Hopkins greater than Jones if he beats Kovalev

I will concede that head to head, in their prime, Jones would beat Hopkins fairly consistently. I will even concede that Jones was the “better” fight in his prime. But as far as greatness and accomplishments go, Hopkins scores a decisive win. Keeping in mind this objective criteria – quality of opposition, longevity, and dominance. I will concede that quality of opposition is a toss-up. Longevity is not even up for debate. The deciding factor then in my mind is dominance, and while Hopkins was never as exciting or spectacular as a prime Jones was, he was every bit as dominant fight to fight and round to round.

 

People are critical regarding RJJ.

I believe you have to take into account their post-2003 body of work.

I think once a fighter is shot whether he keeps fighting or not doesn’t detract or minimize what he accomplished before then. A loss today shouldn’t take the luster off from victories in past decades, since the two are independent from each other. Take for instance the careers of Duran or Hearns. Both fought well beyond the point they should have retired yet absolutely no one thinks their careers and what they accomplished look less impressive because of that.

If the comparison is between greatest accomplishments or who accomplished more then it doesn’t matter if those accomplishments came in just a part of an entire career or throughout an entire one. Same thing if you want to compare who was better if you take both of them at their best. Now if you want to compare who had the best career overall then yes, it is fair game to include the entire career. Personally I think Hopkins has had the better career and the better accomplishments of the two (regardless of how he does against Kovalev), however I think Jones was the better fighter of the two if I compare them both at their peak.

After all, beating guys like Shumenov and Murat is what Jones spent his prime years doing!

By the time Roy was 35 he had already taken on and beaten the likes of Hopkins, Toney, McCallum, Ruiz, and Tarver, going from MW to HW, and back down to LHW. Granted, RJJ can never be accused of taking all comers or all of the toughest guys around, but unless you think his prime occurred past his 35th birthday I’d say he took on more than just the Shumenov’s and Murat’s of the world. He didn’t take on all the big threats, but he didn’t just avoided them all either.

a.) Was never the true champion in any single division he fought at.

What would you consider the true champion? Unifying all the titles? Because while doing that is great, not doing so doesn’t necessarily mean that a fighter is not the best in the division and thus “the true champion” of it. A current example of this would be GGG, he doesn’t have all the belts, nor has he faced everyone, and given the current boxing landscape chances are he never will, but I think most people already consider him the true champion of the division even if he never fights Cotto or Quillin.

b.) Had distinctly average technique, which was masked by extraordinary athleticism (and exposed once the reflexes slipped just a tad).

I think all technique is masked by athleticism whether you have textbook technique or a more unconventional one like RJJ. The best technique for each fighter should be the one that best takes advantage of the physical traits a fighter brings to the table. Maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses. On that front Jones technique was great. His failure later in his career was his inability to adapt as he grew older. Hopkins longevity hasn’t necessarily been because he had/has better technique than Jones, but because as he grew older he adapted his technique to what worked best with what his body could do.

To expand on this point, take the likes of Mayweather or Marquez. Both are considered among the best technicians in the sport today yet give Mayweather’s technique to someone who doesn’t have his same level of speed, reflexes, and smarts, and you end up with boxing’s sushi menu: The Berto Roll, The Canelo Roll, and the Broner Roll.

Same for Marquez, give his exact technique to a guy that doesn’t have his chin, recuperative abilities, or power, and you get a fighter that gets stopped every other fight and struggles to keep up with both offensive and defensive guys.

Wlad Klitschko is another example. He is considered very solid technique wise and often consider the better of the two brothers in terms of pure skill. But now imagine his technique on a guy that is most of the time significantly shorter, with less reach, lighter, and with less pop in his jab than his opponent. How successful do you think a guy like that would be good technique or not?

Do you see my point?

c.) Ushered in the era of HBO-funded mismatches, thanks to his absurd contracts and enormous guarantees regardless of opposition.

Big contracts and absurd mismatches have been part of boxing for a very long time, well before Jones came into the picture.

I honestly don’t see anything so outrageous in his legacy to consider it damaging to the sport as you mention, and I really can’t see any significant portion of fans not remembering in awe what Roy could do at his best.