Hopkins but I dont take much from that as neither were really established at that time and alot of what happened for them was later in their careers.
So lets weigh it all up as best we can

Hopkins did become the man at MW and LHW on two occasions
Jones did become the man at LHW for a very small amount of time

Hopkins was a title holder in 2 divisions
Jones was a title holder in 4 divisions

Hopkins unified in both divisions
Jones unified in one of the divisions

Arguable Top 5 wins for both IMO
Hopkins - Tarver, Holmes, Pascal, Pavlik, Wright
Jones - Ruiz, Toney, Tarver, Hill, Hopkins

Hopkins wins over Pavlik and Wright are against fighters who have gone up in weight for the fight
Jones win over Hopkins is a win that is viewed as greater over time and is possibly not as big a win as it is viewed

Debates -
Hopkins - several fights were against fighters who had come up from lower weights where Hopkins was often the bigger man
Jones - Question marks after the Hall fight

Now do you view fighters winning titles in various weights as greater or fighters dominating in a weight division as greater?

Jones did have a big run at LHW also but he had a rival that was around and never got to face

I am on the fence a bit with this one at the moment

 

I would include Felix Tito Trinidad, an undefeated legend, in Bhops top win list.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...0-best-wins-of-bernard-hopkins-career/page/12

 

Several of Hopkins wins were against naturally smaller fighters or fighters who had come up from smaller weights.
Hopkins turned pro inside the CW limit.
Im sure there will be people who say that Hopkins weighed less than tito but that doesnt make Tito the naturally bigger fighter, there is water weight etc. Look at how Rios when facing Bradley, was alledgedly 170lbs which is over 10lbs heavier than what Hopkins weighed in against Tito but please dont try and say Rios is a naturally bigger fighter

Jones may never have been the man in any division he held a title in. I wrote earlier that he was at LHW for a short time but that has some debate to it and never really dominated a division. On paper A Broner is a title holder in 4 weights

 

Rjj, prime was better. But, better overall was Hopkins.

 

Massive credit if he had of won.
I think Roy was Erdeis mandatory but didnt go for Erdeis title. could be wrong with that.

Still had Roy fought and beat Erdei at LHW, it would arguably had been Roys best win of his career.

I cant think of any win that Roy has that would have been greater

 

It's close to me

 

Hopkins

 

Good post, you made several interesting points.:good

 

I thought Hopkins actually looked better at LHW than he had at MW for a few years.. I am not sure if that was because the MWs were faster or that staying down at MW started to get too hard on Bernard as he aged..

It was always my opinion that he was a huge MW and a natural LHW, that had great discipline. Being a natural LHW(if that is the case) makes some of those wins against smaller fighters look less impressive IMO.

I honestly believe Roy has the edge here as some of his best wins were moving up against naturally larger men, but I can see the argument for Hopkins as well. Also I use Roy's victory over Hopkins as a measuring stick as what would have likely happened had they met before 2003, neither were at their peak, but it is certainly more relevant than their later fight, where a still elite Hopkins didn't look particularly good against a Roy that had just been stopped by Danny Green in 1. I think Roy would have always been a stylistic problem for Bernard.

 

Brighton bomber,

Likewise.

Fair enough.

That's right. I respect your opinion. But in my opinion, even if I knew for certain that Tarver was at 100% for Bernard, I'd still rate Roy's win higher due to the factors that I've noted.

I've seen the interview that you've posted up before. In my honest opinion, any interview that's given on fight week, is completely meaningless. I'm not saying that because I'm biased and I have an agenda, it's what I truly believe. A fight week interview writes itself. The interviewer knows the answers that will be given, before he/she even asks the questions.

It's happened so many times before.

Before Roy fought Tarver, he said he felt great and he'd had a fantastic camp.

Before Chris Byrd fought Shaun George, he too criticised Roy like Tarver did, and said his camp was great.

Before Chad Dawson fought Andre Ward, he said the weight wasn't an issue at all, and he felt really great and strong.

Then after the fights, the truth came out.

Roy told us of his ordeal.

Chris Byrd said he lost the weight far too quick etc.

John Scully came forward and told us that he had Chad running in the mountains under the sun, yet he actually gained weight.

All of those guys struggled.

Now I'm willing to accept that Tarver could have been exaggerating when he claimed he was 218 pounds in December, 2005, and 225 pounds in January, 2006. (if he'd lost 50 pounds)

Of course, it's possible. But in my opinion, he would have had no reason to do so in those months. He was very specific about those weights. And at the time, he'd avenged his loss to Johnson, he'd won the series with Roy, and he didn't have anything in the pipeline. Bernard had just rematched Taylor at that point and was still officially a MW. To my knowledge, there was no talk of a future fight between them at the point. So I think that Tarver was honest there.

In the interview that you've uploaded, it's obvious why he'd have wanted to deny that he was ever as high as 218 pounds. I'd have done the same thing myself. He didn't want to highlight the fact that he'd had to lose a lot of weight. It would have been foolish for him to do so.

I'd like to know the specifics. We don't know what his percentage of body fat was, and how much muscle he lost.

In my opinion, due to his famous question that he put to Roy, he could never mention anything regarding having weight struggles.

After the fight, he claimed that he could have been poisoned.

At the end of the day, only he and his team know what really happened. I agree with you in that it's all speculation. But I don't think it was sour gr*pes, especially when reading the thoughts of Mackie, who's credentials speak for themselves.

I've done an awful lot of research on Bernard recently, and from what I've read, he made incredible sacrifices to fight at MW for 12 years. So I can understand why he'd have wanted to hire Mackie to move up after all those years.

Like I keep asking everyone though, why did he do that? Why did he fight in a weak division for all of those years? It's okay for people to note that he ended up beating Tito etc. But he obviously didn't have a crystal ball in 94. Don King's MW tournament was put together in 2000. Which meant that for over 6 years, he was just content to defend the IBF belt against whoever was put in front of him. He had no ambition whatsoever. It seems clear to me that if King's tournament hadn't have been put together until 2002 etc, it wouldn't have made any difference to him at all.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but nobody is willing to answer these points.

He showed no ambition to move up until he'd lost to Taylor in 2005. Which was 4 years after he'd unified, and nearly 12 years after he'd committed to fighting in the division.

There is nothing legendary about that. He wasn't willing to fight the calibre of guys he fought at 40-50, when he was in his 30's.

Now add to the fact that his very best wins came against guys who'd had their greatest moments at lower weights, and the fact that Roy once fought as a JMW, I don't see how he has a better legacy than Roy.

In my opinion, his longevity is/was truly remarkable. An achievment in itself. But that's all he has over Roy. Nothing else. And longevity is just one factor to consider out of many others.


Nice debating with you.


:good