Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

See, exactly. Rinse repeat. Your legacy goes down and down for doing stupid **** like this.

 

Then why didn't he beat him the first time?:huh It seems you are the one taking your opinion and building on it.


Fact of the matter is, Hopkins thought it was too big of a risk in 2002 for 60-40 when he had everything to gain and nothing to lose.. It was his best option at the time.. Roy had other options.

It is very obvious to me you don't like Roy, and throw out a compliment here and there to make yourself seem more objective.

 

Any time after that. Roy was more experienced and had 20 lbs on him in the first fight.
As it happened, bhop did go on to beat him, and went on to accomplish much greater things than that.
Please enjoy the links.

 

So you would have taken Hopkins in a rematch over the Roy that beat Toney?atsch

 

Tweeny,

No one with any sense rates Hopkins' victory over Roy.. Enough already.

 

Gannicus,

:good

Those Toney fights were close, but Montell was a good fighter.

That's fair enough. You can only rank guys based on who they actually fought.

But what people are overlooking, is the fact that Roy did try and fight several big name fighters.

He tried to fight: Liles, Evander, Dariusz (in the U.S.) and Bernard in a rematch.

That was while Bernard was still at MW.

"The Alien" who fought Kovalev etc, wasn't born until 2006.

It's a crying shame that he never fought those guys. But he was held back at MW, until he split from his father.

Liles didn't want to fight him, which was confirmed by his manager at the time.

A Benn fight in 95 was hard to make because Roy's handlers, The Levin's, wouldn't deal with King giving him future options.

Eubank was only interested in defending his WBO belt.

There's lots of politics/circumstances that rob fans of great fights.


:good

 

Roy had a better amateur career for sure, but they were about even as professionals, and Hopkins was rated higher.. I had no idea Roy had 20 lbs on him, do you have a link?

Also neither fighter was at their peak, and Roy was injured. Still he outclassed him and cruised in the later rounds.

 

An amateur career is an important thing. He was an Olympian. It was 16 lbs .. he said it on the air.

 

Lets not forget Hopkins had close to 100 amateur fights himself.

 

shanahan14,

How so?

I think it was an outstanding win. But he was right, his peak was at the lower weights.

There's a big chance that Tarver was drained. But yes, it was a great performance.

However, Roy's fight against him was much bigger.

It was the number 1 and 2 fighters of the division facing off against each other.

Major titles were at stake.

Regarding Roy's win, I think it was a better win than Bernard's, even though the performance was obviously nowhere near as good. And that's because Roy had to burn muscle in just 2 months to make the weight, and he pulled out the win even though he was absolutely exhausted. So it's the circumstances that makes it better for me.

Also, Roy made history by dropping back from HW and reclaiming the titles.

It was a great win because of Bernard's age at the time. But Pascal is nowhere near being a great fighter.

The Pavlik win was a truly great performance. I don't think he's 6'3. I think he and Bernard are about equal in height and reach. Imperial is still correct in pointing out that he was a MW though.

They do.

But I'm struggling to see how anyone can vote for Bernard, when Roy clearly achieved more, (despite Bernard's longevity) he was more dominant in his prime, he was more ambitious in his prime, and in my opinion, he has the better resume.

Then you have to factor in everything else I've mentioned, such as:

Bernard had size advantages over almost all of his opponents at MW.

Roy was once a JMW.


:good

 

Of course it was still an accomplishment beating Ruiz. He was once a JMW.

Maybe you should look into the career of Mackie Shilstone and see how he helped Roy, Hopkins and Spinks to move up, before you accuse Roy of being on steroids.

Roy did beat Tarver in their first fight. What fight were you watching? Buddy McGirt was screaming at a despondent Tarver in between rounds, demanding to know why his instructions hadn't been carried out.

 

I see the Hopkins win as better because in addition to Hopkins totally dominating Tarver which Roy did not do in any of their three fights, there is the background context that Tarver had already knocked out roy and beat him again for good measure. Roy was fighting the man who defeated RJJ in emphatic fashioni. This win became bigger in my eyes over time as it became clear that Roy was never the same after Tarver.

I don't find Roy having to quickly slim down from his mediocre Ruiz win anything to applaud since it ultimately was followed by his 2-1 loss to Tarver and to a big decline in his status with many more knockouts to follow.

 

How many more times are you going to ignore all of the relevant factors surrounding Tarver's fights with Roy and Bernard?

Why do you keep mentioning Bernard's rematch win over Roy, when in 2008, he'd said he didn't want anything to do with Roy because he was finished?

Are you going to answer my points or not?

Start with this one:

Why did Bernard duck Roy in 2002, and then spend over a year out of the ring?

 

Good an*lysis.

Whilst I don't want/expect you to agree with my opinions, I know that you'll an*lyse the factors that I've mentioned, that everyone else seems to be overlooking.

:good

 

Hopkins was way in over his head facing Kovalev. Yes its commendable that he went the distance vs Kovalev, but in all reality it was an ass kicking that could have been worse if Kovalev really tried to hurt Hopkins.

Another thing to consider in all this, especially regarding Roy’s KO losses and B Hop’s lack thereof, is just how dominant Roy was and just how motivated Roy’s opponents were to knock him out. There’s a reason why Hopkins hasn’t been stopped. When he gets in any danger he pulls dramatic stunts in the ring to pause and stall fights until he recovers. (vs Dawson, vs RJJ II, etc) B Hop was never the offensive fighter Roy was, nor was he the athletic specimen Roy was. So he had to make up for that in other ways.

Lets check the scorecards :

B Hop - Tito 109-100, 107-102, 107-102 (after 11 rounds)
RJJ - Tito 117-109, 116-110, 116-110

We got to give Hopkins credit for getting the stoppage in the 12th round, and at the time Tito was a real force to be reckoned with, I agree with that. This was truly one of B Hop’s biggest wins, while Roy fought Tito at a point where Tito was essentially retired. Still, in terms of how close it was on the cards, both bouts produced similar scores.

Again, the Tarver that beat Roy Jones wasn’t the same Tarver that fought Hopkins. The Tarver that fought Hopkins was more focused on getting his lines straight for the movie Rocky Balboa than training to fight Hopkins. The Tarver that fought Hopkins was a lethargic, out of shape, un-focused, un-motivated guy. The Tarver that fought Roy was Tarver in top form.

Griffin did fight one heck of a fight in the first fight vs Jones before the DQ. It was a very even fight and I was impressed with Griffin. However, Griffin got himself in trouble and was about to get knocked out and smartly took an intentional knee which eventually caused the DQ with Roy still pressing. You won’t get an argument from me that Griffin was fighting a great fight vs Roy before the DQ. However, we know what happened in the rematch and it was downright brutal.

Well, I think that’s because you were used to seeing Roy be so dominant for 15 years, when he slowed down enough for guys to catch him after winning the HW title, the contrast was very great. Both guys have plenty of accomplishments to where they can argue their legacy is better, and there’s really a long list of factors to consider.