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

The people who write it off like Bodhi have a very clear agenda, Bodhi is a big Darius and Rochiagani fan and a big Jones hater, he pretends to be objective but it becomes pretty obvious. Notice he completely ignores primeness of opposition with his fave fighters like Monzon

 

Jones already beat Castro who had over 65 fights I think and was a decent contender - love how he turned the fight against John David Jackson.

 

There were some fair bit of scepticism against him at the time. Many had always been sceptical of his style and felt that his perfomances against Jones and Cooper had vindicated their view of him. Had Liston beaten him and he had retired after that, it would not be seen as a very special win.

 

Jones's competition was better. Castro especially was a tough, if limited guy and "taught" him about the physicality, hitting him with some good shots early. His father did have him fight horrible competition early on but it got better once Jones separated from him. He also had a fine amateur background.

I'd say Hopkins's best learning experience was against Gilbert Baptist, but how much can you learn from fighting a journeyman?

As a sidenote, Gerald McClellan and Manny Steward had a disagreement over a fight with Baptist later, as Steward felt McClellan should go rounds with Baptist but McClellan decided to finish him off in a matter of seconds.

 

Guys like you and lefthook31 are good posters but when it comes to Jones your brains just shut down. I don´t write it off, read the thread. I like Rocchigiani, yes. I´m not a fan of Michaelchweski though. Mostly for the sh*t he did to Rocchigiani in their first meeeting. But anyway, you are one of the guys who thinks that somebody loves a fighter when he says something positive about him and hates a fighter when he says something negative, so your opinion on this is worth ****. :good

 

I can agree with this. In a way he seems to have trapped himself in his style, because I believe he had other tools to use but just neglected them.

 

Not a special win, but it would have added to his resume. A former Olympic gold medalist, unbeaten and ranked at the top of the division. Ali had his detractors, but these people were against him as much for his mouth as his fighting abilities.

 

Castro was a light middle at the time, who had beaten no one of note ,and had lost to his only real name fighter [ Norris].

 

Yes, Jones actually was a very good ring general, nearly on par with Hopkins IMO, and he is very good at judging distance and doing things at the right time. He could have lasted longer if he adepted, similar to Hopkins. Don´t get why he didn´t.

 

You have no objective ground to stand on Jones. 'Not in his top5 wins' - so go on, which 5 fighters Jones beat, beats that version of Hopkins??? - Lets see the troll run from that question....:hi:

I'm not getting involved in the debate, people who hate him will discredit the win, I'm just exposing you as the troll you are

 

Yes, but better than all the guys Hopkins fought together.

 

Yes, it would be seen as a win over a decent contender. Probably below his wins over Folley and Machen, but still a decent win.

But I was just using it as an example that you can't always use "what he was viewed as at the time"-principle. Hopkins wasn't yet what he would become, but he probably was better than the general assesement of him at the time.

 

This is the kind of damage Jones was doing pre-Hopkins:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neNo3hRRDT0[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ZpQVdhcjA[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa0z94yQ8xM[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOs39bxFb18[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVCXPf1QhjY[/ame]

 

The only thing you are exposing is yourself.

Jones´ Top5 wins IMO:
1. Toney
2. Ruiz
3. Tarver
4. Hill
5. Griffin II

 

I think you would admit you strongly dislike Jones Jr, and sometimes your dislike for Jones overshadows sensibility. To say Jones superior atheleticism was all that was needed to beat that version of Hopkins proves my point. That is what your saying correct? Here you can read it again.

What made Jones great needed time to develop too and suggesting that Hopkins gained the experience needed to beat a guy like Jones at his peak is unlikely in my opinion based on other opponents performances against him, but impossible to guage. James Toney was pretty close to being equally equipped as Hopkins ever became to defeat Jones when they fought and he was shutout.
Hopkins was a contender with more fights than Jones when they fought. Were Jones pre Hopkins opponents and his amatuer experience that far superior to Hopkins career to that point? What makes you think Jones entered his prime at that time and Hopkins didnt, because Jones beat him and burned out quicker? I'd say Hopkins was as seasoned a pro as Jones was at the time they fought.