Roy Jones.

He last beat Hopkins nine years prior. A lot can happen in a decade. Boxers don't exist in a time vacuum.

50/50, gain 6 lbs, lose 6 lbs for the P4P #2 and #3 fighter is the definition of fair. Jones beating the man 9 years prior was ancient history.

Hopkins had just beat Trinidad in a super fight and became the first undisputed MW Champion since Hagler. Jones was a LHW titlist.

 

The guy I was responding to. Why did you read my post and not pay attention to who I quoted?

 

If his resume is only as good as any other fighter, what makes him great?

 

It didn't matter if Roy's win was 9 years earlier.

It still happened.

You'd have to be on mind bending drugs if you think Hopkins would have given Roy 50/50, if he'd have held a win over him.

The onus was on Hopkins to make the fight.

Roy had nothing to prove, and it was Hopkins who supposedly wanted revenge.

How is losing 6 pounds, the same as gaining 6 pounds?

Roy was considered the best fighter in the world, he'd accomplished more than Hopkins, he'd beaten him, he'd beaten better fighters, and he was the unified champ at LHW.

A 50/50 deal was not fair.

What would Roy have gained?

The fight would have been at a catchweight.

The only thing he could have done, was to beat him again.

So unless he was going to get the bigger purse, where was the incentive?

If Hopkins had really wanted the fight, he'd have done everything he could have to make it happen.

It's so ironic you talking about smoke and mirrors.

Because that's what it was with Hopkins supposedly wanting a rematch.

The fact that he was happy to fight Roy in 2010, after he was coming off of a first round loss, speaks volumes.

Read this from 2008:

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Benz/Benz_1112a08.htm

That's Bernard Hopkins for you.


It's a joke that you're criticising Roy for not accepting 50/50.

 

I've read all of your posts.

I wouldn't say that he was hyping the win.

 

You're debating with me, yet you're asking what made him great?

If you don't know that, I'm wasting my time.

It's you who's criticising his resume.

Are you going to list me all of the viable fights that would have enhanced his legacy?

 

Also if Jones was #2 P4P it was because some media darling was being rated #1 at the time.

 

Saad54,

His post reads to me, like he's a 15 year old kid who's just gotten into the sport.

"he ended his career with 8 losses, is that legendary status, I don't think so."

Ha!

He must think that the two best fighters of all time, are Rocky Marciano and Joe Calzaghe.

 

I can't believe you think that Griffin loss means anything in the big picture. Sure he technically lost but that's it. And he won the rematch about as convincingly as one can do so. And according to you we should discount everything he did in his career because he tested positive once.

 

He just skipped over the start career at 154, win titles at 160, 168, unify at 175, beat top 5 heavyweight and win a title and then return to 175 and regain title part.

 

Not bad eh?

Then also factor in how easy he made it, for the most part.

He rarely lost a round in his prime.

He fought good fighters, he beat them with ease, and then afterwards they were deemed absolute nobodies.

I've been discussing Joe Calzaghe in another thread.

Joe was a great fighter.

Mikkel Kessler was a career defining fight for him.

Can you imagine if Roy had've fought Kessler if he'd been around in the late 90's/early 00's?

He'd have just been classed as another fighter who Roy beat.

Roy was too good for his own good.

If you an*lyse his resume, and look at who he beat and how he beat them, then look who they'd beaten, you'll see that it's actually quite good.

 

Loudon, it's the how easy it looked part that's crazy about it. It isn't supposed to look that easy, is it?

I remember reading an article before the Ruiz fight where the writer expected Jones to win easily, so he needed to go for the knock out.

Best fighter in his era/generation and that's the best anyone can do.

 

It was in France and Tiozzo missed most of his punches or didn't land clean, aside from those KDs, missed punches don't count as beating someone up. McCallum's work was much cleaner but lacking his prior sharpness. As for the other 2, allot of people thought Maske lost to Rocco and Hill had that close call against Del Valle. They may have been clear 1 and 2 on paper that aside.

 

I suppose you don't consider Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong and Ezzard Charles great or legendery based on how their careers ended either