Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

RJJ's best wins - Ruiz, Toney, Hopkins, Tarver, Hill, Griffin and an old McCallum.

Hopkins best wins- Tito, Tarver, Wright, De La Hoya, Pascal, Pavlik, Johnson and an old RJJ.

In terms of resume it's close. Both jumped up 2 weight divisions to beat a bigger man, RJJ beat a title holder in Ruiz while Bhop beat Tarver who was THE light heavyweight champion. Both fought then highly regarded P4P's at the pinnacle of their success in Toney and Tito though I rate Toney above Tito as a win. Both then also fought a number of title holders like Hill, Pascal, Griffin, Joppy etc.

What separates them for me is Hopkins longevity and consistency, I don't think RJJ's resume is any better than Hopkins if any better at all so when you take in to account BHops longevity he edges it.

 

Hopkins for sure. RJJ gets knocked out all the time for many years. Hopkins, not so much.

 

Good post.:good

 

Hopkins >> Tarver (both by resume and h2h)
Toney >> Pavlik (both by resume and h2h)
Hill >> Pascal (both by resume and h2h)
Ruiz was not as good as Tito, but he was a HW and Tito was a WW.
Roy's win over Ruiz was better then Bernard's over Trinidad.

 

How does he have a better resume?

So what if Roy wasn't lineal? That was just due to circumstances.

Why don't you rate the value of those title wins. Forget paper stats.

Despite being in his 40's, (which was great) a win over Pascal at the 2nd attempt (who'd taken the belt of Dawson on a T/D) wasn't a more worthy win than Roy dominating Toney, Ruiz, and making history by reclaiming the LHW titles against Tarver.

Zsolt Erdei was the lineal champ at LHW at one point. How much credit would Roy have gotten had he have beaten him?

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

Roy achieved more in his career.

 

:good

 

I voted for Hopkins ... which is weird because literally for the first 20 years of their careers (and most fighers don't have 20-year-careers) Roy Jones had a better resume than Hopkins.

Before that, Hopkins' best wins came against Trinidad and De La Hoya (who were not middleweights) and Tarver. And his two losses to Jermain Taylor kind of sunk him.

Jones' best wins came over Hopkins, Toney, Hill, Ruiz ... and, among other top names I didn't include, he also had a win over Tarver and a "token" win over an old Trinidad as well.

Both had knocked down Calzaghe in the first only to lose decisions.

So Hopkins didn't have anything over Jones at all.

But, in 2009, that changed for me. That year, Jones got stopped in one round by Danny Green. Then, the next year, he fought a rematch with Hopkins and lost in one-sided fashion. And the year after that, he was knocked out badly by Lebedev ... while Hopkins went on a run at light heavy and won some more titles.

Over the past six or seven years, Hopkins has clearly been the better fighter. If Jones can't find an absolute corpse, he seems to get knocked out.

If he'd quit after the second Tarver loss, or even after his loss to Calzaghe, I'd probably still have him in front.

But these losses are getting harder and harder to ignore. Even when Hopkins loses, it's by decision to a top guy. Not one brutal KO loss after another.

 

Because Hopkins and Toney are better wins.

No **** RJJ is greater.

 

But if you put the Tarver 2 KO, the Glen Johnson KO, Danny Green knockdown, the Denis Lebedev KO and the Enzo KO on a loop, most people would be surprised to learn Roy Jones was still alive.

Hopkins never got destroyed like that by anyone, let alone by FIVE guys.

I agree, those wins back then were great. But the losses over the last decade-plus are awful and they are adding up.

For every world title Hopkins won in the last few years, Jones seems to have added a KO loss to his tally.

 

See for yourself:

At MW, Roy beat him with a fractured hand and won the vacant IBF belt. He then relinquished the belt to move up to SMW. Bernard then went on to win Roy's old belt at the 2nd attempt against Mercado.

What do you think would have happened if Roy had remained at MW? Bernard's historic run would never have happened.

I like Bernard, but in my honest opinion, he made incredible sacrifices to shrink down to MW to fight in a weak division, when he could have targeted much better opposition at SMW/LHW. I think he only went to LHW in 2006, because he'd lost to Taylor twice. And at that point, he'd got nothing to lose and everything to gain. And while I've got huge respect for his longevity, and for fighting Tarver, Calzaghe and Hopkins, again, he spent his prime years fighting weaker opponents who were mostly smaller than him.

Consider this:

Bernard started his career at LHW and SMW, whereas Roy started out at JMW and MW.

In my opinion, Bernard's best win at MW was against Tito. I give him all the credit in the world for that win. Oscar, not so much. Because he looked awful against Sturm. I also rate his wins over Holmes and Joppy. But he had no interest in rematching Roy at a CW in 2002.

Roy beat Toney at SMW, but he couldn't get fights with Benn and Liles to unify. So he moved up to LHW where he unified. Unfortunately, he couldn't get the big fight with Dariusz. But after an impressive run with defeats over Griffin, Hill, Johnson, Harding and Woods etc, he made history by dropping back from HW and reclaiming the LHW titles from Tarver.

So in my opinion, again, his great MW run wouldn't happened without Roy leaving the division, and Roy's dominance at LHW was better than Bernard's dominance at MW.

Then we have Roy's easy win over Ruiz. Whilst Ruiz wasn't a great HW, he was very tough and he caused lots of problems to all of the top 10 guys he faced. Roy had fought almost 50 times at that point, and again, he'd started out as a JMW. He was also outweighed by over 30 pounds. Yet Roy dominated him with absolute ease.

This is now where Hopkins takes over with his great longevity. His win over Tarver was great (although I think Tarver could have been drained) and his win over Pavlik was unbelievable in my opinion. Due to his age, his LHW title wins leading up to the Kovalev fight were also impressive. Although in my opinion, they weren't great opponents.

So all things considered, Roy definitely achieved more.

He won titles in 4 weight classes, despite turning pro at JMW. He made history by beating Ruiz and Tarver. He was far more dominant in his prime, only losing once in his first 50 fights. He was considered by many to be the best fighter in the world for almost 10 years, as well as being declared the fighter of the 90's.

Again, Bernard's longevity is an incredible achievment in itself. But overall, Roy has the edge.

Their resumes:

Bernard's best wins: Mercado, Johnson, Vanderpool, Eastman, Tito, Holmes, Joppy, Oscar, Winky, Tarver, Pavlik, Pascal and Cloud.

Roy's best wins: Castro, Hopkins, Malinga, Tate, Toney, Lucas, Griffin, Hill, Johnson, Hall, Gonzalez, Harding, Woods, Ruiz and Tarver.

Take into account all circumstances, the manner of the victories, and the value of the wins, and Roy's resume is clearly better in my opinion, again, despite Bernard's great longevity.

 

All things considered, I don't see how Bernard has a better resume.

 

atsch

 

I respect your opinion. Whilst Roy is getting taken out, Bernard at 50 was fighting Kovalev.

It's been an unhappy ending for Roy. But if I an*lyse their whole body of work, I have to go with the guy who achieved more, and who's got the better resume.

Even if Roy gets knocked out another 5 times, it still won't alter what he achieved from 92-03.

 

Roy

He has better wins and is the more accomplished fighter ..

Titles from MW to HW and one of the only men to win the HW title than come back down to win the undisputed lhw title ..Name Hopkins best win and Roy eaisly trumps it..

 

Saved me some typing.:good