who was better, hopkins when he fought roy jones or the one that fought calzaghe???

The Hopkins that killed Trinidad didn't want to fight Roy very much. Like Roy said "60-40 and ill kick your ass" which at the time was totally reasonable and Hopkins still would have made alot more money from it and had a chance to revenge his loss and defeat the best fighter in the world. I believe he would have beaten Hopkins again personally.

 

I said that fighters at age 35/36 are usally past prime, the point I made was they are not shot. BTW Lewis was 38 when he beat Vitaly, and the others were still competitve at the top level. You have to be either blind or a Calslappy fanboy, to think that Bhops isn't shot.

 

:good some one with a good memory, I remember Bhops wanted no part of RJJ that day.

 

Neither were at their best, both were quite aged and both had come off victories that ranked as highly as anything else they had previously done.

If Calzaghe was 28-30 when facing Hopkins, you'd have a point

Calzaghe being 36 when Hopkins is 43, both are aged above and beyond their prime, when Hopkins has had such a late prime, it's hard to say "Oh he's shot" just cause he loses.

 

He's 2-3 in his last 5 fights, is that good enough. BTW after the Joppy fight Bhops was in decline and that was 6 yrs ago. 36 is younger in boxing yrs no matter how you slice it.

 

2-3, considering that all three of his losses are heavily disputed because they weren't clear.

Let me ask you this, could Hopkins beat Kessler now?

 

I thought the Hopkins that fought Jones was the better fighter

 

I'll say the Hopkins that fought Jones in '93 was better. He was in his prime at the time and clearly lost to Jones Jr., while many believe that a 43 year old Hopkins deserved the Decision against Calzaghe.

 

The best Ive seen Hopkins was in the period between 1997 and 2001.

He dominated some good fighters, proper middleweights.
Glengoffe, Council, Brown, Echols, Vanderpool, Holmes and of course Tito.

 

The one that fought Jones was a harder matchup for Jones than the one that fought Calzaghe. I'd say the younger B-Hop was better, regardless of the thoughts regarding his craftiness, intelligence, etc. He was simply nowhere near the physical specimen he used to be, and he was already a very skilled technical boxer.

 

The one who fought Jones.

 

Good post. Spot on.

 

:deal, The hopkins that beat Trinidad, wouldnt have beaten Jones Jr at that time. RJ beat him the 1st time with one hand, imagine when he had 2 to use now

 

For sure, any pre-Tarver Jones kills any version of Hopkins i think.... I blame Hopkins for not taking the fight, bad move as a fighter and a buissness man. Even 60-40 for a mega fight with Jones would have been alot more money than taking on Joppy and Hakkar combined plus a chance to avenge a loss and go down in history as the man who beat Roy Jones...... I don't think he wanted to fight Roy again because he knew he would lose. Just my opinion but it speaks pretty loudly that he wouldn't take a guarenteed shot against the man that at the time held all the cards and was the man to beat over a lesser cut that still would have given him all he needs in money and if he was as good as he says supremecy over the boxing world.:deal

 

When Hopkins fought Jones, he threw over 40 punches a round, against a fighter who makes it hard to get your punches off and makes you pay for every mistake. When Bernard fought Calzaghe, he threw about 15 punches, 17 clinches, 5 headbutts and 2 lowblow ***** complaints a round. Should this really be discussed further?