Robinson vs. Jones: Who's better?

The Mercardo fight (first one) was just homegrown BS. He clearly won that fight. Call it competitive if you like but there is no way you can watch that and say Hopkins lost.

 

I figured people called him old school because of his work ethic. I don't think anyone really knows TBH :huh Maybe because he stayed and cleaned out his division? It's a good question.

 

Gavilan was a bigger threat.

His level - and what he was on the cusp of - was pretty established after their first non-title bout. He was the #1 contender. If Robinson hadn't defended against him, it would hurt his stock quite a lot imo.

 

So was Jones. So was Gavilan when he fought Robinson. Your point?

The same thing could be said of Gavilan no? He had an SD over Tommy Bell as his best win when he met Robinson. He also, unlike Hopkins, had losses at that weight.

The important thing is that Hopkins was no mere contender in terms of quality.

Have you watched that fight? Mercado was gifted a draw, it clearly was a win for Hopkins.

Seeing how the fight was fought at an altitude of almost 3 000 metres in front of a screaming home crowd (for Mercado), I think Hopkins did quite well.

Ok.

 

I'm not arguing with what you said about Malinga.
But Fullmer was not mediocre. If he was mediocre he wouldn't have been such a tough fight for so many of the world's top fighters on so many occassions. If Fullmer was so easy to hit, and fought so many of the world's best, then that only re-inforces he was hard to knock out.
You say he had primitive "defensive AND offensive" skills, and that he was "mediocre" ... but he consistently fought the best and win, lose or draw mostly the were close and competitive fights.
It's hard to fathom how he managed to be even moderately successful against the best if he was mediocre and had almost zero skills.

In some way or other, he must have been pretty good. That's it.

 

I recall somebody either here or some other forum, somebody who was living in Phila at the time, saying they expecting Hopkins to be a surprise/revelation to everybody in his fight with Jones. They actually had seen him fight many times (some of those fights are available, and it's clear their expectations were well-founded, he looked that great already), unlike so-called "experts", who only read fight results in ring magazine or wherever.

 

Well, if Jones hadn't fought Hopkins he wouldn't have won his belt.

Clearly both Gavilan and Hopkins was deserving of the title shot. The only thing I take issue with is that a 28 year old Hopkins with about as many pro fights as Jones gets passed off as some semi-novice, while hardly anything is made of the fact that Gavilan was 23 for the second fight with a much lesser pro experience than Robinson.

In the end we are stuck with the fact that Jones' win over Hopkins quite likely is better than any of Robinson's over Gavilan. Partly because it seems to have been clearer and partly because Jones, unlike Robinson, himself was yet to reach his peak.

 

He was a mediocre boxer, skillwise, cleverness-wise, ring-generalship-wise. Mediocre is average, not bad, but not very good either, there was nothing special about him except dirtiness and sturdiness. And as has been said, his "achievements" should be considered more scrupulously to see that he's overrated in that department as well.
If one was to compile the list of best middleweights of all time, I'd expect Fullmer to be maybe somewhere closer to the 100th mark, there were scores of middleweights in history better than him.

 

I don't say "mere" contender. Contenders vary in quality.

He certainly wasn't an obvious "pound-for-pound" star though. I can't remember many people noting amazing potential to dominate the division. He was a solid contender.
I'm not sure he was even rated in the top 5 at middlweight when he fought Roy Jones.
Even in hindsight, there were other guys around at the time at the weight who I'd favour to beat him.

Ok. But it was a scrappy fight. I didn't think Hopkins looked good, but maybe some do. Again, Hopkins didn't have any awful lot of people suggesting he was an ATG quality fighter then either.

 

Gavilan would be about done by the time he was 28, and age in correlation with prime/peak varies from fighter-to-figher, so I don't see it being as significant as made out. He was more deserving of a title shot and was rated as such -- What bigger test is there than fighting The Man himself? The second fight from all indications is that it was a pretty clear Robinson win. Just about every single fighter from that time period accrued losses on their record with the exception of Robinson and Pep - Perhaps some insight into their Greatness? - it comes with the territory of fighting the type of schedules they did and much more often against rated opposition. Unlike more recent times where you're given 3-5 months to prepare for one opponent. I also rate Gavilan higher than Hopkins, just to cover the bases.

 

From 95-2005 Hopkins was the number 1 Mw. that is purely because of two things

1) He was a great fighter
2) Jones left the division.

How anyone can call it anything other than a great win baffles me. It would be nearly 20 years until he was as comprehensively beaten again (I had Taylor II and Joe edging him out).

 

That's all very good, but for every story a wise gym rat or local fan has along the lines of "I saw his greatness from day one" , there are probably two or three fighters he had exactly the same feelings about who went on to disappoint.

Hopkins hadn't fought anyone. I'm not downplaying him. He was solid. He looked pretty good against Jones.

 

All that shows is that he hadn't have the names to prove himself against. What matters is that he looked the real thing in the fight itself. Better than what not only for example Reggie Johnson, Tate and Malinga did, but also Toney.

Yes, it was a scrappy fight, that many of Hopkins' fights was even at his peak. At least here he had the high altitude as a part excuse. Physical exertion at that height is a ***** if you're not used to it.

There's a reason that Equador's football team have an excellent home record there in Quito, despite being quite crap.

Anyhow, that Hopkins has a draw that should have been a win as the only blotch on his record during the years after the loss to Jones hardly is a strong argument, even if you don't factor in the circumstances of the fight.

 

Nowhere have I argued that Gavilan was an unworthy challenger, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

What I argue is that there's at least as strong a case for calling Gavilan pre-prime/pre-peak in these fights as saying that about Hopkins when he met Jones.

The difference is rather that Robinson was smack in the middle of his peak - unlike Jones who probably was a couple of years from his.

Ok, that seems like a long discussion in itself. Anyhow, it should be reasonable to claim that they're close to each other.

And the fact that Hopkins would go on fighting world class opposition for almost 20 years before being as clearly beaten again should also say something.

 

The point is, you shouldn't have been expecting "experts" from outside of Phila to know his worth to praise him at that point. Now, were he a heavyweight, there might have been a different story, they were always getting a lot of attention in boxing magazines.
Hopkins didn't get his due until his victory over Trinidad, even though his performances proved him to be an ATG master-boxer already.