So NOW who's greater? Hopkins or RJJ?

So now that Hopkins has beaten Pavlik, does that push him past RJJ in an all-time career rating? Will it take RJJ beating Calzaghe for folks to again rate him over Hopkins, or do folks rate RJJ higher than Hopkins even after this weekend's upset?

I can see an arguement either way.

 

Roy Jones beat Bernard Hopkins.

End of thread.

 

Rather limited viewpoint, I would say. SO any fighter who defeats another automatically rates higher all time?

 

Then both Glenn Johnson and Tarver are greater than Roy... And Hopkins is greater than both Johnson and Tarver! Catch 22... ::

Seriously, I think Hopkins is the greater fighter... If Roy beats Calzaghe, I'll have to rethink that, but right now, I'd rank Hopkins higher...

 

Hopkins is greater now. Greatest fighter of his generation.

 

:bears:

 

Not only does Roy own Hopkins arse one on one,... but he has the greater victories, and never needed to invent his own weight class to drag smaller opponents specifically up to it. This hysteria over 'p4p lists' thanks to Fraud Mayweather's groupies, have made smaller 'name' fighters look real good on a weight welching predators resume like Hopkins,..
These days, Ivan Calderon would look nice and sparkly and respectable on Margarito's resume, over a lesser known full sized welterweight for example.

 

At the tail end of Roy's career. Where as Roy beat Hopkins when both were young. Had Jones fought Tarver and Johnson in the mid 90's would he have lost those fights?

 

It is what you compare. Prime for prime, Roid is greater than Hopkins and probably the greatest ever.

If you compare their careers overall and talk about success and achievment, Hopkins tops Jones.

Who is greater? It depends on what you prefer more

 

Well, if you want to play the game of "Woulda, Coulda", don't you think the Hopkins of 2001 is greater than the one that went life and death with Secundo Mercado? Because that's the Hopkins Roy beat.

 

I think a more interesting quesiton is Hopkins or Toney.

 

i guess calzaghe has had a better career than hopkins as well. :shit:

 

toney was too inconsistent and has 1 single win over a great fighter in michael nunn. well, i guess you can count the second mccalum fight, but first two were both close fights. he also lost to bums like tiberi, thadzi and cgroom.

but i think toney would've beaten him in 93 or 94 had he stayed at 160 when hopkins was his mandatory.

 

So Kirkland Laing ranks higher than Roberto Duran all time?

Iran Barkley over Hearns?


For what it's worth...I may have Jones higher than Hopkins..based upon the fact that Jones moved from 160lbs titlist to winning a title at Heavyweight...and dominated both supermiddle and lightheavyweight for many years...

But it's DAMNED close giving Hopkins' victories over Tito, Oscar, Johnson, Joppy, Tarver and now Pavlik..almost beating Calzaghe and having the longest ever Middleweight reign.

It's only because a peak Jones was so phenomenal that I have Jones ahead by a nose...but their actual head to head is irrelevant IMO...

 

He knocked him out in the rematch and still didn't lose to him even after being knocked down twice.

 

I know that, I'm just telling you that this version of Hopkins was a lesser fighter than the older one. Just as Roy was better when he dominated 175 than when he fought Johnson and Tarver. To put it simply, you could use the same excuse for Hopkins against Roy that you used to explain Roy's losses. That's why the comparison of their career doesn't start and stop at their head to head matchup. So much has happened since then, you have to factor that too.

 

what if rafael nadal goes on to win maybe 2 more french opens and then fails to win another grand slam? how would people compare his career vs. federer's?

washed up or not, maybe hopkins needs to fight roy jones just to have that official W to cement his legacy for those who keep referring back to a fight that happened 14 years ago.

 

I guess you passed over my next post.

 

Actually no..your next post doesn't address the Hearns-Barkley comparison.

Face it...your original "contribution" to this thread was share casual fan, lack of thought bullshit!

 

Oh...and what about Louis-Schmeling....ZED! :atu:

 

dsimon writes:

Anyone else want to respond to Z's post? ::

Why Z.................::



For my money I can't grok the concept of greater in this case.

JOnes: a great natural talent, like Ali. Could do things in the ring people cannot do and beat some great guys early and put on some great clinics since. JOnes could have never put on the gloves and been great putting them on once.

Hopkins: A man of the craft. LIke Mayweather and Toney knows the tricks and how to win with them. Great Philly fighter, a classic, fight inside all day if need be and wear the guy down... Hopkins at his best is one of the greatest inside fighting men ever no doubt. Where as Jones and Sugar R never had to go there Bernard had to go downstairs first and nobody does it better, some did it as well and it is a lost art.

Two of the greats, take your pick.

 

I guess Hopkins is the only guy in history to get better over 40. Hopkins was THIS good back then too, I think better. It wasn't until late in his career than he got the right fights to showcase his talent.

The Hopkins that Roy beat was every bit as good as the one now. Jones was just better, prime for prime. He whoops Hopkins.

So in terms of who is actually the better fighter, it's Roy no fucking doubt.

 

What about it? Were talking Roy and Hopkins here, I don't care about these other fights. It means nothing in this discussion.

What is Hopkins Prime? In the mid 90's would Tarver and Johnson have beaten Roy? No. I don't think so.

 

You're nuts then. Not because you think Roy is a greater fighter, I think a strong case could be made, but because you think the Hopkins of 93 was as good as he ever was. That's a load of bullshit IMO.

 

Hopkins has clearly improved his game, the move up in weight and fighting smaller guys has helped as well.

Hopkins has a better Resume, and IMO better quality wins. But Roy was a much better fighter at his peak, and I'd pick Roy over Roy at 160 9x out of 10.

Up at 175, its a different story. Somehow Hopkins has acclamated himself better to the move, and Roy looked more and more of a worthless beta as he climbed.

its a toss up really

 

He looked bad in one fight back then and you already mentioned that one. Could it have been that he didn't get these high profile fights until the Tito fight? That is when people really started to take notice but is that really his prime or was he just getting the right fights.

It's all about how you look at it.

 

Hopkins is like a basketball player that finishes with more career points, Jones with more MVP's/scoring titles.

Longevitiy closes the gap for Hopkins, but I don't think it does it all the way.

 

We'll have to disagree then. I think Hopkins' developpement as a fighter wasn't finished yet in 93, Roy was still developping too but he didn't have to go to jail like Hopkins, I think that time off explains why they weren't at the same place developpement wise when they met.

I think that closes the discussion, we disagree and we won't agree...

 

Two Great Fighters, both Hall of Fame.

It's too close to call in my book as to whom the greater fighter was.

 

No No NO
Roy... easily.