IMO, Roy improved MORE than Bernard did and the rematch would have been more decisive. Also , Bernard's greed was more of a hindrance to the rematch. When you lose the first one and seek vindication, you are NOT in the the negotiating Driver's Seat.
No chance. The only Roy vs Hopkins encounter where Hopkins has a very good chance of winning is much later in their respective careers, say 2003 onwards when Hopkins was using his craftyness to get him over the line, and Roy had lost his workrate. The bottom line is: -BOTH fighters were green, it isn't as though Roy was a long reigning Champ verse a green journeyman. I think the only reason it is rarely noted that Roy was still green is the fact that even that early in his career he was a freakishly good fighter. -Hopkins was at his physical peak, he had very quick hands that weren't present later in his career and was a lot more active and aggressive -Hopkins was simply outclassed, they weren't on the same level that day -The majority of Hopkins big wins over prime fighters were above their respective weight divisions, he never beat an elite prime large MW
I have to disagree with this. Technically speaking, Bernard was not "better" than Roy or Floyd, just more orthodox.
Clearly you don't get it. I tried to be civilzed with you and it didn't work. You're pole jocker, plain and simple. You don't what you're talking about. You're mixing up my points and attacking arguments that I never made. I can name every guy on Roy's resume that went on to win a title after he fought them. The fact remains, the public was annoyed by his choice of opponents. A true Roy fan would know all about the Roycott that was highlighted by HBO. And why do you think that exisited? Clinton Woods may have gone on to win a title, but when Roy fought him he was a no name that was thought of as no more than another setup for Roy. The same was true for Gonzalez. He was seen as just some guy with a padded record that Roy would dispense of. The cop he fought really was a stiff. His cop buddies even said he should put advertisement on the soles of his shoes because they were sure he was getting knocked out(I'm not exaggerating here, they talked about it during the telecast.) Don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. I watched all of those fights live. It didn't matter what some of those guys did later, they weren't seen as legit threats when Roy fought them. That's why Roy's fights did poor numbers.
Soooo, uhhh, what are we onto talking about now? We're talking about Roy's low ppv numbers becauuuuuseee.... oh that must somehow factor into how Bernard would beat Roy in a rematch.... makes total sense. And on that note... Who gives a **** if Roy did shitty pay per view numbers? If that's how we measure the worth of a fighter, you must have Oscar's dirty fishnets stuck under your pillow at night, right?
Why am I wasting my time with you? I've made a few different arguments in this thread. Clearly, you are too slow to catch on to this. This is the problem with this forum. There are too many slow posters like yourself that like to attack people when they don't know what they're talking about.
There is no flag of surrender. You are slow. That is completely evident from your responses. I've already refuted your claim about Roy losing because of the weight. You then went on a tagent, attacking argmunents that I never made.
Roy was the better and greater fighter (I rate Hopkins higher than PBF), but I meant technically as in the techniques of the sport. Hopkins wasn't neccessarily more orthodox, he simply learned the craft and art of the sport to a higher degree than either one. If you were teaching a fighter how to box, Hopkins is a much better example than either Jones or Mayweather. He was technically better than both, but when taking into account athleticism Jones was a better fighter. As I said, Hopkins' technique was superior to either of them, and really to anyone else of the era, he mastered the technical aspects of the sport better than anyone of his generation.
thats because you can't teach talent. hopkins was textbook, i agree. but jones and floyd are the reasons why greatness can be achieved.
People make their fight seem like a complete blow out for Roy when it wasnt. Hops was never in any trouble in that fight and he did better against Roy than really anyone else did at that time. Hops had problems with Roys speed and landing. He was missing a lot of shots because Roy was too fast. He did win a few rounds and he won rounds when he was able to get Roy up on the ropes. It was interesting to see that Roy was vulnerable to gettnig up against the ropes this early in his career because this same thing costed him many rounds in the first Tarver fight. I do think that there are a number of adjustments that Hopkins could have made and a few years down the road could have beaten Roy. I dont know if I would favor him but I definitely think it is possible. If they fought today then of course I would pick Hops
Exactly, the original post I commented on said that Hopkins can never be compared to Jones or Mayweather's skill and that they were a different level. While both were more talented, Hopkins was better in a technical sense, more skilled than either one. His athleticism doesn't reach theirs, but his craft and technique is superior to both. Hopkins did not have any spectacular athletic attribute, but became a truly great fighter and a legendary fighter, one who could have tremendous amounts of success well past his best in his early-to-mid 40's because he mastered every technical aspect of the sport, which Jones or Mayweather did not. Jones was an overall better fighter when taking everything into account, but based purely on skills, Hopkins was better than either one. Dedication is the reason why greatness can be achieved, Hopkins, Jones, and Mayweather all had it. Natural ability is not the reason.
i misunderstood you. well said. to a point.....you're trying to use hopkins' longevity as an excuse for lack of natural talent?