Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

We're both in agreement that Bernard only committed to being a MW after three years as a pro.

He had to make incredible sacrifices to fight at MW.

That MW division in 93, was weak due to all of the former greats either having retired, or having moved up to higher weights.

At 6'1, with a 75" reach, Bernard was bigger than almost all of his opponents.

You make a great point regarding Broner, and many people are saying that Roy was also just a title holder at 4 weights. But I'll give you my opinion on why that's unfair. It's unfair, because Roy showed ambition that Bernard didn't.

After Roy had beaten Bernard, he wanted a big money fight. So he went up to SMW to fight Toney, whilst Bernard stayed at MW to fight for Roy's vacated belt.

After Roy had beaten Toney, he didn't have the opportunity to unify the division, as he couldn't get fights with Benn or Liles. So after only being in the division for about 2 years, he moved up to LHW. And at that point, Bernard was still content to defend his IBF belt against whoever was put in front him.

After Roy had unified the LHW division, and he couldn't reach a compromise with Dariusz, he challenged Bernard to a fight at a CW. At that point, Bernard had finally become the undisputed MW champ after over 7 years in the division, after winning King's MW tournament the previous year. Yet he wouldn't fight Roy. He turned down huge money and then had over a year out of the ring. Which is why Roy went up and fought Ruiz. Then after he couldn't get another big money HW fight, he dropped back to fight Tarver at LHW. Where was Bernard at that point? He was still at MW.

So yes, you could say that Roy only won titles, whilst Bernard was officially 'The Man' at MW. But even so, how could that have been a bigger accomplishment than what Roy achieved? Roy wasn't bigger than almost all of his competition like Bernard was. He'd come up from JMW.

This is what I've been trying to get across to people.

In my opinion, Bernard's MW reign is overrated. Yes, it culminated in a huge fight against Tito. But before King's tournament, again, he was just happily sailing along, fighting whoever was put in front of him. He showed no ambition at that point, even though the MW division was weak, and there were great fighters at SMW and LHW.

I know that you don't rate his win over Tito, and I know you think he ducked Joe. So I'd love to read your thoughts on what I've written.

In my opinion, Bernard only began to show ambition after he'd lost to Taylor twice, and he was in a position where he'd got nothing to lose and everything to gain.

If you weigh everything up, Roy has to have left the better legacy:

He achieved more.

He was more dominant in his prime.

He didn't have the physical advantages that Bernard did over most of his opponents.

He was more ambitious in his prime.

He tried to fight guys like: Liles, Dariusz, Holyfield and Bernard in a rematch.

He came up from JMW.

In my opinion, he has a better resume.

His best wins were over naturally bigger opponents.

He made history in going to HW and back.

He fought in stronger divisions until 2006.

He didn't look for a way out of fights like how Bernard did against Roy, Joe and Dawson.


In my opinion, all Bernard has over Roy, is his incredible longevity.


:good

 

I'm struggling to see how?

 

I can never tell when you're joking.

It may have looked good on paper because he'd have had the lineal belt, but in my opinion, it wouldn't have been in reality.

Erdei won the belt from Julio Gonzalez. (RIP) Without being disrespectful to him, Gonzalez wasn't a great fighter. He'd beaten a faded version of Dariusz for that belt, with a lot of people disputing the result. So Erdei beating Gonzalez wasn't awfully impressive to me.

Up until he'd beaten Gonzalez, who had he really beaten?

http://boxrec.com/boxer/23935

I don't see how Roy would have gotten much credit for beating him back then.

There's no way it would have been held in higher regard than the Tarver win for example, even though Erdei was undefeated and Tarver wasn't.

:good

 

I don't see that first Tarver win as so great. Roys face was battered. One card had it even. I remember some even thinking Roy lost. Roy was booed. So they fight again and Roy is knocked out. And they fight again and Roy loses again.

We do agree that Roy getting knocked out by Tarver was a loss for Roy right? Just making sure.

I don't think there is anything impressive about Roy slimming down so fast after his mediocre Ruiz win and his performance in his first fight with Tarver or in the trilogy. . Or for that matter, the rest of his career. Maybe he should have done something a little different no?

Meanwhile bhop dominated the guy that ended roy. bhop was the underdog there and tarver bet him he be out in 6.

But Roys mediocre win and subsequent destruction is a better win. Right.

 

Roy won the fight.. Yes, it was dramatic the way he looked human for the first time, which is what I think the crowd got caught up in.. I have scored that fight several times and didn't find it too hard to score. Tarver did most of his work with Roy up against the ropes and would have the crowd going crazy... Roy would unleash vicious body shots in the center of the ring that had Tarver wincing in pain and the crowd would hardly react..

What is your point? I don't see anyone arguing that. But you do agree rematch losses don't erase wins right? You have many times in this thread spoke of how you thought Montell Griffin was kicking Roy's ass, basically dismissing the rematch solely focused on the first fight... You are way too negative about Roy.

Perhaps making history doesn't impress you? Name me all the fighters that have dropped from HW and won a world championship at LHW.. I am sorry that performance doesn't impress you, but to me it answered a big question about Roy, he had heart.. I give Tarver tons of credit for the KO of Roy, but I honestly think Roy's best days were behind him and he was throwing one shot at a time... Perfect punch though. The third fight that went Tarver's way I don't really rate.

It was a great win, I picked Tarver.

Roy's win over Tarver was not mediocre.. And I never said it was better, just comparable as Roy fought the better Tarver in my opinion.

 

I wasn't addressing what you stated specifically.

 

It doesn't impress me all the much given what actually happened. Which is he fell to pieces immediately after this achievement getting knocked out multiple times. THAT is what impressed me. And the Ruiz win did not impress me in any case.


Have there been any other great champions in history, or people in serious consideration for "best ever" or one of the best ever, who have been knocked out 5 times?

 

Well I don't agree with a win that makes history being mediocre, and it is not consistent with your part as to what made Hopkins' so great, against the same fighter, but arguably a lesser version at that.

 

Roy has fought on way past his best.. I haven't rated any victory over him for a long time now.. He is a shell of himself and I think his punch resistance severely declined since his best days.

You honestly don't come across as someone that likes Roy very much, and it is unfortunate you can't appreciate him dominating a top HW, then immediately dropping back down and getting a win against the top LHW, and a long time rival that basically dedicated his life to beating Roy.

 

shadow111,

It's cool that you disagree.

It makes for a great debate.

Again, I respect your opinion, but I don't see it that way.

Roy was almost 40, his once great reflexes had gone, he was 3-3 in his previous 6. I didn't even like the Tito fight. It was clear to me that he was no longer capable of beating elite fighters at that point.

To be honest, I was very surprised that the fight wasn't stopped on that cut. That was deep and nasty. I've seen many fights that were stopped on cuts, that were nowhere near as bad as Roy's.

They were close in age, but they were at different levels in my opinion. Glen Johnson put the final nail into the Roy we used to know.

:good

They both have huge egos.

I didn't get that impression at all.

You've misread what I wrote.

I said that Bernard was disgraceful.

It was an absolute embarrassment.

Bernard holding his head while they were reading the scores out was one of the most pitiful things I've seen in boxing.

:good

I'm enjoying the thread, but it pi$$es me off when there's lots of factors that have been overlooked.

He may have thought that Roy was completely shot. He may have underestimated him.

It's quite obvious to me why Bernard didn't want to fight him in 2002.

He obviously wasn't confident in beating him.

Why else would he have turned it down?

He didn't fight again for another 13 months.

Did you read the link I posted?

If not, here it is:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/stories/2002-07-10-jones-hopkins.htm

I think if Hopkins had've agreed, Roy would probably have ditched his mandatory with Woods. But I'm not certain. I think Roy would definitely have fought Ruiz though. He was hell bent on fighting at HW at that point.

We all take different things from fights.

As above.

I really enjoy reading your opinions.

We all see things differently, which is why the sport is so fascinating.

I think I had to watch it on an Internet stream because I don't think it was broadcast on U.K. TV.

I can remember just shaking my head in disbelief at what I was seeing. I can't say that I was entertained. And in the end I was hoping they'd keep fouling each other so it ended up in a DQ or an NC.

I haven't watched the Glazewski one for a while, but I think he was extremely lucky to get the win there.

I watched half of it last year but ended up turning it off.

I couldn't stand seeing Bernard's face.

:good

Most definitely.

I'll have to try and give it another go soon. Then I'll discuss it with you.

Roy had trouble on the scales didn't he?

Likewise.

I always look forward to your passionate posts. They're really great.

Again, I'm glad that we all see things differently. It's what makes for a great debate.


:good

 

To be honest I picked Pavlik over Hopkins too, I really thought Hopkins was done after Calzaghe beat him.

 

Damn, Hopkins sure is Ugly.:good

 

shadow111,

Possibly, but he was always going to say something like that in any interview. He had to hype the fight. Bernard did his best to try and convince the media that their fight was still relavant and that Roy had been hard done by in Australia. In my honest opinion, I think Bernard was worried that he'd never get the chance to avenge his loss after he'd seen the Green fight.

I watched all of Roy's training footage before the fight, and his arms looked huge. It appeared that he'd really worked out to get bigger. I wasn't even surprised when he missed the weight the first time.

:good