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

I disagree here. He would become better than people thought he could. But at the time he wasn´t.

 

Cmon I dont even think you believe this.

 

I've also pondered this. Because already as a teenager he showed off the ability to stick and move in a technically correct manner against a top pro. Had he reverted to that style as he aged, he would have lasted longer.

But I guess it's a psychological thing. Once you have done something with such success for such a long time, you perhaps don't dare to leave it behind. He could also just plain have forgotten some of the fundamentals he painstakenly learned when young.

 

So you're saying Lazy Tarver, Griffin and past prime Hill beats 28yo Hopkins

 

Boxing is habits, once you have a habit you use it, even if you lose the ability to get away with certain things you use them. Thats why its so hard change for any boxer to improve/change much after several years of boxing and why anyone thinking Hopkins went from novice to ATG after 15years of boxing an absolute no nothing idiot, ie Bodhi

 

I wouldn't put it past them. Both were 15 lbs bigger for a start.

 

Hops started at 175, Griffin was always smaller than Hopkins, Tarver went to an SD against the smaller Reggie Johnson and Hops was always great against Southys, plus this version of Hopkins has far more in the tank than the 40yo who beat Tarver. Hill in his prime was bossed by Hearns and was never a massive puncher to impose his size

 

Yes, I dislike Jones. As a person. I dislike Ali too. As a person. I dislike Floyd Mayweather too. As a person. I dislike Joe Calzaghe too, as a person. I admire all of them as fighters and love watching them fight. but I guess that´s too complicated for you people.

You should learn to read properly. I never wrote that all Jones needed was his superior athleticism. Please show me where I wrote that. You won´t find it. What I wrote that the assets that made Jones a great fighter were already there, meaning the asstes that allowed him to defy the rules of boxing, the boxing textbook, turn it upside down and looking awesome while doing so. Everybody who denies that should get glasses or should stop watching boxing.
I also never wrote Hopkins would beat Jones at his peak. Please show me where I did. I wrote that what made Hopkins great needed tiome to develop. It´s experience, you don´t have that in the beginning of your career fighting journeymen.
I wrote it in the past and I write it again, I doubt Hopkins would ever beat Jones. He may make him look worse than ever before, he may make him work and fight harder than ever before but he won´t beat him.
What makes me think that? Well, that he didn´t look that much different than he did against Toney. Remember there´s a difference between prime and peak.
What makes me think Jones experience was better? Because he beat already a guy like Castro who had more than 65 fights or something? A seasoned pro with loads of experience. This is a big learning experience that Hopkins didn´t have. That while Jones competed against the best of the world in the olympics and so on as an amateur, Hopkins competed with prison inmates. Quite a difference and only someone who is biased won´t admit this. But of course it´s me who is biased and a "hater".

 

Nice clips. Thanks!

 

Does anyone know the odds before the fight? Or what the experts were saying?

 

Hopkins claims he was out of condition during his debut.

Even Reggie Johnson admits that Tarver beat him fair and square, and knowing Reggie he always complained about losses (often justifiably). For example he doesn't think Toney beat him.

Hopkins of 1993 did not have the experience of fighting southpaws that he later did. I believe he went something like 7-0 against southpaws during his middleweight reign. You can only learn how to fight against them from experience.

Hearns is still much different from Hopkins of 1993 as he had an all-time great jab, and Hill relied mostly on his left.

 

A Philadelpia newspaper says the odds were 4 to 1 against Hopkins.

"Hopefully a better fighter than a mugger, Hopkins is a 4-1 underdog"[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]"Roy Jones Jr. is widely considered to be the brightest prospect in boxing, Enter Hopkins, a hard-punching ex-convict who, despite the 4-1 odds against"

 

Yes, I do. I think at the time Jones fought those men they were better than Hopkins at the time Jones fought him. I wouldn´t mind if someone puts Hopkins above Griffin though.

I don´t think he forgot, when you hear him commenting he knows everything. I guess it´s really just that. Routine. Why change something that took you so far?

I just wait until you start insulting me again and call me a racist, nazi and other names, to show off how desperate you are.

They were also more tested at the top, had more experience.

Desperate.

 

Thanks!

 

That's probably so.