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

Even at his supposed peak, I never saw Hopkins really dominate in the same way Jones did. He had some sticky moments with Jones level or below opposition, Allen and Echols.

 

Course you don't but its been exposed on this thread :yep

 

Why is having a close fight 'looking terrible'? Didn't Hopkins look as bad against Allen/Echols? Jones wasn't at his best that night, he was in the rematch. Hopkins turned down 40% to face that Jones, so I think that answers the question, he didn't fancy it

 

Oh my dear friend, you are the one here attacking other posters personaly, not me. So, if someone get´s exposed it is you and you do it all by yourself.

 

Nothing personal, just highlighting the clear agenda

 

Which would be?

 

That you have a deep seeded hatred for anyone with personality or charisma, anyone who is popular and anything that is mainstream.

 

Ok. Thanks.

 

You must at least see how crazy this seems to the rest of us. A 28-year old fighter, with amateur background and 20+ pro fights would in 3-4 years go from being of no more than decent contender quality to one of the best MWs of all time. That would make it probably the most amazing transformation in boxing history.

 

:yep Exactly what I gave up on saying before.

 

I guess that explains me beeing a fan of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, Roberto Duran and Bernard Hopkins. :good

Oh, and I hate nobody. My time is too precious for that.

Is it really that crazy? A late bloomer who as a younger guy is just a decent to good contender but as he gathers experience would become a great mw. It isn´t crazy when you take into account that his greatest asset, expeirence, comes with fights and learning experiences. Aren´t there a few examples out there? What about Jersey Joe Walcott? Or even Archie Moore fits here somewhat. Sorry but that´s neither unique nor crazy.

 

Neither of those are really good examples for comparison. They fought under non-existent management - often going hungry before fights and having to take on fights when working long hours to support themselves. No matter how skilled you are, you're going to find it tough to perform well under such circumstances. When they got proper management, their careers took off.

Hopkins didn't have those kind of circumstances. For a reasonably well managed fighter at his peak age going from decent contender quality to ATG quality in just 3-4 years is unheard of as far as I know. And it was only ca 10 fights between the fight with Jones and the one with Johnson for example. He went from a 28-year old with amateur background and 20+ pro fights to a 32-year old with 30+ pro fights.

 

Yes, only 10 fights. But look at those. Jones and Mercado I were big learning experiences for him. I wrote it before in this thread, I think the loss to Jones played a big role in him becoming what he became.

Anyway, a question for you. Do you think atgs start out as atgs? Do you think there was a time in the career of Ali where he was just a decent contender? Perhaps quite early? Or was he always an atg? Because IMO when he met Cooper he was just a good contender, not an atg.

 

I dont think Hopkins was that type of fighter though, I believe he's always going to make it seem like a relatively close fight due to his cautious tentative nature, which is more evident against the better fighters he's faced. Hopkins isn't out there to look good, he isn't out there to close the show, he's purely out there for the W, which might explain why he's been in so many (perceived)boring fights.


Agree, Echols gave him a helluva fight, that said, Ruben Castillo, Pat Cowdell, gave Salvador Sanchez a helluva fight. Vilomar Fernandez beat! Alexis Arguello, and he was hardly a stellar fighter, albeit he had underrated toughness, my point is, some fighters fight to the level of their opponent.