Better resume: Mayweather Jr or Roy Jones Jr

It does not eclipse Roy’s win over Bernard by a long shot.

Saying that is absolutely ridiculous.

You’ve just ignored every point that I made.

Yes, Bernard wasn’t highly rated at the time. I’ve acknowledged that. But what I’m saying, is that irrespective of where he was ranked, if you watch the fight against Roy from 1993, you can clearly see that he was a world class fighter at that point.

Analysing a fighter’s skillset is more important than looking at where they were rated at the time. There’d have been fighters who were rated higher than Bernard was back then, but who weren’t as good. Again, if you had a time machine and you brought that specific version of Bernard into today’s landscape, he would be a top 3 MW. The only reason he wasn’t a world champion back then was due to his circumstances. The version of Bernard who Roy fought was the same version who won the vacant belt against Mercado. Under different circumstances, he could have been a champion before he fought Roy. We know that he could have beaten Mercado earlier. He didn’t win the belt years after. It was 2 years after. But given the opportunity, he could have beaten Mercado in his very next fight after Roy.

You haven’t accounted for the manner of victory, Roy’s injury or Floyd’s tough fight. You’ve basically just rated the Cotto win higher, as he was more accomplished than what Bernard was. But if you do that, your argument is based on statistics and not on the quality of the fighters.

Yes, Cotto had won belts etc. But he’d also taken sustained beatings from Cotto and Manny years earlier, and he was faded. Floyd also had a very tough fight with him.

Yes, he won the MW belt after against Martinez. But Martinez had bad knees and he was extremely lucky to not have lost his title against Martin Murray beforehand. He was finished against Cotto. And he retired afterwards and never fought again. Also, Cotto lost to Trout before he fought Martinez.

Bernard went undefeated for 12 years after his loss to Roy. And you could certainly make a case for the 1993 version of Bernard being a better P4P fighter than the 2012 version of Cotto.

When rating a win, many factors have to be taken into account. Because every factor is important. Any relevant factors or circumstances either enhance a win or devalue it. You have to look at everything, including the manner of the victory or any injuries etc. If you’re going to be objective, they’re all important.

Yes, as noted, Bernard wasn’t a champion at the time. However, he was clearly still a world class fighter who was fresh at 28. Again, Roy beat him easily whilst being injured. Those factors make a difference.

If Roy hadn’t have been injured, the win wouldn’t have been as good.

If Roy hadn’t have won easily, the win wouldn’t have been as good.

Again, every factor makes a difference.

Rating a win on accomplishments alone, isn’t enough for a fair rating.

All things considered, Roy’s win has to be better. Because beating even the 1993 version of Hopkins with absolute ease whilst being injured, has to be a better accomplishment than beating a faded version of Cotto in a tough fight.

If you don’t agree, then put forward a case for Floyd, but with something more substantial than just focusing on Cotto’s overall accomplishments.

 

You’re trying to bolster an argument by claiming that Hopkins was a world beater in 1993 when he clearly wasn’t and saying that Cotto was past it in 2012 when he clearly wasn’t. In addition you claim that YOU felt Hopkins was already world class Even though Jones ( who was Green himself ) boxed circles around him despite a broken hand... The argument is self defeating.....

Cotto was the number one Jr. middle in the world when he fought and lost to a 36 year old Floyd.... Most people didn’t even know who the hell Bernard Hopkins was when he fought Jones. You mention cottos loss to Austin Trout after fighting Floyd. Well how about Hopkins getting decked twice enroute to a draw against the obscure segundo Marcado a full year AFTER the Jones fight ?

Yes Jones looked good in outpointing a decent “ contender “ despite his injury while Mayweather looked good in outpointing a solid “ world champion “ despite HIS age. The better and more valuable win should be abundantly clear.

 

Planet mark, in the galaxy of Quora. Tis a magical place.

 

mr. magoo,

I never said he was a world beater. I said you could clearly see that he was a world class fighter. Go and watch the fight and see for yourself.

Roy was green, but he’d already beaten Jorge Castro with absolute ease.

Yes, Roy easily beat Bernard.

Roy easily beat a lot of guys.

It doesn’t mean they weren’t world class does it.

Do you think the version of Bernard who beat Mercado was completely different to the one who Roy fought?

Here you go again with the ratings.

So because nobody knew who Bernard was, it means that the version of Cotto who Floyd beat was better?

How many people knew of Chris Eubank going into the first Benn fight?

He was still clearly a world class fighter.

Yes, he may have been rated highly at JMW. But he was faded and had been badly beaten by Manny and Marg.

If Murray hadn’t have been robbed, he’d never have fought Martinez.

Yes, he lost to Trout.

Bernard struggled against Mercado in Ecuador in the first fight. He said it was the altitude. He then convincingly beat him in the rematch.

Then once again, you’re just debating on statistics.

Cotto being the JMW champ doesn’t automatically mean that he was a better fighter than what Bernard was at that point.

We can’t just ignore his beatings off of Manny and Marg years earlier, just because he had a belt around his waist.

Again, that contender was clearly a world class fighter if you watch the fight.

Yes, Floyd gets credit due to his age.

Roy should also get credit for his easy dominance and the fact that he was injured but wouldn’t postpone.

Roy’s win was more impressive.

Cotto won his JMW belt off of Foreman who doesn’t possess any top level wins.

He made 2 defences of it until he fought Floyd.

He then lost his next fight to a B-C level fighter who’s never had a top level win in his entire career. Trout has lost clearly to every top level guy he’s fought.

It just shows you how bad Martinez was at the time of the fight.

Would you rate Roy’s win higher, if Bernard had already beaten Mercado and made several defences of his title?

 

Jones...

 

1. you clearly said and I quote: “ he was clearly a world class fighter... “ world beater - world class..... Same thing... and yes I’ve seen that fight.

2. The fact is that many of them ( including Hopkins ) weren’t world class at the time because they quite simply hadn’t proven it.

3. I don’t think it really matters given that Mercado sucked anyway.

4. so you’re making concessions for WHY Hopkins was lackluster then holding it against Cotto for losing to a man who was actually a GOOD fighter... This is really starting to reek of bias.

5. Yes... I find this doctrine of yours that beating a “ nobody “ is somehow better than beating a “ somebody “ a rather strange one to say the least. What’s more is that you’re backing this argument by saying that Hopkins looked like a world class fighter “ even though he got dominated by a dude with an injured hand... Do you see the problem I have with this argument ?

6. oh for Christ’s sake the guy had been one of the best in the world for YEARS and was STILL one of the best in the world... are you really going to hold it against him for losing to Pacquiao while giving Hopkins a pass for looking like **** against Marcado ? No matter how you slice it and dice it Miguel Cotto WAS better when he fought Floyd than Hopkins WAS when he fought Jones...

7. Well Yuri Foreman certainly wasn’t the great Gilbert Baptist that’s for sure.

8. I don’t know why you think Roy’s win was more “ expressive. “ Jones dominated Hopkins despite a broken hand while Floyd Dominated Cotto despite being at the mercy of old age. The Tie breaker is that one of them was in the ring with a PROVEN world champion while the other was in the ring with an obscure fringe contender who wouldn’t make waves for years and would look terrible in a title fight a year later.

9. Austin Trout was a hot item at the time. Good fighter undefeated with a solid amateur pedigree. He deteriorated earlier than most but losing a decision to trout wasn’t the end of Cottos career either and nor does it say anything as to why Hopkins was better in 1993 after beating nobody and getting dominated by Jones.

10. Oh I agree Martinez was horrible when he fought Cotto.. but Miguel was rising in weight to meet him and heavily favored to get killed. He dominated.. does he not get credit?
11. Well it would certainly lend itself to more credibility if Hopkins had actually DONE something of note to prove himself before entering the ring with Jones.... I’ll say this a different way.. If Hopkins had retired after losing to Jones would YOU be sitting here right now calling him a “ world class fighter “ in hindsight ??

 

Floyd had longevity on his side but Roy's resume was better.

 

I myself credit the Cotto win as a decent win, Cotto wasn't prime but still had something left and gave Floyd a tough fight. But I still think the Hopkins win counts for more.

Just for fun, let's listen to the commentators' perspectives on the bout during the broadcast:

This content is protected

Interesting to see how even they were statistically.

 

mr. magoo,

Okay. I misinterpreted what you said.

I thought that when you said: ‘world beater’ that you meant that I was proclaiming him to be a great fighter.

I didn’t mean that. But yes, I’m saying that without a doubt, he was world class at that point.

Just watch the fight.

Again, watch the fight with Roy.

We don’t need Bernard to have been rated.

We can use our eyes and our knowledge to see if someone’s world class.

Look, Roy Jones had easily beaten Jorge Castro before he fought Bernard. And Jorge Castro was a world class fighter who had great fights with the likes of John David Jackson and Reggie Johnson.

Roy beat him with absolute ease.

Immediately after fighting Bernard, Roy then easily beat and knocked out Thulani Malinga, who was also a world class fighter, who’d given Chris Eubank and Nigel Benn two extremely tough fights.

In the following year, Roy then iced Thomas Tate in just 2 rounds, who’d gone the distance with Julian Jackson.

Roy then easily beat James Toney, who was considered one of the top P4P fighters in the world at the time.

So: In a span of just 2 years, Roy beat: Castro, Bernard, Malinga, Tate and Toney.

Bernard Hopkins was Roy’s hardest fight out of those guys. He gave Roy more trouble than any of those guys did.

He gave Roy a better fight than what Toney did.

Bernard Hopkins was clearly on the level of those guys. So taking those performances and results into account, as well as watching their actual fight, then yes, despite the fact that he was unproven at the time, Bernard Hopkins was 100% a world class fighter when he fought Roy in 1993.

Okay. Nobody is saying that he was great.

You’re the one who’s being biased. You’re downplaying Roy’s win because Hopkins hadn’t done much, without even taking into account the actual fight, and who Roy fought and how he’d performed around the same time. You’re also hyping the Cotto win based on the fighter he once was, and not where he was at the time.

It’s not strange at all.

We’re not talking about ‘some dude’ we’re talking about Roy Jones.

Roy Jones dominated and easily beat world class fighters all throughout his career.

Again, he beat: Castro, Tate, Malinga and Toney around that period.

He beat them all with consummate ease. It didn’t mean they weren’t world class though did it.

James Toney was coming into the ring off of wins over: Nunn, Reggie, McCallum, Barkley and Littles.

Yes, Roy easily beat Bernard. Easily, as in - he won most of the rounds clearly. But he didn’t dominate him in the way that he dominated Toney and the other guys I’ve mentioned. He didn’t beat him up, knock him out or make him look foolish.

Yes, Hopkins looked poor in the first fight. Again, he always claimed it was the altitude. He won the rematch emphatically.

Cotto had taken 2 sustained beatings years earlier.

Why was the version of Cotto who Floyd fought better than the version of Hopkins who Roy fought?

Your only argument is that Bernard went into the fight unproven, whereas Cotto managed to gain a belt off of someone who’d beaten Daniel Santos.

I can see by watching Roy’s fight, that Hopkins was a better fighter than the version of Cotto who Floyd fought.

You can be sarcastic. Beating Foreman doesn’t prove anything. Giving Roy a good fight proves a lot more, especially as he was a harder opponent for Roy than the other proven world class fighters who Roy beat even easier.

Roy won the fight more clearly than Floyd in my opinion, and Hopkins was fresh at 28 and not on the slide like Cotto was. You can keep saying he was a fringe contender all you want, you can clearly see by watching the fight that he was the goods. He can’t have been just a fringe contender AFTER the final bell had rung. Not when Roy went out and beat up Malinga and Tate with absolute ease straight after. I don’t care if Cotto had been a proven world champion. Coming off of sustained beatings and beating Yuri Foreman isn’t proof that he was better than what Bernard Hopkins was.

Losing to Austin Trout tells me that Cotto wasn’t the fighter he’d once been, and not as good as the version of Hopkins who Roy fought.

Not by me he doesn’t. Not when I think that Martin Murray had beaten a faded Martinez beforehand.

Once again, judging by the actual fight and looking at Roy’s other results from the same period, then yes, if Hopkins had retired immediately after fighting Roy, we could say without a doubt that he was a world class fighter.