B-hop after defeating Pascal. And who knows, he could go on to school a couple more fighters like Dawson!
George Foreman ranks high on my list for exactly the same reason. When a fighter achieves a feat no other has achieved, I think it's fair to say it can count towards a very, very respectable legacy indeed.
Bernard Hopkins was better before last night and is even more so now. Just a brilliant fighter. Jones Jr was unbelievable in his day but Hopkins has been consitently better for a lot longer
Hard to say, I will come back to you today Flea Man. For what it's worth I want to say in advance that I rate Jones' win over Hopkins.
B-Hop clearly has the gameplan to diffuse a low-output 'round sleeper', and he's usually proven adept against southpaws. I can't see Dawson causing him too many problems to be honest, and never did before, I'd cottoned onto his lackadaisical nature very early on.
So do I :thumbsup The myth that Hops was a green aggressor at that time are simply not true, hopefully we can go into it later.
Yep, on all counts. Gunna walk my animal now, then do a few things I have to go through and then I'm all yours (no homosapian)
I base greatness on what you do, not how talented you are, and Hopkins has done more. Even if Roy retired immediately after Tarver I, Hopkins has gone on to do so much since. I'm a big fan of Jones the dazzling boxer of yore, and he'd have beaten Hopkins, Calzaghe et al but there's no question that Hopkins is 'greater'. Not now, not after recapturing the legitimate title in such dominant fashion once more.
Hopkins, i dont usually buy into legacies fading or getting worse over time but i've began to remember RJJ after 2003 more than proir that year, that cant be good.
Looks like the consensus is that B-Hop is edging it. So, better single win? Jones over Toney or Hops over Trinidad? Or would posters put another fight forward for each?
Hopkins-Trinidad for me, it was just absolutely punch perfect. Toney was an excellent win for Jones but I feel that Hopkins wins over Tarver, Pavlik, Pascal were better than Jones Jr's next best wins- even the Hopkins win itself. Hopkins legacy will always look greater because of how their respective careers will have finished- Hopkins at the top whilst Jones Jr losing to men he would have beat easily in his prime. But I also think that when looking at their big wins when they were at their best, Hopkins' resume just shades Jones Jr's too.
I dunno about that mate. Toney was arguably the P4P no.1 at the time, or at least beaten a man who was being conceived as such (Nunn) and, whilst struggling with the weight, Jones barely lost a round, bamboozled Toney and was indeed, punch perfect. Hill, Ruiz and Hopkins are on a par with Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal for sure. For sure. Dominant wins over Woods, Harding and a close first fight with Tarver, over series with Allen, win over Oscar and Joppy. Jones was the only man to stop Thomas Tate, who had given Julian Jackson a good argument for the title. Hopkins is still the only man to stop old timer Glen Johnson. There resumes are not badly matched IMO. Hopkins gains kudos for all of his wins at the top level, because he was never disgraced and they were all tight, closely contested matchups. He arguably deserved two nods away from home against Pascal, although the first fight was very close and no robbery IMO. What does that say then of Jones fairly dominating win over Hopkins, basically one handed? B-Hop then went on to unify the division, not losing until his fight with Taylor some ten years later. Certainly aa better win than Hopkins' over Pavlik, despite Pavlik being the man down at middleweight at the time.