Judging them on RESUME ONLY, who is top of the three - JONES, HOPKINS or TONEY?

I am not sure why anyone thinks Toneys resume is not phenomenal. It is insane. I don't know who the vote for, on resume alone. They all have good resumes. And I think, perhaps, you are underrating Jones. If you look into his resume, you will see a lot more than the average nonsense displayed on this forum. But I personally, TBH, think Toney's resume is the best -- I wish I could change my answer. And I don't think B-Hop is a the greater fighter out of the bunch -- Jones is imo.

 

:good:good:good:good

 

I say Hopkins. He did not duck anyone did not handpick his fights etc.

 

I probably am writing off Roy's run at 175 too easily, but in my book he beat a very raw Hopkins and a very unfocused Toney, so the H2H wins, I take with a large grain of salt.

Roy's career in his late thirties can't hold a candle to Bernard's, and not even to Toney's. Ordinarily you would say "who cares" and focus on prime acheivements, but in this case he has to stand up to a freak still beating up guys who could be his children, and a hard headed old bad ass who for better or for worse, has never quite gone away. The Johnson and Tarver fights take him out of the "resume" discussion. And as I reread this, I realize I just left the Tiberi door wide open. That's what makes these decisions almost impossible.

In any case, the OP made resumes his focus. That prime Roy at 168 very possibly makes any version of Hopkins or Toney look silly isn't a point I'd argue very hard against.

 

Remember Jones has hopkins and toney on hes resume. And he dominated them.

For the guy that said hopkins easily becasue he been in the ring with Tito, DLH, Jones, Calzaghe, Winky, Pavlik, Taylor, Tarver, Johnson.....you can say yeh tito, dlh former welterweights...winky and pavlik at 170??, lost to calzaghe and jones....doesnt sound so impressive now does it....

 

I know...you love him:yep

 

Hopkins also has two dominant wins over fighters who KTFOd Roy.

 

? antonio tarver and johnson.....no offence but resume wise they dont exactly propel him above rjj.

 

James Toney has the best resume of the three.
(Nunn, McCallum, Jirov and Holyfield being the best)


In terms of legacy, it is a different story as Toney has been inconsistent and often out of shape.

 

It is Hopkins,Jones and then Toney if there were an order. Hopkins has the better wins over the top fighters and his middleweight reign was impressive. Hopkins beating Tito,Wright,Tarver and Pavlik when all of them were top fighters means something, and he did it with the odds more against him. Hopkins beat everyone at middleweight (except Roy) and then goes on to fight the elite and still win near and above 40- Hard to top that. Roy was next, yet Roy did not take on the challenges I feel Hopkins did and would have had he been in Jones shoes. As for James, Toney fought them all but lost his top fights or had some complications which Jones or Hopkins did not-The names on the resume of Toney are great, but the wins were not sure a thing as with Jones or Hopkins. The fact that James did not win the light heavyweight title is interesting. Why didn't he get a shot at the title? Toney vs. Hill or Jones at light heavyweight would have been a good fight. I think he was 50/50 to beat Hill and Jones would have probably outpointed him again.

 

atsch:-(

 

Hopkins has an impressive resume.

But, Toney has the best one.
Beating prime and undefeated Nunn, near prime McCallum(with only one loss), beating prime and undefeated Reggie Johnson, prime and undefeated Jirov ...not to forget that he has a solid heavyweight record.