Who has the greater legacy: RJJ or Hopkins?

I agree.

 

That doesn't count... Just like Berbick beating Ali... :yep

 

Beating the 2 guys that humiliated Jones means nothing to be honest, Jones was totally shot at the time and Hopkins has had a history of destroying left handers, he simply does better against them than Jones, that doesn't mean that Hopkins is overrall better. If both fighters didn't meet then I'll agree with you and when Ali split two fights with Norton they were both close, Jones vs Hopkins was TOTALLY one-sided in favor of Jones and the reason to that was crystal clear, Jones' speed and movement.

 

I wanna see Jones vs Hopkins 2 for the LHW title right now, winner takes all and that answers the question.

I have no desire to see Jones vs Trinidad and cant understand why these two wont just make the one meaningful fight that remains for both:good

 

BTW, you are using apples and oranges. None of your comparisons are equal. You are comparing fighters with little accomplishment in their careers but have wins over greats to a comparison of 2 ATG when one has beaten the other.

 

That's a bit unfair. Going off their first fight when both fighters were much closer to their primes, is fairer.

 

Never brought that up before.

You said Hopkins beat the guys that beat Jones so he is better.

Mayorga beat the guy who beat Mosley. But he lost to a guy who Mosley beat.

Point is, you can't use those types of comparisons.

 

Legacy-wise Jones wins, even in the ring Jones already won against Hopkins, there's nothing more needed and I'm a huge fan of both.

Jones -
Middleweight champion
Super middleweight champion
Light Heavyweight undisputed champion
Heavyweight champion

Back down to Light Heavyweight and once against undisputed champion then the losses started to come after all those major accomplishments were done with and after getting old and clearly showing signs of being shot. Hopkins on the other hand is getting better with age, doesn't mean Jones is horrible because he doesn't share the same.

 

Hopkins has clearly aged better and would beat Jones now. If the fight was in 2001, we would have an answer.

 

No, I saw what they were in response to. It isn't complicated.

 

You believe Jones was prime material at the time?, seriously speaking here. Did he look ANYTHING close to his prime to you?, if your answer is yes then I won't even continue arguing and will participate in any other thread, I just want a serious answer if you've seen enough of Jones.

 

60/40 and I buy my ass out of the rematch!!!

**** it, let em get it on in say May 2008?? Winner takes the legacy.


Hey, you're boy Roy has looked better recently and I fully expect he'll embarass Tito in January:good

Hops is still older so it all evens out, its a grudge match between the two best middles of the last decade and a half:yep

 

Jones was slowing signs of slowing down in 2001...his prime ended then.

He continued to win so it wasn't as noticable, but Jones was laying on the ropes more, losing footspeed and his workrate was dropping. People tend to equate prime with accomplishment, so they think Jones beating Ruiz meant he was still prime. Jones was still good enough to beat Ruiz, but not the same fighter as the one who dismantled Virgil Hill in 1997 or 1998.

 

Of course he was better in the late 90s because he was younger, that's not even a smart reply from you. My point of him getting better now is skill-wise and having the ability to compete with the best.

 

You feel that Jones should have taken the fight at 50/50?

I can't agree with that. Jones was the draw, the P4P #1 and the LHW champion (fight was being negotiated for Jones title, not Hopkins).

60/40 was fair...and remember, Hopkins took far less in his next fight when he refused the Jones offer.