Better Win Roy or Floyd

Roy was as equally "green" as hop. 21-0, while hop was 22-1, and both had been matched against a similar level of opposition to that point. Both were entering, or in their physical primes. Nard didn't lose for 12 years after the jones loss. Nard managed to snag some rounds against a superior athlete who had the same experience level. Both continued as dominant champs for years after.

Canelo wasn't green. He had defended at 154 eight times, and was 42-0. He was young and out of his league at that point against mayweather, and has improved since.

Both great wins. Gotta pick roy since his and hops career paths were identical to that point in time, they were both near prime, and both continued on as long standing champs afterward. Canelo, while young, wasn't green. His age and how the fight went suggested he wasnt fully developed yet, but age doesn't dictate inexperience...he had a ton of high level fights, it kinda disqualifies him from the green tag. Leaving only one choice.

 

We are talking about where Canelo and Hopkins were when facing Floyd and Jones respectively. If you cant see why Canelo was a greater fighter at that stage there is little to discuss.
Canelo had already got experience in more fights and at world level. Nobody said Hopkins didnt show potential but Canelo had already proven at that time

 

Not when you consider Hopkins didn't even beat a top 10 middleweight until 2 years after he lost to Roy. He was still a prospect in 93. A damn good prospect, but a prospect nonetheless. There's really no argument for him being a top contender level fighter at that point.

Floyd has a bunch of wins better than that, Canelo being just one of them.

 

I don't mind if people think that Canelo was better than Bernard. All I'm saying, is that I personally look closely at a fighter's abilities, more than just quickly deciding who's the best based on resumes. Looking at statistics doesn't give you the full picture.

Yes, when Bernard went into that fight with Roy, he hadn't really done anything at that point. That's fair enough. But the point I'm making, is that if you watch their 1993 fight, you can see how good he was as a fighter. He took rounds off of Roy. If you look at who Roy fought around that period, you'll note that he fought: Castro, Malinga, Tate and Toney. He'd fought Castro the previous year, he fought Malinga straight afterwards, and then he fought Tate and Toney in the following year. He won every round against Castro, and he won every round against Malinga, which included stopping him. And Malinga had given Benn and Eubank tough fights. He then iced Tate in under 6 mins, and then went onto win almost every round against Toney. You can note that Toney had weight issues, but I think that the outcome would have been the same even if Toney had been 100%. That's just my opinion. You can see that Bernard gave Roy a good fight, and he did much better than the other guys mentioned. So it doesn't bother me that Bernard was unknown and wasn't a champ in 1993. Because he proved how good he was in his actual fight with Roy.

It's okay to compare resumes and statistics etc, but again, there's more to it than that. You also have to note that everyone's circumstances are different. Some fighters get opportunities that other fighters don't. So just because Bernard wasn't a world champion with recognisable names on his resume in 1993, it doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of becoming a world champion or beating recognisable names, under different circumstances. And I'm certain that if you could transport that exact version of Bernard and you could drop him into today's era, then along with GG, he'd be one of the best MW's in the world.

Yes, Canelo went into the fight against Floyd as a JMW champion, after beating named opponents like Shane, and after having had 40 plus fights. But again, that doesn't automatically mean that he was a better fighter than what Bernard was, just because he was a big name in boxing and Bernard wasn't.

Again, all I'm asking, is that people look a bit deeper instead of just automatically choosing the guy who was more popular. And it appears to me that that's what a number of people in this thread have done.

Canelo has only really fought GG at MW. Yet we can see based off of his performance against GG that he's a legitimate guy at the weight.

 

You can see how good of a fighter Bernard was back then, simply by watching his fight with Roy.

Him not becoming a world champion until later, doesn't mean that he wasn't good enough to be a champion in 1993, it just means that he didn't get the opportunities at that point. Under different circumstances, he could well have been a champion at that point.

This has to be looked at closer. It's okay looking at statistics, but common sense has to prevail, where you also judge based off of the eye test.

Let me give you an example:

In 1993, Bernard fought Roy without having beaten anyone of note.

By 1994, James Toney fought Roy, having already beaten: McCallum, Nunn, Johnson, Barkley and Littles.

Yet Bernard took rounds off of Roy and gave him a very good fight, whereas James lost almost every round.

James had the superior resume, whereas Bernard gave Roy the tougher fight.

Again, I don't have an issue with people picking Canelo, if they truly believe that he was a better fighter than what Bernard was. But I don't like how some people are automatically picking Canelo, just because he was a champion and Bernard was unknown. Because to me, that's just completely ignorant.

 

Is it irrelevant that Floyd is the only 36 year old to beat a unified, undefeated champion while in his fifth weightclass?

 

Mot all fights are the same. Mayweather was very impressive against Manfredy which was a very good wins at the time but possibly not as sparkling in other fights where they were not as big a names. Many fighters fight to the level of their comp and Hopkins at that time was not overly knowm compared to someone like Malinga

 

No, it's very relevant. It's what makes the win so good.

 

Good points.

Again, I have no issue with anyone saying that Canelo was better than Bernard, if they've analysed their skill sets objectively, and it's their honest opinion. But if they're choosing Canelo just because he was a world champion whereas Bernard wasn't, then again, I think that's ignorant.

 

Canelo wasn't "green". Dude was a champ and had been fighting legit fighters like Trout, Lopez and Shane.

Green? GTFO.

 

Its not all about whether Canelo was a world champ or not but the experience and level of comp as well as experience to being in big fights

 

Hop was not green, **** you talking about. You forgot the part were he went on an undefeated streak for over 10 years after taking that L from Jones.

 

Canelo got that gift against Lara. The guy is a draw but not "special". His talent doesn't warrant the level of hype he gets. If Canelo were a rugged looking cat from Peru he would have more two Ls on his record.

 

I think when people say green, they're talking about his age and his lack of big fight opposition.