Who could beat RJJ at 168 and 175?

Well, i don´t give much about the general oppinion because i agree not very often with it - and i´m right nearly every time with it :hey . They were seen as invincible only by those who bought in the hype. Their weaknesses were there to be seen.

 

At 175lbs I would favour Charles, Spinks, Foster and Moore.
At 168lbs I think Lloyd Marshall would have a good chance his style was very similar to Archie's only he was smaller.

 

At 168 Jones Jr. might be as close to unbeatable as possible. I don't see anyone beating him at that weight. At 175 I wouldn't favor anyone over him but there are quite a few guys who could beat him.
Jones speed and reflexes are going to be problems for anyone 160-200 in my opinion.

 

I don´t bet and when Tyson and Douglas fought i was eight.

 

What basis do you have for Hopkins not been in his prime? Hopkins was 28 and would go unbeaten for around 12years after he faced Jones.

What basis do you have that 35-0 Toney wasn't in his prime?

These fighters were PRIME as your realistically going to get

 

1. Countering Greb is easier than countering RJJ. RJJ would counter Greb because he is/was 1 of the best counter punchers in history.

You make landing on RJJ sound an easy task when in fact the exact opposite is the realit

2. RJJ may very well have been the hardest hitter Greb came across. The explosive 1 punch power of RJJ is quite devastating and he'd be landing more than anyone on Greb due to his speed/skill. You do realise RJJ and Langford were around the same physical size.

3. Well I think Langford is somewhat overrated as a puncher but yes hes probably a bigger puncher than BHOPs (who in his prime is an underrated puncher). However BHOPs is more likely to land than Langford. RJJ fought some bangers in his time do you think none of them landed on his chin? I suggest you buy a Roy Jones career set and see for yourself that Jones did take plenty of shots before he got old.

 

Because Hopkins was 28 and went unbeaten for 12 years after he faced Jones doesn't mean he was in his prime. He wasn't as experienced and was fighting for his first title when he fought Jones. And regarding age, it means zero. Fighters peak and have their primes at different periods of their careers.

The bottom line is that Hopkins wasn't in the time span, aka prime, back in 1993.

 

Hopkins had just as much experience as Jones, was older, Jones had a broken hand and fought 1 handed against Hopkins and was drained at 160 so if anyone was disadvantaged it was JOnes and if Hopkins wasnt prime neither was Jones

Physically though Hopkins was in his prime and had an amazing workrate unrecognisable in comparison to his later career, Hopkins was also a more dangerous puncher in 1993. He still had plenty of the skill we see in his prime in 1993 although all fighters get more skillfull with age

No Hopkins did not have his career best wins in 1993, this doesnt mean he wasnt in or around his prime

 

[/quote]

1. The point was brought up about him countering Roy, tbh I can't see him landing much at all

2. He can land plenty of flush shot after flush shot, and Greb is significantly smaller (before you bring uo weight lets remember Hopkins and Toney would weigh 170-185 on fight night).

DID YOU KNOW GREB SIZE WISE IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS VINNY PAZIENZA????? We saw how devastating RJJ looked when he took on a shorter smaller man

Jones put away Griffin in 1, Hill in 4, Mallinger (who beat Benn and was arguably robbed against Benn and Eubank) in 6. Look at RJJ opponents and see he stopped plenty far faster than they would be stopped before or after

As for Langford KO'ing heavyweights, yes but the heavyweights were smaller and of a poorer quality

 

I wasn't talking about Jones. So forget him having a broken hand and being weight drained. When Hopkins' was in his prime is what I responded about. You trying to tell me Hopkins was in his prime back in 1993? A prime means when a fighter was at his best. Hopkins wasn't at his best as a fighter back then.