Better Legacy: Hopkins or RJJ

Fun Facts :

Hopkins lost his debut fight. Hopkins started his career 0-1.

Roy on the other hand started his career with 17 straight wins by Knockout!

After starting 0-1, Hopkins dropped down to Middleweight and discovered how to win. Hopkins went on a roll and didn’t lose again until he ran into… you guessed it.. The Man of the Hour.. Captain Hook himself Roy Jones Jr!!

While Hopkins had two losses on his record, Roy’s record was unblemished and Roy was 10 times the Superstar Hopkins was!! Hopkins was an ordinary fighter back then compared to Roy Jones. Jones remained undefeated and aside from the DQ vs Griffin didn’t truly get beaten until his 51th fight!!

If Roy had retired at 49-1 with the only loss being DQ avenged by brutal 1st round KO, would there be anything Hopkins could do that could have surpassed Roy’s legacy? Since then Roy’s image has took a beating with the stoppage losses in particular and deservedly so, and Hopkins really only rose to star dom after Jones had fallen back to earth.

But to me it almost feels like the people who choose Hopkins are putting more emphasis on the late stages of one’s career, an area that generally isn’t used to determine boxing greatness. There are countless examples like SRL’s last two fights, or Ali - Holmes.. or Sweet Pea’s last fight, in many ways those were more difficult to watch than any of Roy’s KO losses. I’d go as far to say that Roy turned getting knocked out into an art form. And I don’t mean that as a joke or as a negative. I mean Roy’s KO losses were spectacular and there’s something to be said about seeing a guy dominate everyone for 50 fights then falling flat over and over and over. I mean lets be real, not many people can do that. (to go through such highs then through such lows in the ring, but still refusing to hang em up)

To me Hopkins run since Roy’s downfall is commendable. But to me it screams “too little, too late”. Hopkins whole thing is like “I wasn’t as great as Roy Jones in the 90s, so now I’m going to make up for that”.

It’s like a football team being down 49-7 late in the 3rd quarter, making a miraculous comeback to make it like 59-39 or something but then the clock running out. Like for Bernard to do what he did in his 40s I think is his way of making up for boxing in Roy’s shadow.

What Roy did in his first 50 fights is something that cannot be rivaled. Hopkins closed the gap in the last 10-15 years, but nothing he could do could possibly overcome the lead that Roy had over Hopkins through 2003.

 

You're not really saying anything anyone hasn't already considered. I don't think anyone who is judging Jones Jr fairly are taking into account his past prime performances when he was shot.

RJJ did have a great career but to say what he did in his first 50 fights cannot be rivaled is simply hyperbole on your part not fact, his resume was far from stacked during his prime years. His best wins are Hopkins, Toney and Ruiz and outside of those wins he fought comparable opposition to many previous champions. Toney repeated his feat with Ruiz, so that wasn't unique, Toney went on to lose his next fight so beating Toney wasn't unique and of course Hopkins has lost several times so beating him isn't unique so to say what RJJ did cannot be rivaled is clearly false.

As for Hopkins coming on late during his career, he was overlooked for much of his career, he didn't have the Olympic pedigree when turning pro, he was just some guy out of prison he didn't have networks throwing money at him when he won a title like Roy did and that effects a fighters options.

You can't deny what BHop did after he moved up was remarkable, he took risks and fought the best available. His best win over Tarver where he jumped up 2 divisions to beat the man who beat Roy is for me a better win than any on Jones' resume. His wins over Tito, Pavlik, Wright, Pascal etc match anything on Roy's resume with the exception of Toney.

 

How is Jones' victory over Tarver not at least comparable to Hopkins' victory over Tarver?

Hopkins jumped two weights, we all know Roy dropped nearly two.. I understand that Hopkins dominated Tarver and Jones didn't, but Roy fought the better version of Tarver in my opinion. Hopkins' version looked slow and flat to me, Tarver actually dropped weight himself after the Rocky movie. While Roy got a very motivated version in the first fight who actually had better hand speed than I gave him credit for going into the bout.

And lets not forget, Hopkins was a natural LHW anyways, cutting down to MW. Hopkins had insane discipline no doubt, but I honestly believe cutting that weight (or actually staying there year-round) hurt him more and more as he got older and looked better at LHW than he had at MW for a few years. Roy on the other hand looked completely drained to me, and had to really dig down to get squeak out the win.

Styles make fights, and it is a huge possibility Tarver was made for Hopkins, and also a possibility Tarver would have always presented Roy with problems.. The fact that Roy could get a win while past his best against a peak Tarver speaks volumes to me.

 

I respect your opinion, but it doesn't make any sense to me Rummy.

Bernard's longevity is a huge factor, but it's only one factor.

Clearly?

How so?

A handful of more impressive victories?

Roy achieved more.

He was more dominant in his prime.

He left the MW division open for Bernard.

He beat Bernard.

He offered him $6m for a rematch in 2002, but Bernard refused and didn't fight for another year.

He fought in a weak division for 12 years and only moved up after he'd been beaten by Taylor twice.

All Bernard has over Roy is his great longevity.

 

You've made some great points there.

:good

 

It's a good question. I'd take Hopkins overall for being that good for so long, but I understand also that Jones peak was better.

Not so much in my view, but I think Jones getting iced every 2 years is hurting his legacy in some ways. Sometimes I do wish he as quit after Ruiz in '03.

 

You say what Bernard did when he moved up was remarkable. But why did it take him until 2006 to move up?

I don't think he'd even have fought Tarver had he not lost to Taylor twice.

Why didn't he move up in 2002 when Roy offered him the opportunity?

This is where I see things differently from most people. What risks did Bernard take? (apart from Kovalev) Because after he'd solidified his legacy at MW, anything else was a bonus. In 2006, he was in a position where he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The Tarver performance was great, but I honestly believe that Tarver could have been drained. Mackie Shilstone who'd worked with Roy, and who Bernard had hired, openly said that he expected Tarver to be flat due to the weight loss from his role in Rocky Balboa. So it's definitely something to think about.

I also cannot agree with you where you've said that you think Bernard's wins over Tito, Pavlik, Wright and Pascal were better than any of Roy's wins with the exception of Toney.

He fought Winky at 170 pounds.

His win over Tito was truly great in my opinion. An amazing performance.

His performance over Pavlik was also amazing, but Kelly was at 170 like Winky.

Pascal? I suppose because of his age, then it was a very good win. But great? I don't think so.

What about Roy's win over Tarver? Roy had to burn muscle in just 2 months to make weight. He was absolutely exhausted after the 8th round. And he made history by dropping back from HW to reclaim the LHW belts.

What about Ruiz? People didn't see that as a risk, just because of how good Roy was. Although Ruiz wasn't great, he was tough to beat. His style was ugly and awful but it was effective. Roy had to bulk up to 200 pounds, not knowing how that was going to affect him. Then he was still outweighed by over 30 pounds on the night. And 12 years earlier, he'd actually weighed in as a JMW. Roy dominated him with absolute ease. He treat it like a sparring session. A lot of decent HW's had hard fights with Ruiz. Roy only doesn't get a lot of credit because he made it look so easy and to many it was a boring fight.

So I'd like to know how Bernard beating Winky and Pavlik at 170, and him beating Pascal, was better than a former JMW absolutely dominating a 230 pound, top 5 HW with ease?

I'd also like to know how beating Winky at 170 and beating Pascal, was better than Roy burning muscle and beating Tarver while he was absolutely exhausted?

:good

 

Great points.

 

Bernard's longevity is a great achievment, but it's only one factor out of many.

 

Rumsfeld,

Of course it's only a matter of opinion. And although it baffles me, it's fun to debate.

Very true. But I think that was mostly due to his age. And Roy shouldn't be penalised for his greatness.

He won titles in 4 weight classes, including HW, even though he'd fought a few fights at JMW. He made history in beating Ruiz and then dropping back to reclaim the LHW titles from Tarver. Again, Bernard's longevity is a great achievment in itself. But being a 4 weight world champion is a bigger achievment than being a 2 weight world champion, especially if you take into account all of the factors that I've previously mentioned.

Outmatched because he was so great, not because they were just poor opponents.

I know he didn't leave the division for Bernard's sake. But the relevance is quite clear: If Roy had've stayed around, Bernard's legendary run of 20 defences of his IBF belt would never have happened. How can that not be relevant? He beat Mercado at the 2nd attempt to start the ball rolling.

Losing to Bernard meant nothing at that stage, especially after what Bernard had said in 2008:

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Benz/Benz_1112a08.htm

:good

How can it not be relevant?

You are saying that Bernard achieved more. Bernard made incredible sacrifices both mentally and physically to remain at MW for 12 years, and after he'd unified, he still wouldn't move up and rematch Roy at a CW. He demanded a 50/50 split, even though Roy had beaten him, and Roy would had to have moved down in weight. In the end, Roy was set to make $8m with Bernard set to make $6m. Yet Bernard turned it down by demanding $10m. He then spent a year out of the ring.

Everyone's heaping praise on him for moving up to LHW to fight Tarver in 2006, when he had the opportunity to do it 4 years earlier when there was nothing left to accomplish at MW.

It's also convenient how he only moved up to fight Tarver, after he'd lost twice to Taylor.

Whilst it's great that he fought Tarver, Calzaghe and Dawson etc in his 40's, he had no interest in fighting guys of that calibre when he was younger at MW.

The ambition wasn't there at that point.

He did have some memorable match ups, but it was a very weak division for the majority of his reign, and he was bigger than almost most of his opponents.

Take a look at who was fighting at SMW-LHW during his reign.

Roy's LHW reign wasn't as long. But apart from a huge name in Tito, Roy's opponents were more than comparable to Bernard's: Hill, Griffin, Johnson, Woods, Harding and Tarver etc.

Let's not also forget, that Roy tried to secure fights with Liles, Dariusz and Evander during Bernard's MW reign.

Here's the differences that everyone should note:


After beating Bernard at MW, Roy moved up to fight the biggest fight out there against Toney at SMW.

After Roy had beaten Toney and he couldn't unify the SMW division, he moved up to LHW.

When Roy had unified the LHW division, and he couldn't get fights with Bernard and Dariusz, he moved up to HW.

When he couldn't get other big money fights at HW, he then moved back to LHW to face the best fighter there in Tarver.

Yet after Bernard had finally unified an overall weak MW division after an 8 year stay, what did he do? He remained there.

When there was nothing left to accomplish, what did he do? He remained there.

He refused to fight Roy in a huge fight and remained there for another 3 years.


Roy could have remained at SMW or LHW for many years, waiting for the titles to change hands, waiting for the right opportunities like Bernard did. But he didn't.

Bernard simply didn't possess the ambition that Roy had, until after he'd been beaten twice by Taylor.

This is what I feel most people are overlooking.

I'm also certain that had he have beaten Taylor, he'd have remained at MW for even longer.

Again, Bernard has some serious b*lls for fighting guys like Kovalev at 50. But people need to remember that he wasn't always like that.

That's why Roy should get more respect for fighting a guy like Ruiz. Because it's quite clear to me, that Bernard would never have taken on a challenge like that when he was Roy's age.

I don't think that he had better signature victories.

Yes, he did overcome more odds, but that again is penalising Roy for his greatness.

Roy also had to overcome adversity. He lost muscle in 2 months to fight Tarver the first time. And he was absolutely exhausted in the final third of the fight.

Again, Bernard's longevity is simply unique and it has to be respected.

I don't condone anyone taking PEDS. But whenever I've tried to discuss it objectively, the threads just get hijacked by idiots. You get people who swear that he used them all of his career, that he wouldn't have won without them, and he got knocked out the second he stopped taking them. I've tried 3 times but now I don't even make a single comment. It's pointless.

It is a marvel.

I'm not overstating Roy's win. The facts speak for themselves. Ruiz was awful to watch. But he wasn't a HW who got beat up on. He gave almost every HW he fought a hard fight, even if he was dirty. The win gets overlooked because of Ruiz's style and Roy's greatness. But what also gets overlooked is the fact that Roy was a JMW in the previous decade, and he beat Ruiz easier than guys like Holyfield could, being 200 pounds and still being outweighed by over 30.

What win of Bernard's eclipses that?

People need to rate Roy's win for what it was, instead of dismissing it just because he didn't fight Lennox.

That's all true. I respect it.

But again, Bernard didn't take on challenges like that when he was in his 30's.

His "Alien" persona gains him huge credit and notoriety whatever the result.

Again, it's funny how he fought Kovalev at 50, yet he wouldn't fight Roy at 37.

I'll have to keep working on you.

In all seriousness, it doesn't matter if we can't change each other's minds.

It's a great debate that's being conducted in a fun, respectful manner, without any insults.


:good

 

That's all I make.


On a serious note, Jones' victory over Tarver needs to be held in the same light as Ugly's win..

Saying Hopkins' win over Tarver is better than anything Roy has done doesn't make sense to me.

 

People saw that Bernard was older than Roy, and that he beat him far easier. Which is fair enough. But if you take into account all of the factors that we've alluded to, then they have to be comparable. And if we knew for sure that Tarver was drained, then Roy would definitely hold the better win.

:good

 

Well said. Kovalev definitely put the defeat on bhop but it was nothing like what Tarver did to RJJ 12 years ago and so many others have done since. Roy's multiple KO/TKO humiliations in the ring have been imo the one thing that really does make him special.