Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

How has Bernard achieved more?

 

When I look at Toney, I'm impressed in all the ways that I'm not with Hopkins. He's like the anti-Hopkins fighting at weights he had no business fighting at. I respect Roy for fighting once at heavyweight, but Toney fought more than twenty times at that weight all bloated and fat. If you compare the amount of body mass he had to put on to do that it's like 30 something percent of his original weight, the same as Duran had to pack on to get to super middleweight. He was maybe the tenth best heavyweight of the '00s, but he might have been the number one light heavyweight if he'd just put the food away.

 

Depends on what you favor in a persons legacy. Apples and Oranges really.
To me, BHops LHW title win at his age trumps RJJ moving to heavyweight and winning the title. But again, depends on what you favor.

 

It IS the consideration of RJJ's "whole body of work" that yields the very reason RJJ is rated by many below Hopkins (see thread and poll numbers) and is why some think RJJ is way overrated and not so great not matter how you slice it. Many of his most illogical fans will severely overemphasize his work ending some 13 years ago, which is not all the great to begin with and give very little if any importance to his work since then, which has been nothing short of horrifying.

When you do that you are actually NOT considering his whole body of work in fact. As stated, his work has been worse than abysmal, losing to great fighters like Hopkins and Calzaghe and getting KO'ed and TKO'ed 5 times to fighters as varied as Antonio Tarver (who also beat him in a series), Glen Johnson, Danny Green, Denis Lebedev and just recently, Enzo Maccarinelli, in brutal fashion.

I'll let others discuss his earlier work which include testing positive for androstenedione, fighing "whos?", beating "Ruiz", a lackluster Toney and a young Hopkins (who later beat RJJ), and a disqualification against montell. Not exactly the greatest here. But when you add in his continuing work post 2003, which you must do - claims of him being shot don't excuse that... he just got suckier as he slowed down a little and his flaws became mega-flaws, and he became exposed as a poor boxer.

Hopkins is a way more complete figher and that is before you even compare their careers. People watch RJJ fights these days for a possible KO of the year disaster. People watch hopkins fight to see what next incredible feat the crafty veteran can accomplish. Who is the greater boxer with the better legacy "on the whole"?

Hopkins, no contest.

 

would you rate holmes no contest over ali, if ali had boxed into his ate 40s as a crippled patient?

would you rate Marciano over Louis if Louis had stuck around tills his 40s too, getting serially beaten up by bum clubbers?


Would you rate Gerard McClellan lower if he came back and got beaten up by crippled pensioners today?

obviously no you wouldn't. so why the agenda vs jones over shot performances?

 

RJJ is a journeyman now. His record is so diluted now it will never be better than Hopkin's.

 

RJJ fans like to argue both ways. They point to the win against Ruiz as great but in fact, Ruiz was not the greatest HW champion with 4 losses before he met RJJ. But that aside, they then point to this fight and what he had to do in achieving it as making him "shot". Well I say if a fighter had to get "shot" to win a fight then that fighter wasn't so great to begin with and if anything, it was a terrible win if that is the effect of it, not a great win - it was an idiotic win. You basically had to destroy yourself to win and this is a good win? But that is all nonsense in any case. No one gets suddenly shot after a couple fights. He was slowing down and without the speed and reflexes at a certain level he was an ordinary figher at best with a poor chin.

Him being "shot' is a bogus excuse. A great fighter declines over time. He just imploded once his reflexes fell below a threshold. That's not shot, that's exposed.

 

More bogus illogical arguing. Who knows how these fighters would have fared. Do you?

I mean let's take the HOPKINS example, and it even works with the thread topic. He's been fighting for a quite a while and I don't see him sleeping on the canvas every few fights like RJJ do you? He beat Pavlik, Tarver and survived Kovalev. He is great fighter.

And just for your info I would rate any fighter no matter how great a part of their record is MUCH lower if a 1/3rd or some amount of their career included losses and included 5 brutal tko/kos. Yes I would rate them lower. I guess it doesn't help that he was a big bragger either.

 

Are you asking me if I know how Ali would have done fighting with Parkinsonians in his 40s?
YES I DO KNOW.
How is it that you WOULDNT know how a Parkies patient would do in a pro boxing ring.

Hopkins is not an example, hes an exception. Its pretty much a consensus that, since he is the oldest champion in history ie an exception by definition.

ok you would devalue alis career if he kept fighting with Parkinsonians. fine, you'd drop his ATG ranking because of that.

that's fine, you are allowed your opinions. don't expect anyone to share them.

 

He is what we are comparing to RJJ.

Also, I'd argue that yes, if you start getting knocked out a couple of times brutally and are losing fights then maybe it is time to hang them up if you have good sense.

But if you decide not to, that doesn't give you a pass on it being used and weighed as part of an ****ysis or opinion of an overall career.

It's sounds like what is being suggested is that Roy is just being silly and we can just ignore most of the last 13 years since it don't count because he is crippled and can't make good decisions.

Wrong, it all counts. People pay good money for those fights.
I'm sure he'll tell you he is in great shape.

Ali has a condition that would does not allow him to fight.

What's Roy's excuse?

What will your excuse be now, RJJ fan?

 

yes that true, BUT U you claimed he is an example. Its a complete lie - he is the polar opposite of an example.

no one is actually arguing that you shouldn't. You can start an argument like this with yourself some other time, please concentrate on the arguments you are having with me instead.

I expect its expenses/bills/money owed/retirementmoney, you think paying bills/securing your future is a bad reason to earn money?

I don't box and never actually saw roy box, he was an American thing.

 

This is just silliness. I don't understand this argument. A diagnosis of Parkinsons is the end of a boxing career. You can't get a license to box so how would he have done that?

But let's pretend the world makes no sense then yes, if ali fought on and got knocked out a bunch of times, it would imo detract from his career. The parkinsons does explain things and there is some sympathy and understanding there. But it does impact his career. Of course in reality he would never be allowed to fight. And this has nothing to do with RJJ in any case.

 

What?


As far as Hopkins being an exception and not an example, that's false. Plenty of fighters have had long careers without being knocked out 5 times or even once. Hopkins just happens to have had a very long one. He is an example of a fighter with a long career without all the knockouts and still achieving, regardless of him owning certain records for longevity.

 

No it wouldn't Hopkins blows him out of the water on resume alone. Not to mention championships, longevity etc.

 

the Marciano example wasn't a problem though.

so why not argue against that. try.