Who Won The Roy Jones Vs Bernard Hopkins Rivialry?

Uppercut_Artist,

Yeah, but I'm right.



In all seriousness, you're right and it's what makes for a great debate. But I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Bernard achieved more. You can debate who's had the better career and who was the better fighter etc, and I'm sure that fans will continue to do so for many years to come. But I believe it's a fact that Roy achieved more.

:good

:good

Was he the underdog against Pavlik? I can't remember. I know that he was against Tito.

 

I remember thinking Hopkins had a small chance to beat Pavlik. I thought he was done after Calzaghe. I will never forget Hopkins up on the ropes after the Pavlik fight, glaring at the crowd like they all doubted him.

 

I knew you'd react this way.

What's so shocking about what I've said?

Tell me.

I never said that Tarver was better than those two, and nor would I. But yes, I think he was on their level.

Why not?

Eubank was a great fighter when he was prime, but he was faded when he fought Joe. We've discussed this numerous times. Eubank lost twice to Collins, and in my opinion, there was nothing special about Collins. His claim to fame was beating a faded version of Eubank in close fights and a really faded Benn.

The problem with you, is that you look at a fighters whole resume and their overall achievements, instead of looking specifically at where they were in their careers at the times of the fights that are being looked at.

There's nothing silly about saying that Tarver was at Eubank's level when he was at the end of his career. Now I know that you're going to mention losses to Harding and Johnson etc, but again, Eubank lost to Collins, and he was damn lucky he didn't lose to Close and Schommer.

Kessler was a very good fighter. And I know he was undefeated when Joe fought him, and I know how being undefeated impresses you greatly. But I don't think he was any better than Tarver was, despite the fact that Tarver had lost, and he hadn't. It's just circumstances. He hadn't beaten any great fighters before he fought Joe, and he went on to have two close fights with Froch. I think he was on a similar level to Froch. And nobody is going to tell me that Froch was superior to Tarver.

So again, I don't know what you find so shocking. But I can't say I'm surprised, considering that a few months ago you were trying to tell me that a faded Nunn and Tiozzo were levels above Tarver and Dawson.

 

bhop may score his first ko in 10years.

 

deleted

 

I never said Tarver was better than Eubank.

I said that in my opinion, Tarver was at the same level as the versions of Kessler and Eubank that Joe fought.

 

bailey,

This was what I was referring to in my previous post.

Why couldn't Tarver have beaten the version of Eubank who Joe fought?

He was a rangy southpaw with good skills.

Collins beat Eubank in 95.

Yet Tarver couldn't have beaten Eubank from 97?

Ray Close and Schommer nearly beat him before he fought Collins, with many people believing that Close did beat him.

There is nothing silly about saying that Tarver could/would have beaten the version of Eubank who Joe fought. A version who had bad knees and couldn't do roadwork etc.

 

You have to look at their whole careers, not just specific parts. Also, this was supposed to be looking at their rivalry.

 

Bernard is coming off of a valiant display against Sergey, who many people are hyping as the Terminator.

Roy had to be scr*ped off of the canvas against Enzo Mac.

But when the dust settles, and their whole body of work is assessed, I think Roy will come out on top.

As far specifically looking at their rivalry, there can only be one winner there, Roy.

 

That was a truly great performance.

He even did an impersonation of Ray Leonard.

:good

 

I respect everything that you've wrote, but a former JMW winning titles in 4 divisions, has to be a bigger achievment than a fighter winning titles in 2 divisions, especially if you take into account all of the circumstances involved.

No HW is tailor made for a 34 year old LHW. But if you really believe that, then that is a huge compliment to Roy. Roy didn't just beat Ruiz, he beat him with absolute ease. Apart from when Tua caught him when he was young, nobody had a easy fight against Ruiz. Rahman, Golota and Evander were all decent HW's. Evander still had something left in the gas tank back then. Ruiz had 30 plus pounds on Roy and Roy had him scared to commit. Norman Stone was screaming at him inbetween rounds.

The only reasons why Roy doesn't get the credit he deserves, is because: Ruiz had an ugly style, the fight wasn't exciting, and Lennox was 'The Man' of the division. Toney gets much more credit for his win over Jirov. You've also got to take into account that no other LHW's were trying to fight Ruiz, and nobody has gone up in the 13 years since.

You're not being objective, if you only class the win as being good.

A former JMW easily beating a top rated HW, is very impressive, no matter who the HW is. Again, Roy also made history by burning muscle and dropping back to reclaim the LHW titles.

How can Bernard trump that? A former JMW going to HW and back?

He can't.

Bernard's biggest achievment is his outstanding longevity.

 

I agree.

Good points.

Yeah, the push ups were great. I'll never forget that.


:good

 

Hopkins is a more skilled boxer. But Jones Jr wins over Toney and a young Hopkins seem more impressive than all of Hopkins wins.