RJJ + BHOP - 2 questions

:good

 

From 1993 til 1997, Jones was walking through opponents, I mean literally annihilating everything in sight without breaking sweat. 1994-96

This content is protected

is, I truly believe, the closest thing there has been to an invincible fighter. I think it's only human nature that winning with such ease and in such devastating fashion breeds complacency. Almost all of the great fighters have at one time or another became complacent and either lost or had very difficult nights against inferior but very brave and very game opponents. Jones was complacent against Griffin, and in addition Griffin was a very tricky customer back then. Had the fight not been stopped by the DQ, Jones would definitely have won IMO (he was ahead on 2 scorecards at the time btw, an oft forgotten fact), but look at the difference between Jones in that fight and in the second fight.

From complacent to Superman !

 

Both were not quite prime when they fought, but Jones was closer to his (the best performance of his career coming a year later) and he had the significantly more experienced amateur background.

In a prime for prime match-up, I still go with Jones. Hopkins was not the fighter to beat RJJ in his prime. Given Roy's edge in speed of hand and foot he would more than likely make Bernard lead and land potshots when timing Hopkins coming in. Hopkins does not have that one-punch power to take Roy out if he lands flush and his best assets (timing, footwork, defense, counters, ring generalship) are more or less negated by Roy's speed and elusiveness, which would dictate the fight.

Prime for Prime Jones wins what would be a close but very clear decision.