How Good Was Bernard Hopkins In His 1993 Loss To Roy Jones?

Exactly, it is a good win to say the least. Severely underrated and always written off as pre-prime. I won't argue with that as i can see where it comes from, but the extent of the write off is far too much imo, it gets called a nothing win.

 

I think it's dumb when some discredit the win from Roy by saying he beat a pre-prime Hopkins, though it may be true to some extent, Roy was still a young fighter himself in that fight. That was both men first title shot.

And if one watches that fight like I did very recently, you can clearly see that Hopkins has the same fighting technique in that Roy fight as he did in his prime years.

 

He was very good..Still had a fair bit of polishing to do with his jab and defense..but physically he looked great and you could see the technique, conditioning and natural ring smarts were all there.

To tell you the truth I dont know if older, cagier and more experienced would have done any better against Roy. Young Nard stole some rounds with a good workrate and smothering Jones...He was more aggressive those days and I remember several commentators in his earlier fights calling him the puncher and his opponent the boxer when giving a rundown of the combatants. The conservative counterpuncher Nard was in a lot of later fights surely wouldnt have seen him fair any better.

The fact Roy did that a bad hand adds a little bit to it aswell.

 

WAR what's going on brother?....long time no speak.

 

The only thing more ridiculous than people discrediting the Hopkins win is people discrediting the Toney win.

 

He was pre-prime just look at their next fights. RJJ ko's a man made out of concrete in Malinga in a good fashion and Hopkins looks good but not as polished as he became. IMHO, I thought his prime started with the second Mercado fight. Not taking away from Roy as Bernard was still a very, very good fighter so therefore that was a very, very good win at that time. I thought Roy was prime starting at around 93 and Hopkins' started in '95(some say 96 or 97 but I have no problem with that).

 

Bernard definitely got much better, but was no helpless baby. It's a terrific win, and part of a terrific overall run at MW/SMW through the early and mid 90's.

 

I wouldn't say terrific but definitely very, very good especially when you consider that he did that with a broken hand. A win shouldn't "appreciate" just because Hopkins got better as they still fought before Hopkins became polished. Still a capable fighter that was very good and possibly few of that time from that division would beat '93 Hopkins. Not at his best yet but still very good. Very, very good win for Roy.

 

extremely good. Roy was Roy

 

Christ, I just looked that tape over... Hopper was timid / green in 1993, but, had great potential.... Jones was too slick and quick at RFK in 1993 on HBO... But, now, I revere Hopper as the greater fighter in 2011... WORD! B-Hops has stood the test of time, where as Jones has not...
bbb

MR.BILL:hat

 

Jones went undefeated from 1988 to 2003. I'd say that's quite a bit of longevity

 

People who write this win was very, very good, great or terrific are just as bad as people who write it of as just a pre-prime win. It was not a win like McLarnin´s over LaBarba. Hopkins was a contender at the time. Not yet in his prime, still 3-4 years removed from it, but he had already some experience even so against inferior opposition to Jones. He wasn´t thought of as a future atg or anything special. Jones himself just entered his prime, was seen as the next big thing, a future atg and something special. He was more seasoned due to his amateur career.
The big difference is Jones success came from his physical abilities, his athleticism, speed, dynamic, explosiveness. Hopkins greatness came from his discipline, experience, and boxing brain. What made Hopkins great needs a while to develop. What amkes Jones great is just there, especially when you are young.
So, we have one fighter who was a decent contender and looked good so far but didn´t beat anyone of note and who largely lacked what made him great later on. On the other hand you have a fighter who already had everything that made him great. And who just entered his prime, not his peak though. It is just that. A good win over a good contender. But not a great win over an atg. It´s not a Top5 win of Jones IMO.

 

In the build up, Hopkins was considered tough but limited, a legitmate puncher, the victory seemed to show RJJ in a bad light, an unispiring so, so performance.

 

45 year old Hopper schooled the 41 year old Jones to the max in the meaningless 2010 rematch... I dug it all the way... Hopper is way more athletic in his 40s than the faded Jones can ever dream of being... TRUTH!

MR.BILL