Most impressive run: Hopkins, RJJ or Wlad?

I would say this is the consensus verdict among reasonable posters.

 

JC40,

As always, your opinions are welcome.

He's getting a bum rap from me because he hid away from the better competition whilst he was at his best.

Mackie Shilstone who was a sports scientist/strategist, and who trained Michael Spinks and Roy etc, said he was amazed how Bernard physically made MW. He went to extraordinary lengths to fight there. Why did he do that? Because it was easier than fighting the best SMW's and LHW's of the world.

Being dedicated and professional is another thing altogether from hiding away from better competition.

It's the circumstances that make the difference.

Under different circumstances, I may be heaping praise on Bernard. But I can't simply due to the facts.

It's similar to what Calzaghe did at SMW. A guy who absolutely killed himself to make SMW where he defended a lightly regarded belt against mainly C class fighters, when he could have comfortably made LHW instead to face better competition. You can respect his professionalism if you wish. But to me, it was a complete lack of ambition on his part.

Now if you read Bernard's comments, he admitted that he liked to drag up smaller guys to a weight they weren't used to, as it was easier than fighting the guys above.

To me, he shouldn't deserve praise for that.

He wouldn't fight the likes of Roy in 2002 at a C-W, yet he was more than happy to challenge out all of the JMW champs.

I could never celebrate that, no matter who the fighter was.

But it has to depend on the circumstances and who you fight.

The MW division is prestigious. But Bernard ruled a weak era where his most notable wins were against smaller guys who'd moved up to face him.

Correct. And those things count against him for me. Although there was no SMW division back then and they were the days of same day weigh-ins.

The point is, I'm not simply attacking him for being professional and making weight. I'm attacking him for the reasons as to why he did it.

Again, he did it to AVOID better competition, where he enjoyed fighting naturally smaller guys, some of who had once been WW's.

You're basically praising him for being a bully and taking the path of least resistance.

He was very smart to fight Oscar from a business point of view, but I don't think he deserves praise for the actual win, as Oscar looked awful against Sturm and was clearly out of his depth at the weight.

I give him praise for the win over Tito though, as like you've pointed out, he did beat Joppy emphatically, who I thought was a decent fighter. And of course we have to praise him for beating him at an advanced age. His longevity deserves huge respect.

 

So the circumstances don't matter to you at all?

His statements where he said he dragged up smaller guys because it was easier than fighting the guys above, have no bearing on anything?

Seriously?

He wouldn't even entertain fighting Roy at a 168 C-W, but then admitted that he could have fought at LHW years earlier then when he did.

How on earth can you praise a guy for swerving that fight, to call out former WW's instead?

It's unbelievable to support those actions.

 

Hiya mate, it's very simple: He went to extraordinary lengths in order to fight easier opposition.

Nobody is claiming that he had no right to fight there and that he did anything illegal.

It's the reason why he fought there that's been put under the microscope.

He said at the Calzaghe presser that he felt as though he was finally fighting in his real weight class.

He said he liked to drag up smaller fighters because it was easier than fighting the guys at the above weights.

Even after he'd cleaned out the MW division, he was still challenging JMW's/former WW's to come up and face him.

So tell me why those actions should be praised?

Why should we praise a guy who had over 20 fights above MW and who debuted at CW, for dominating a weak division against naturally smaller fighters, when there was better competition for him above?

Please enlighten me.

You are praising a guy who missed out on trying to fight the likes of: Roy, Liles, Calzaghe, Dariusz, Nunn, Griffin, Hill, Reggie Johnson, Tarver and Toney etc, to instead fight guys like Robert Allen 3 times.

His actions shouldn't be celebrated.

We saw what a great LHW he was when he finally moved up.

 

Loudon, I think you make really good points for the most part and I appreciate the fact that you never descend to juvenile name-calling. You also seem to have a good depth for the behind-the-scenes stuff of that era. I think this is a cool thread topic with legit pros and cons being made for all three fighters listed.
In agreement with you RJJ beats Hopkins seven days a week and twice on Sunday at any weight and at any point in their primes. The best version of Roy shuts out the best version of Bernard. I’ll never forget the night they were both on HBO “negotiating” their potential rematch:
Roy “Bernard, I already beat you. The only reason you have a belt now is because I left the division so you could get a belt. You couldn’t get a belt with me still there. 60/40 and I WHOOP YO’ ASS! 60/40 Bernard and I WHOOP YO’ ASS!”
Old snagglepuss just sat there with nothing to say and that said it all.

But...you seem to be pretty willing to overplay his heavyweight foray. Jones deserves minimal recognition for his Ruiz victory. In fact, by the time of that victory it was a microcosm of Roy’s career. A supernaturally gifted fighter blasting a limited to guy - albeit bigger - in order to get a belt and further his statistical greatness but not not seeking true greatness. Ruiz was an awkward, grappling type of guy but not much else. In other words the type of opponent that Jones would feast on. If I remember correctly when Ring Magazine ran their expert poll on this fight 19 out of 20 picked Jones to win.
As far as DM goes, Jones should’ve put everything he had into making that fight happen, even if it meant traveling to Germany and taking short money.
That’s what the great champs of the past did. Those guys seethed greatness from the inside out. Could you imagine Hagler, Leonard, Ali, Duran etc refusing to travel for fear of getting a bad decision? “No, I’m not going to leave my country because I might get robbed by the judges.” Jones in his prime was spoken of as one of the potential ATGs but as he became Reluctant Roy and then btfo by tarver and Johnson he is now viewed as a lesser light.

 

Jackstraw,

Thank you for the kind words.

I too watched that interview live on the Carl Daniels-Glen Kelly double header.

I knew that there was only a very slim chance of the fight happening. But what I didn't know back then, was that HBO and Roy's advisors worked hard to make the fight behind the scenes. And Bernard just didn't want it. It wasn't a case of them not being able to reach a compromise. Bernard deliberately priced himself out in order to fight lesser challenges.

The fight was awful wasn't it. But I give him praise because he'd started to slow down and we didn't know the extra weight would affect him. Although Ruiz was awful to watch, he was a top 10 HW of the era who caused most of the other HW's he fought issues. He had an ugly but effective style that worked for him. Roy just shut him out with ease.

What impressed me more was him going back to fight Tarver. Most people think that he had 8 months to lose the weight. But he didn't. He was still contemplating the right fight at HW at the back end of the summer. Thankfully, he pulled the plug on a Corrie Sanders fight. I think that would have been a disaster. He signed to fight Tarver in September, with the fight in early November. So he only had a few months to burn off the extra muscle in order to make weight. As you saw, he was exhausted in the fight. But it's those circumstances which make the win so great for me. So even though he missed Dariusz and he didn't clear out the division like Bernard did, I think going up to HW and then dropping back to LHW was more of an achievement. And that's because it was harder to do. It was a far bigger challenge than what Bernard took. That's why the circumstances have to be looked at before we just start comparing statistics.

I respect your opinion, but I thought the 'Reluctant Roy' tag was unfair.

That was thrown at him during the Gonzalez fight when people didn't realise what was happening behind the scenes.

Regarding Dariusz, I honestly can't criticise him for not going to Germany. I can't. Not after what he'd endured in the Olympics and after I saw the first fight between Dariusz and Gracianio Rochigianni. The Roy and Dariusz saga has been done to death on here as I'm sure you're aware. But what I've noticed, is that most people who join the debates, haven't actually seen that fight.

I don't know if you've seen it, but take a quick look here:

This content is protected

Now you've got to be honest and ask yourself whether you'd have taken 3 belts to Germany to face a guy who was capable of doing that. Not forgetting the awful refereeing in the Sven Ottke-Robin Reid fight, when Robin was fighting two guys in the ring at once.

Trust me, I was as frustrated as anyone that that fight didn't happen. But it wasn't Roy's fault that Dariusz lost his belts, and at the time, he truly believed that he wouldn't get a fair shake over there. So again, I can't criticise that. It's a real shame that we didn't see it though.

 

Hi London, I thought Roy’s effort in the first Tarver fight was his bravest effort, I thought Roy looked very poor from a physical perspective when the first bell rang. His arms and chest looked a lot less muscular than before he rose in weight to fight Ruiz.

Roy showed a lot of grit in that fight against a fighter I would say was the best light heavyweight Roy faced along with Eric Harding.

I often wonder if it’s coincidence that Roy’s rapid decline coincided with the whole BALCO brouhaha. Perhaps Roy would have stayed at heavyweight if he had access to the same sports science he had prior to the Ruiz fight ( and his light heavyweight career ).

The cynic in me cant help wondering about some of the feats accomplished by modern ( post say 1988 ish ) fighters that have never been done before in over 100 years of boxing history.

Things like Hopkin’s ability as a fighter post age 40. Roy’s ability to rise from 160 to Heavyweight, PacMan’s meteoric rise through the divisions, Floyd’s longevity and ability to still have speed and power at his age. Waldo K’s physical conditioning at his age vs Joshua.

Rant over mate ....

Cheers.

 

Mackie Shilstone told Roy not to drop back to LHW. And Roy admitted a few years ago that he should have listened to him.

PEDS are rife in the sport and I think they were used a lot in the 90's. I'm not naive enough to think that Roy wasn't taking them, and I don't condone anybody taking them. They're obviously illegal. But whilst I know they do give obvious benefits to a fighter, I don't believe that they are the magic potions that many people on here believe them to be.

I don't think Roy's success came from PEDS and that he declined when he stopped taking them.

I believe that it was mainly due to his age.

Roy's unique and unorthadox style was built around split second timing.

He either needed to retire early or change his style as he aged.

Mackie says that burning muscle especially at an advanced age and in a short space of time can affect the immune system. Tarver, Byrd and Dawson also had issues when they burnt muscle. So I think that age slowed Roy's reflexes, the weight loss weakened him, and then the knockouts killed his confidence. So afterwards, he was physically and mentally a different fighter.

 

You've not really gone into detail about any other colours. You've just told me why you dislike purple.

The very same context your applying to purple to justify your dislike for the colour is the very same reason why I think it's the best colour of the three being discussed. The difference is that all of the reasons you believe to be negative, are reasons that I believe to be positive. I haven't mentioned a single statistic so please stop hiding behind the numbers. But again we've been over this.

Stop talking about purple, start talking about other colours instead. Surely you can discuss the benefits of other colours without having to discuss the negatives of purple, right?

 

I'm with you on this one. Fighters are entitled to fight at whatever weight they can make, and to call out whatever big names they can get to fight them. But surely it's more impressive to fight bigger men than smaller men, unless the bigger men are vastly inferior in class and quality?

 

Hello Loudon,

Thank you for your Reply...

I do take onboard your points and, to an extent, can understand why you take the position that you do. You also, quite rightly, seek a "context" to be applied to the numbers, but even context can be variably defined and interpreted which, in this debate, is going to be difficult to balance, since none of the boxers in question are paragons of immaculate righteousness.


You asked: "

This content is protected

"


This would be a good question, if it weren't for the reference to "20 fights above MW" and Hopkins debuting at Cruiserweight, which I'm afraid to say does strike me as you trying too hard to nail Bernard for being this giant, who boiled himself down to 160.

Just the allusion to him being a Cruiserweight at 177lbs, in a bout against an opponent, who weighed in at 174 1/2 lbs, sets the tone for stretching the reality of the situation and pertains to my previously mentioned 'variably defined' context.


So, I find myself firstly considering the core factors of your case against Hopkins; the context; the evidence you provide for that context and then looking at the suggestion of something similar; some circumstances and a provision of context, applicable to each of the other boxers in question.


1. Did Hopkins really go to "extraordinary lengths" to stay at 160?

When I look at those parts of the Mackie Shilstone interview concerning Hopkins, I get the impression that Shilstone is, above all else, promoting himself and his methods. His reference to Hopkins' Middleweight training regime, to me, reads as though he felt Hopkins was probably working unnecessarily hard, i.e. Hopkins' regime was inefficient. This, as opposed to Hopkins going out of his way to make 160, at any cost, so as to gain an advantage.

I also think Hopkins' fight night weigh-ins are a strong indicator that he was not rebounding from making the division limit in any detrimental way, during re-hydration. In fact, him putting on only 6-10lbs, during re-hydration, shows a pattern of stability in his weight, during his middleweight run.


It's also worth noting that there are other useful insights within the Mackie Shilstone interview, which clearly indicate that they had to train Hopkins up to 175.

"

This content is protected

"

Shilstone's comments here appear to be corroborated by visual evidence, when comparing Hopkins' upper-body shape for the OdlH bout with the same for the Tarver bout.


Hopkins says in post-fight interview that he could have gone up earlier but, for all we know, he's making such a statement on the basis that he's only realized this, as a result of being shown how to get to a fighting fit 175lbs by Shilstone.


2. Was Hopkins' primary motive for staying at 160 to fight "easier opposition"?

I think it is too simplistic to accuse Hopkins of taking easier fights and this doesn't sit right with me, given that, a) not all of his opposition at 160 could be considered easy and, b) Hopkins subsequently moved up in divisions and took on fights with bigger guys, when he was at an advanced age - and still made it look easy.

Couldn't it be just as likely that the main drivers for him staying at 160 were a combination of Hopkins being in a glamour division, within which he felt he could excel, having forged a mode of training that he was comfortable with and could use to gain greater financial rewards, as well as make some history/entries into the record books?

In addition, whilst it is true that Hopkins probably had a clear size advantage over several of his Middleweight opponents, I think this was in a minority of his middleweight bouts, rather than the norm.

 

3. How much does the quality of Hopkins' Middleweight run differ from Roy's Light Heavyweight and Wlad's Heavyweight runs?

Rather than focus on whether or not one should be impressed by Hopkins achievements and categorically state that his actions shouldn't be celebrated, why not compare the charges made against Hopkins, which could similarly, be leveled at both Roy and Wlad; particularly, as far as the quality of competition is concerned.


The domination of a weak division appears to be an underpinning factor in the context you apply to Hopkins' reign...


...Given the OP's timeframe (1997-2004) for Jones, we can omit the Pazienza and McCallum farces but, we can also be confident in suggesting that Jones didn't exactly preside over a light heavyweight division that was brimming with stellar talent, either - and yet, he still managed to drop a fight to Griffin and miss his closest rival in Dariusz Michalczewski and, thus, failed to become the Undisputed Light Heavyweight Champion of the world.


However, he rightfully earns kudos for going up and winning his Heavyweight tilt with Ruiz. And, this does stand out as the highlight, of the period, if we're being honest.


During this 8-year run of Roy's, in which he dazzled us with speed and athleticism over mediocrity - until he couldn't dazzle anymore - he achieved a feat in becoming a Heavyweight titlist, though never defended that title, and when he returned to the Light Heavyweight ranks, it effectively signaled the end of his meaningful career.

And, how much this adventure at Heavyweight cost Roy when he returned to 175 is up for debate. I have generally considered the impact to be very much overstated, when it was served up as the reason for his losses to Tarver, in their rematch, and to Johnson immediately after that. Perhaps it did have a significant impact, along with his age, and perhaps those losses are not all that important in the scheme of things, except for it having illustrated that, for all the bedazzlement, Roy relied almost entirely on his physical gifts rather than a skillset.



Wlad, of course, didn't have a higher division to move up to but, by the same token, he had clear physical advantages over most of his opposition and he faced several opponents, who were comparatively very small, e.g. Byrd, Chambers, Haye and Mormeck.


It was a very weak heavyweight division - perhaps the weakest ever, which was not Wlad's fault, but from which he did benefit.


And, on that, Wlad's uninterrupted Championship begins in 2006 and runs for less than 10 years; not the 11 that people like to declare, by combining his separate tenures. It's still impressive, but is riddled with ordinariness and includes maybe one of the worst World Heavyweight Championship fights ever recorded - the dog's dinner, known as Wladimir Klitschko vs. Alexander Povetkin.

Wlad also failed to become the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion, in all that time and, while his brother is used as one reason for Wlad not doing so, Vitali was not active for the whole of Wlad's 2006-2015 reign. Either way, whatever the reason, Wlad never staked his claim of dominant totality, in almost a decade of being a unified titlist.


As a foot note on Wlad's run, I believe Wlad had considered Fury would be an easy night's work, since he was looking ahead and talking about a unification with Wilder, in the build up to the Fury match. But, as we now know, that didn't go according to plan. It was interesting to see how Wlad was unable to cope in a contest, without the ability to hug, smother and maul his opponent in ways, which should have cost him points in previous matches (i.e. against Povetkin). For all the skills it is claimed [by his fans] that he possessed, they seemed to desert him when he was left without having the no-holds-barred wrestling, at his disposal.



Back to Roy and his black mark for bad behavior is obvious. He failed a PED test.


How does that compare to Hopkins having the lifestyle and the discipline for maintaining weight at 160 and his calling out of Light Middleweights? In my opinion, there's no contest here. Roy's actions are the more reprehensible, by some margin, and generate the larger area of doubt.



All-in-all, I get the impression that your line of argument against Hopkins is a well-trodden path for you (that is to say, you've given this much consideration and aired your thoughts before now) and that your viewpoint is no doubt shared by fellow posters. However, I am not sure there is a wide variance between the three fighters in question, especially since it does look as though Hopkins is attracting a loaded critique, which might have some merit, but is not beyond questioning itself.

Therefore, this does appear to be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander and, even if this heavy criticism of Hopkins can hold up (which, in my opinion, it can't), then I would suggest that it speaks to his attitude rather than his abilities and the quality of his run. I think this is particularly the case, given that we know that he subsequently campaigned in a higher division and did face the bigger men, at world level; defying his age in the process, as he delivered a few master classes.

I also don't see how Hopkins' career decisions are comparable to the actions of Roy Jones Jr, at least one of which could be considered a transgression. As I think we've already agreed upon, Hopkins did nothing illegal.


So, ultimately, it comes down to whose run does one think contained the best quality opposition and, to be frank, I'm not going to argue with anyone, who makes a case for Hopkins' having the best run, based on this criterion, because both Roy and Wlad have little to shout about in this department, either.

 

TBF dominating any division is more than almost every boxer in history will ever achieve.

It's a bit like mocking someone for only being a millionaire when there's billionaires out there.