Most impressive run: Hopkins, RJJ or Wlad?

Oh dear.

What a load of absolute nonsense.

Nothing but deflection.

You're just wasting my time, trying to be clever with your colour analogy.

The only guy hiding behind the numbers is here, is you.

I've said that every single factor affects the worth of something. Yet you have said that the most important factor for you, is the fact that he cleaned out the division whilst the others didn't. That means that you don't really care about the factors at all and that you are only interested in that statistic. Well, common sense and objectivity should see you analysing the factors more than what you have. Comparing numbers means nothing. It's the circumstances that count.

Sure, Bernard cleared out the division. But it was easy for him to do so, as again he was fighting weaker and smaller guys. He dragged guys up and fought guys like Allen 3 times. Whereas Roy on the other hand, moved up to his THIRD weight class and dominated naturally BIGGER fighters, where he knocked out guys like Griffin and Hill in style, (4 rounds combined) which culminated in him winning a portion of the HW belt, before then taking on a HUGE challenge in fighting Tarver despite being depleted from burning muscle. Yet you want to ignore that, just on the grounds that Bernard cleared out his division yet Roy didn't. Ha! It's an absolute joke.

I could respect your opinion if you could give me some specific reasons. But all you've got is the fact that Bernard comes out on top, on the grounds that Roy missed Dariusz and Wlad missed Vitali.

Now instead of deflecting by saying "stop talking about purple...." please tell me how you have no issues with Bernard's comments, where he admitted that he liked to drag up and bully smaller guys, because it was easier than fighting the guys up at SMW and LHW instead?

On what planet can those admissions be seen as a POSITIVE??

He should be ranked third on those admissions alone. Yet for some warped reason, you have no issue with him being a bully, and you somehow see it as great that he beat up former WW's in style. It's pathetic.

Bernard took 2 attempts to grab the IBF belt that Roy LEFT. If Roy could have remained at MW, we wouldn't even be talking about Bernard's undisputed reign as it wouldn't exist. After beating Mercardo he was then happy to fight whoever was put in front of him for SIX YEARS, until he beat Holmes and Tito. Yes, he's got the stats. He's got the 20 plus title defences. But which guy had it harder? The guy who shrunk himself down in order to avoid the bigger and better guys, or the guy who moved up into his 3rd weight class in order to fight bigger guys, that included going up to HW and back? The answer should be obvious. Again, we shouldn't just be looking at the stats. We should be looking at the degree of difficulty and who took on the biggest challenges etc.

Regarding Wlad, or should I say the colour orange, (is that okay for you?) he/it didn't overly impress me. His competition wasn't great. But, he fought everybody he could. He fought the best available fighters just like Roy did. Now that shouldn't be confused with him fighting THE best competition, because we know he didn't fight his brother for obvious reasons. But he fought the best guys available to him other than Vitali. And Roy did the same. Yes, he missed Dariusz, but he fought pretty much everyone else who was relevant. Whereas Bernard didn't. Yes, he fought the best guys available to him at MW, but THE best guys that were available to him fought in the divisions above. That's the difference.

Roy (aqua blue) comes out on top, because he achieved more and took on the bigger challenges.

Now unless you're going to come back and debate me in a proper manner, don't come back to me at all.

 

Roy Jones Jr was like when he was undefeated like Iron Mike and the Marrickville Mauler. Once they suffered that first loss they loss that aura of invincibility and there psyche was never the same.

 

Regarding purple, as I've said, for the 6th or 7th time now, the reasons which you believe to be negative, I believe to be positive. We are saying the same thing, it's just I think it's positive and you think it's negative. Hide behind any stats you want but we've done purple to death now.

So all you have in favour of Orange is that he fought the best available opposition, despite then admitting he didn't fight the best available opposition. So the only positive you have is that he fought the next best after his main rival who he never faced. And that is enough for me to rank him second is it? You went very in depth with purple but with orange you have just this pitiful argument.

As for blue, all you have there he achieved more and took on the bigger challenges.

Can we see how as you're going further up your list you're actually saying less about the men.

You seem quite happy dismissing purple on the "admission" that he was able to make MW and fight fellow MW title holders. But then you won't dismiss the other two colours who failed to face their biggest rival.

It seems to me like you're being a bit colour blind here. The question at hand is who's run impresses the most. It isn't asking who's the greatest fighter, it isn't asking who's the most skillful, it's asking who had the most impressive run.

Jones Jr begins his run by avenging his sole defeat and then fighting everyone apart from his biggest rival in the LHW division. He jumped up to HW impressively beating a solid top 5 HW. He then dropped back down again and edged out a fight against one of the best LHW fighters. He did this whilst always displaying dazzling skills but never proved himself against his biggest divisional rival. Is his resume during this time particularly amazing, no not for me. The Hill victory is probably the best and he was at the end of his career. Beating Ruiz was good but was it as good as him beating DM, not for me no. Moving up doesn't impress me as much as it does you. In terms of moving up did he face the biggest rivals in that division, no, he fought the weakest belt holder and quickly returned to LHW again. This run is good, but it's the third bets for me. He didn't clean out his division, he didn't face his biggest rival and moving up to fight Ruiz doesn't erase those knocks for me.

Wladimir started his run in an elimination against Peter in a fight where he finally proved he could survive against a big puncher. It took him 8 years to face the next best HW in Povetkin so whilst he did eventually face his rivals he spent a large portion of his run sharing the era with his big brother. Not only that but he was arguable the lesser title holder during this shared reign. Many people argued who the best HW was during this time. I rank him second on the list because he did eventually end any doubt as to who the best HW was, and that's only really because no one took Stiverne or Wilder seriously back then. But Wlad did dominate his division eventually and for that he deserves huge credit. In terms of this run, more so than Jones.

Then we have Hopkins. A man who, as you admit, was able to make weight for a decade. A man who, as you admit, defeated each and everyone of his MW peers. A man who, as you admit, was able to bully his division throughout his reign. A man who, as you admit was able successfully repel the challenges from the lower weight classes. He left no stone unturned throughout his tenure. He didn't fail to face his biggest rival. He didn't share his reign. Had he failed to face Holmes, Joppy, Tito or Oscar I would not be placing him number 1 on this comparison. But he did. Had he moved up and faced Calzaghe (pre unification) instead of winning that tourney I would not be placing him number 1 on this comparison. Sure jumping up two divisions to take in arguably the best LHW would have been a big achievement but here today he isn't being compared against someone who did that. He's being compared against two people who never faced their biggest rival. He's being compared against one man who jumped weight once but didn't take on the best in that division. He's being compared against one man who shared his division with his bigger brother.

You have said nothing to elevate either man above Hopkins in my opinion. The things you have said about Hopkins are things that I consider to be positives. When given the opportunity to elevate either man you said one guy beat the best apart from the best and you said one guy achieved more. Your arguments were not very convincing at all.

Don't go on repeating the same thing again because you'll just receive the same answers again and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result.

Here's on for you, in your next post try only talking about orange and blue, try talking those two up instead of talking purple down. Let's see if you can stick to that.

 

No offense bro but you have had dialogue/debate with about 6 different guys on this thread. Most of us have checked out because it really was not going anywhere. It is obvious you are slanted against Hop’s towards RJJ and perhaps indifferent to Wlad. You have your mind made up and while the facts are there for all of us to see, you are clearly interpreting them differently. I am not even going to say I think you are wrong or right anymore. But your interpretation of the facts has a different negative spin from you than the way most of the posters you have had dialogue with. Most of those posters are seen as unbiased and even keeled able to debate and exchange ideas.

You seem to have a grasp on the history details even if I think your interpretation is faulty or harsh. To be honest I look forward to discussing boxing with you in the future on other threads....it just seems this one has run its course. Have a Happy New Year mate

 

Theres nothing Obvious that you understand because at Heavyweight it is FAR more difficult to stay on top no matter how much you want to discredit a certain fighter. Even when you factor other fighters like Louis,Marciano and Ali all had questionable wins at some point...Wlad never has.

If you did research you would see most top guys take an L at HW when they go past 20 fights and rarely do they get past fight 35 without a loss. To go from fight 46th fight to 67 without losing is vastly superior at Hw then other two here.

Just ask Lewis who many consider the best modern HW who lost in his 4th title defense and never had a streak as long as Wlads. Wlad dominated at his peak and has the longest longetitvity yet you want to ignore that.

 

Correct.

Again, Bernard did nothing wrong. But the fact that he admitted to what he did simply has to affect the worth of his reign.

 

I kind of agree. When I picked off of the top of my head I had Hops, RJJ Wlad. But felt we were splitting hairs and still do. Even after my deeper look I am not sure there is a difinitive right or wrong answer.

Hops and Wlad had nearly double the amount of fights than the less active RJJ during these mentioned time periods. I agree it is harder to accomplish at HW and gave a slight edge to Wlad (very slight). I also think RJJ going from MW to HW and beating Ruiz is the most impressive of the singular accomplishments during the time span. If given substantial weight RJJ can be placed on top.

I stand by my picks of
Wlad/Hops
RJJ

But I don’t feel any order if weighed fairly is out of the realm of possibility. 3 extremely dominant fighters during one era, we really are splitting hairs to determine which is more impressive IMO

 

The problem is the H W class itself is a reason to give Klitschko the vote here , maybe not the fighter himself because the actual punches coming back at a fighter at HW will in all lilkelihood cause an upset at this class which is why a long streak is more note worthy in this class.

Interesting note Louis , Come back Foreman and Wlad all took first losses in their 25 th fight.

 

Man_Machine,

Likewise, thank you for your well thought out reply.

I respect your opinions. But no, I don't believe that I have unfairly implied that Bernard was a giant who boiled himself down. Yes, although 177 pounds is officially CW, it's obviously only a few pounds above LHW. But it was still LHW for a guy who prides himself on his discipline and his lifestyle. In the past, I've read numerous interviews with Bernard, as well as from his former legendary trainer, Bouie Fisher. They both state that when they started working together in 1989, Bernard was an absolute gym rat who was always constantly there working hard every single day. He's always had that discipline for training. He's always had that motivation. So even back in the early days, he was always in great shape. Now if you put his early record under the microscope, you'll see that he hovered in-between MW-SMW for a long time. And he wasn't just coming in a few pounds over, in some fights he was actually weighing in at 165-168 pounds. And he hovered between the 2 divisions like that until 1994.

The question that needs to be asked, is:

If he was so comfortable at MW, why wasn't he always at MW? Because coming in up to 8 pounds heavier is a very significant amount of weight to a gym rat who prides himself on his work ethic.

My theory is:

He assessed the landscape before he made the commitment.

As you know, in the early 90's, the MW division was absolutely stacked with talent. But by the time Bernard finally made the commitment to fight there for a prolonged period, most of the great fighters had either moved up in weight or retired, thus making the division significantly weaker.

What that just a coincidence?

Or did Bernard hold back until he saw an opening?

People may think I'm biased with a vendetta etc, but remember, I haven't just given you my opinions. I have given you Bernard's own opinions. Opinions straight from the horses mouth, where again, he admitted that it was easier to fight those MW's, rather than the bigger fighters above. Which tells me that he always wanted to take the path of least resistance. So although I can appreciate that he didn't get the exposure that Roy did and it wouldn't have been easy for him to have just gone out and immediately fought guys like Toney and McCallum etc, I have to query why he wasn't at least in their division trying to make waves.

My theory on the matter is:

He was very calculated, and he specifically waited to strike at the right time.

In my honest opinion, you guys can't have it both ways. If he was a guy who was a gym rat who you think easily made MW, you simply have to question why it took him 5 years to commit to the division, and why this revered fitness fanatic was weighing in at 165, 166 and 168 pounds.

Again, I respect your opinion. But I've read enough from Bernard, Mackie, Bouie and Naz Richardson to answer - yes. He lived with the discipline of a monk. Measuring out units of food. Living in the gym, even missing his sister's wedding etc. Again, we also have his comments from his 2008 press conference with Calzaghe.

His weight was stable. Mackie was hugely impressed by that. He trained his body down and then kept it at a certain level. Ordinarily, I would be extremely impressed by the incredible dedication. But certainly not after reading his reasoning behind it.

Bernard had trained like that for 12 years, so yes, he had to change his composition.

I don't buy that for a second mate.

1. He's admitted to it.

2. He only moved up after back to back losses to Taylor, when he had everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Again, we have direct quotes from him.

Yes, he could excel there. And he did. And that was his prerogative. But again, he enjoyed fighting naturally smaller fighters, as it was easier than fighting the guys at the above weights.

It seems obvious to me that he wanted to be the big fish in the small pond. And whilst there was nothing illegal about that etc, I have to mark him down for his actions in this particular debate.

I don't believe so. I believe he had height and reach advantages over most of his opponents.

 

Likewise.

Hopkins' debut was in 1988, before he'd even decided whether or not he wanted to commit to boxing. For all we know, 177 could have been his walk-around weight. Either way, he lost his debut then took some time to decide whether boxing was something he wanted to do.

He wouldn't enter a Pro Boxing Ring again for another 16 months.

Also, I think you're reading too much into the early weigh-ins. It's not uncommon for early novice bouts to be contracted at various weights, fight-by-fight. Only title bouts stipulate the divisional limit.

From 1990, until just prior to his first title fight, at the end of 1992, Hopkins had 20 bouts. His average weight at the weigh-in, across these 20 bouts was 163.25 pounds. This is closer to 160 than 168 and who'd be thinking about campaigning at 168, if you could make 160, which he did - without a problem?

I think you have your timeframe all wrong. He'd committed to the Middleweight division in much less than 5 years. He was showing up in the USBA Middleweight Ratings, as early as October '91. Just over a year later, he was fighting for the USBA Middleweight Title, which he held until May '94, defending it 5 times (with his title crack at Jones Jr, occurring somewhere in between).

I know you've got your theories, chap, but they're anchored on faulty baselines. It's certainly not us guys having it both ways - we reckon he was a Middleweight, from more or less the outset. I think it's more a case of you believing that his early fights define him as something else - but he wasn't.

I also think you're making too much out of Bernard's own words, relating to his desire to be at 160. He was 6' 1" and lean; could make 160 easy; performed there well; did so year on; year out, for over a decade. If he had advantages there then all's the better. But, it doesn't matter, whichever way you slice it, 160 was the glamor division; Super Middleweight had barely gotten off the ground and his best fighting weight, at that stage, was no where near 175.

No disrespect, but that was just a lifestyle choice for Bernard, inspired by Bouie Fisher. Hopkins has described his relationship with Bouie as Grasshopper/Master.

Some people might think it's extraordinary but, to him, once the choice was made, it was just another day in the life; part of his professionalism. Since retirement, I've heard he's walking around at 174; no doubt he's still living the disciplined life; eating healthily; bed before 10:00pm - to support his vocational activities, after fighting.

This doesn't make sense.
Are you saying his dedication and discipline doesn't count to you because, from your perspective, he had an unfair advantage?
If so, what advantage? He wasn't stacking on a stone and a half, between the weigh-in and fight night. He might be putting on as little as 6lbs. I do not see the objection to this.

But, haven't you been trying to maintain that Hopkins could have fought at 175, at any time?
The article obviously discusses the difficulty they had keeping his weight up and putting muscle on.
He wasn't a Light Heavyweight until Mackie got him there.

Makes perfect sense that he knew he could make the move up, but would not have made it, unless he was sure he could be optimum at the weight. You just acknowledged that he'd have had to change his body composition. This implies he needed to do something to be ready for 175.

I don't think he said that all of his fights at Middleweight were easy. Unfortunately, you're looking at this, as though him having any type of physical advantage was the ONLY REASON he would want to maintain a continued campaign there. Other, higher priority reasons for him campaigning there have been suggested - you don't want to acknowledge these?

His motives for moving up to 175 are neither here nor there. They should not have any bearing on his rating, at all.
All we need to know is that he did move up and did it well.

At 6'1", with a 75" reach he was likely going to be taller than his opponents and have a longer reach, but differences in height and reach are seen in all divisions. What was he supposed to do, undergo bone shortening surgery? More important, is that he was not stacking on evenly distributed weight to the tune of about 15-20lbs, after a weigh-in - and so he was more or less aligned with his opponent, in terms of size.

 

This has turned out to be a really good, thought provoking thread - thanks for this. Legit pros and cons have been listed and frankly I don’t think there’s a clear winner, it just depends on how much pressure each of us wants to apply to the scales. With that, here are my random observations:
None of the three competed in golden eras for their divisions and their competition is easily picked apart.
Part 1, Roy Jones Jr.
Of the three fighters, Roy’s run, when considering his amateur pedigree and 160lb - 168lb stints, is the least surprising and most expected. At his peak Jones evoked comparisons to the ATGs that came before him and make up boxing legends. But hands-behind-his back knockouts and playing a semipro basketball game prior to a fight also testifies to his overall weak competition. He laid the blueprint that Floyd Mayweather would perfect; carefully select opponents and let HBO marketing handle the rest. Roy’s win over Ruiz was a calculated money grab from an extremely limited contender. His win is comparable to Floyd’s win over Baldomir. It also has to be considered that of the three fighters Roy’s fall from grace was the most devastating ever witnessed in the sport. Unlike other ATGs (and that is how jones was regarded at the time), who were beaten into submission by future greats after years of wars caught up to them, Jones was ktfo by one single punch, thrown by a man he’d already beaten once. A man who was considered an underachiever and would go on to lose his very next fight in a lackluster performance. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Roy would then be battered from pillar to post by a likable yet still very limited journeyman. If Antonio Tarver made Superman look like Clark Kent then Glenn Johnson made Clark Kent look like Lois Lane. I know we’re not supposed to hold losses against guys at the end of their careers but IMO those two losses do count against Roy. It’s not Ali losing to Holmes and Berbick. But nevertheless, of the three fighters considered I’d say Jones was the most exhilarating to watch and had the highest peak.
Stay tuned for Klitschko and Hopkins...

 

You should have held off and posted this in the New Year so we had an early candidate for POTY mate. Very deeply thought out and composed.

 

Yes some never come back the same did they. I must add with Jones that he had a standard full ATG career behind him and was fighting past where a Hagler or Monzon and many others had retired. Fenech had a lot behind him in his short career as well and Tyson had an explosive short reign where he achieved heaps.

Curry and Foreman were also never the same fighters after their first loss. Curry had a good short span behind him but was still young and around peak.

 

Hopkins was at least half a decade from his absolute peak, some might argue more. You could easily argue Jones pinnacle performance was just 5 fights and 1 1/2 years later. He was never more impressive than that night against Toney. Sure you can pick Jones over Hopkins at their best but when they actually fought Jones was miles ahead of him development wise.

Hopkins was more of a slow burner while Roy just went ballistic. Hopkins was beating people like Tarver 2 years after he ko'd a declined Jones and Pavlik 2 years after that again. Very different careers. Heck he beat the top dog at 175 three years later again.