Roy Jones and Hopkins go at it

Hopkins probably wins man. Roy sure isn't what he used to be in terms of mobility -- still has the handspeed but doesn't have the legs to circle around HOPS and give him angles.

BUT IT'S ALL THE MORE REASON WHY BERNARD LOOKS BAD IN NOT TAKING THE OFFER. If he's so confident of his victory over Roy, why wouldn't he take it? He'd rather be content and say "I beat a Tarver that was Stallowned and a Glenn Johnson who knocked out a walking Roy Jones corpse"

That tells me a lot about Bernard.

 

Exactly. BOTH these guys are rich beyond their wildest dreams, neither of them need the money yet only one of them is showing willing with negotiations, and that's the guy that won the first fight. The other guy is insisting he deserves more, so the other guy is saying "OK if you beat me YOU'LL GET MORE" (that's the big point right there) and it still isn't happening anytime soon.

And to think some people still think Jones was/is a ducker atsch He couldn't do more to get Hopkins back in the ring yet Hopkins continues to over-rate himself. Why the **** should he get 60% against a guy he lost to? What's wrong with the winner getting 60% as Jones suggested?

 

To beat Hopkins you need to have good footwork, Jones doesn't have any legs now, all he does now is stay on the ropes and try to counter you.
That just won't work on BHOP.

 

And for the record, I am a huge Bernard Hopkins fan. I remember how incredible that was when he schooled pavlik and stared at press row.... what a moment! But he made an ass of himself in that interview today on so many levels. The Donovan McNabb not "black enough" **** was ridiculous.

 

We obviously have a different mindset on these things. Hopkins doesn't fight all that regularly so for him to take a Jones fight means a big chunk out of his schedule which means, in the meantime, fights with more deserving fighters in more meanigful match ups can't happen. It would be another example of being stuck in the circle jerk we've been seeing for too long now.

 

First we're not talking about Calzaghe we're talking about Hopkins ! Calzaghe never lost to Jones prior to their fight....
Almost everyone thought Calzaghe would beat Jones in the first place...
If you'd make a poll of who wins between Hopkins and Jones, you'd be surprized with the results !

+ Calzaghe had already mentioned in his book that it was pointless to fight Jones since he wasn't who he use to be ! That instantly takes away the merit from a win when you say that !

Hops is also 44 and style wise, Jones certainly ain't a walk in the park !

Why did Calzaghe fight Jones ? Because the risk versus $$$$$$ reward was worth it ! Now does Hopkins see things the same way in the risk department...that's the question, because the most money available is there and a loss is there to be avenged !!!

 

Still didnt answer the question

 

Do you think Jones is a more dangerous fight for him than an Adamek fight?

 

He won't, because it doesn't suit his agenda.

 

Which question ? Please tell me ...

 

What's so funny ?

They're both very bright guys.

 

Possibly yes for Hopkins because of Jones' style and the fact that Hops is not a pressure fighter and can't be at this stage of his career !

 

How much credit did Calzaghe get for beating Jones? Please remind me.

I copied and pasted it.

 

I don't have an agenda and I'll take credit away from Jones if needed when it makes sense.

 

Personally I think a younger, bigger, pressure fighter like Adamek is more dangerous than a low output fighter who has lost a lot of what once made him great.