Hopkins & Jones only got better after their first fight so....

i think jones anytime from when they first fought till he beat ruiz UD's hopkins on workrate

 

Jones didn't change after fighting Hopkins.

Hopkins changed after fighting Jones.

Jones even in 2003 was not a radically different fighter from in 1993.

Hopkins even in 2000-2001 was a radically different fighter from in 1993.

 

I don't understand your thread then.

 

Jones wasn't at the apex of his success, but you tell me how he was different at the apex from how he was in 1993. The only thing that had changed was the times. Roy never changed greatly in 10 years, he was as good in 1993 as he ever was. Some fighters are like that, Ray Leonard was as good in the Benitez fight in 1979 as he ever was IMO.

Hopkins became a completely different fighter over the course of his career. The early-mid 2000s version was very, very different from the 1993 version.

That Hopkins was further from the finished article is not even up for debate as I see it.

 

I'm glad someone is.

 

Hopkins had only been the championship distance twice before he fought Jones, and he had never beaten any top fighters. Plus he didn't have the same kind of extensive amateur background as Jones, at least not to the same extent. Jones was definitely closer to his best than Hopkins was.

I think the best Roy ever looked was from 1994-1998, with his absolute peak as his time at smw from 94-96. I think the best B-Hop ever looked was around about 1997-2003, with his absolute peak as 2000-2001. Bernard's physical prime was around 1997, but I don't think he had fully developed his style by that point. By 2000-2001, there was more emphasis on defence and less on aggression.

Jones's best all-round performance was Toney in '94 (though he was great against Pazienza, Hill, Hall, Griffin II - he achieved a similar standard of performance throughout his career), and he sharply stopped looking like himself once he returned from heavyweight. In the 1st Tarver fight, I knew the Roy we knew was gone, despite the fact he got the decision.

Hopkins's best all-round performance was Trinidad in '01, and I also thought he was brilliant in the second Echols fight in 2000. If you look at B-Hop in 95, 96, when he was chopping down the likes of Frank, Lipsey, Jack, Jackson, that was a Hopkins that came forward more, threw more punches, went for the stoppage more, initiated more. By 2004, I think B-Hop was noticeably declined. Although he stopped Oscar, he wasn't the same potent force he had been a couple of years earlier. And B-Hop has been clearly past-prime ever since. When a fighter allows him to dictate the pace (Tarver, Pavlik), he outclasses them. But when a fighter stays busy and fights at pace, he has to conserve energy and fight in bursts, and often it's not enough to sway the judges (Taylor, Calzaghe).


That's my 'two cents' on the issue.

 

Roy wasn't at his peak when he fought Hopkins and vice-versa. However, Roy was much closer to his peak than Hopkins was to his. That said, I think prime Roy would beat prime Hopkins 10 out of 10 times by decision, he was just too fast and you simply couldn't outbox/counter-punch Roy with his speed edge.

From an overall career standpoint though, without the same athleticism, Roy's star has fallen much faster than B-Hop's obviously, and as a result who has had the better career is questionable.