Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

What seems to be happening here is this:

You are saying that fans like myself are ignoring what's happened to Roy recently, and we're only focusing on the best parts of his career.

Yet you are ignoring the best parts of his career, and are only focusing on what's happened recently.



:good

 

This

 

What is Hopkins legacy ? Out side of fighting late in to his 40's all he has is successful title defense at MW how it this better than Roy's legacy ? So what he won lhw titles late into his career the only reason he didn't move up sooner was because Roy was the top dog at lhw ..Had Roy not left the MW divsion Hopkins wouldn't even have had a MW legacy to speak of

 

Roy should have retired years ago.

Once again, we can't just turn a blind eye to the losses, but how important are they in the grand scheme of things?

Hopkins is still capable of holding his own at the top level.

Roy isn't. He hasn't had a top level win for years.

So just how badly do these losses affect his career?

How badly does a loss to Jason Gavern affect Toney's career?

How about Tyson's loss to McBride? Who really talks about that when his career is being compared to Lewis's?

 

Well let's suppose Ali had fought another 10 times and he'd lost nearly all of them.

Would people really argue against him being in top 3 HW's of all time, based on those losses?

They'd pretty much be completely dismissed.

 

I don't think it's a blow out at all.

 

Personally I have only admiration for near 40something getting in the ring with a prime top fiver.

but to your point - you mean if he hadn't tried, you'd rate him higher.


perhaps you'd on that heady day in Zaire dissuade ali not to try to face foreman, because you'd rate him lower if he did, being odds on to lose.
or not to try to ever face liston, because you'd rate him lower if he did.

why try at all?

 

Why do I even bother debating with you?

I must be out of my mind.

Once again, you've ignored all of my points that were put to you.


Lineal belts:

Unfortunately, for a long time now, we've had 17 divisions and 4 main organisations. There's nothing we can do about that.

In my opinion, a win should be valued on the quality of the opponent and the manner of victory, whilst also accounting for any circumstances that may have been a factor.

Yes, statistically speaking, Toney was a belt holder at SMW and Pascal was lineal at LHW. But that doesn't allow for any circumstances does it?

You seriously want people to acknowledge Bernard's win over Pascal, whilst completely dismissing Roy's win over Ruiz, because Pascal was lineal and Ruiz wasn't?

That's complete horse manure.

How much credit did Cotto get for beating a washed up Sergio?

Canelo is now the lineal champ at MW.

Are you telling me that if someone beat Canelo that it would hold more value than someone beating GG?

It doesn't matter if officially Roy only beat 3 belt holders and won a vacant belt. Because there's far more to it than just looking at black and white stats.

Roy beat Bernard for the vacant IBF, and then relinquished it the following year. If that hadn't have happened, Bernard's legendary run would never have happened.

Roy beat Toney who many people considered to be the 2nd best fighter in the world at the time.

Roy beat Ruiz EASY, even though he'd had 50 fights, he was once a JMW, and he was outweighed by 30 pounds. Yet you want us to just throw that out because he didn't fight Lennox?

Roy made history when he reclaimed the LHW titles from Tarver.

You want to talk about lineal? Zsolt Erdei was the lineal title holder at one point. And I know for sure that if Roy had beaten him, you would have given him zero credit!

Here's some interesting opinions on the MW lineage of the 90's:

Go to section 3.

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/sports/linealprob.htm


Every win needs to be an*lysed objectively and put into perspective.

Although Bernard was twice the lineal champ, he did not achieve more than what Roy did.

He did not have the better wins.


Finally, Roy did not refuse to fight other champions. I've given you evidence that proves he tried to fight Liles, Dariusz, Evander, and Hopkins in a rematch.


If you're not going to address any of my points, then don't bother replying back to me.

 

:good

 

I don't believe that mate.

You're seriously telling me that Ali's losses to Spinks and Berbick etc, have had a serious impact on your ranking of him?

Bizarre.

He shouldn't have been allowed to fight at that point, but Dundee couldn't stop him.

 

Bernard's longevity is incredible.

Roy's past prime losses are horrible.

But the above are only two factors to consider out of many more.

 

Correct.

 

How?

 

This.

"The Alien" who fought Tarver, Calzaghe, Dawson and Kovalev for all the plaudits after he'd lost to Taylor twice, wouldn't fight Roy at LHW or even at a CW, when it really mattered in 2002.

Why was that?

Why did he make incredible sacrifices to fight in a weak MW division for 12 years, when he could have fought better opponents at SMW/LHW?

I suggest that people an*lyse his career more closely. Because whilst I give him huge credit for facing a guy like Kovalev at 50, I don't think he would ever have fought a guy like that when he was younger.