Does Roy Jones deserve to be considered an elite ATG?

[Mintcar923]

Age has nothing to do with if a fighter is shot or not.

Fernando Vargas is 34 right now.

You sound ignorant to the entire situation... Roy hadnt beaten a top contender since 2004. That was 7 years prior. Get a clue. Why was Roy suddenly perceived as shot? Listen to yourself, ffs.

It seems like they were saying he was shot as early as Tarver 2. If you think about it, Tarver was maybe the only other fighter to seriously challenge him other than that early fight against Bernard. But, what exactly made him go on the slide, anyway? The move to heavyweight?? There are a lot of theories. As far as OP saying I'm comparing Jones-Hopkins 2 to Foreman-Moorer.. I'm just saying that fighters deserve credit for being successful at an advanced age. Thats all I meant. You know, Jones wasn't the only fighter Hopkins beat in his later years. Just implying to give B-Hop the same kind of credit many give Big George.

[StarshipTrooper]

Being shot isn't necessarily being a certain age. Basically you're shot when your reflexes have gone. That could be at any age.....Hell, I've seen fighters still in their 20s that were shot: Think Wilfred Benitez.....He was done before he was 30.

Poet

[res]

Would many 20-0 fighters have beaten him? Different question, but a better one.

That's the thing, I disagree that it's a different question. The argument you offer here merely defers the discussion to another fighter. In other words, were these other great fighters great fighters early on in their career? There are certainly examples of fighters that were clearly mediocre early on, but who eventually became great do to new trainers or various other reasons. But when you see a fighter that consistently performs at an elite level that is another matter. Bernard Hopkins belongs in the second category. All successful fighters learn over time as we said earlier.

[res]

It seems like they were saying he was shot as early as Tarver 2. If you think about it, Tarver was maybe the only other fighter to seriously challenge him other than that early fight against Bernard. But, what exactly made him go on the slide, anyway? The move to heavyweight?? There are a lot of theories. As far as OP saying I'm comparing Jones-Hopkins 2 to Foreman-Moorer.. I'm just saying that fighters deserve credit for being successful at an advanced age. Thats all I meant. You know, Jones wasn't the only fighter Hopkins beat in his later years. Just implying to give B-Hop the same kind of credit many give Big George.

That isn't an even comparison.

it would be like if George had a rematch with Jimmy Young in 1994 (the year he beat Moorer) . No one would take the win seriously.

Of course Hopkins deserves credit for his other wins against younger opponents, just not for that one.

[Mintcar923]

That isn't an even comparison.

it would be like if George had a rematch with Jimmy Young in 1994 (the year he beat Moorer) . No one would take the win seriously.

Of course Hopkins deserves credit for his other wins against younger opponents, just not for that one.

C'Mon "That is no comparison!" How many fights or wins has Jimmy Young had between that Foreman fight and 1994?! When you imply Hopkins deserves "no credit" for beating Roy in his later years just isn't fair to Bernard and all the hard work and training he put in for the fight. And, even with that he didn't exactly wipe the floor with Roy, either. I thought he dominated a younger Pavlik even more than RJJ. How do you explain that? As I said earlier, both were on the slide. Perhaps, Roy a bit moreso. But, at least give B-Hop some props rather than none at all...

[Scott9945]

C'Mon "That is no comparison!" How many fights or wins has Jimmy Young had between that Foreman fight and 1994?! When you imply Hopkins deserves "no credit" for beating Roy in his later years just isn't fair to Bernard and all the hard work and training he put in for the fight. And, even with that he didn't exactly wipe the floor with Roy, either. I thought he dominated a younger Pavlik even more than RJJ. How do you explain that? As I said earlier, both were on the slide. Perhaps, Roy a bit moreso. But, at least give B-Hop some props rather than none at all...

Hopkins-Jones II was maybe the ugliest main event that I've seen in the over 40 years I've been following boxing. With Roy's skills all gone and Hopkins with his usual dirty tactics and whining, it was excruciating to watch. They fought the same year as Mosley-Mora, which was God awful, and it still was the worst fight of that year. That's why people were so impressed with Hopkins after the Pascal fights. Everyone figured he had nothing left. I give neither fighter any credit for what happened in Hopkins-Jones II.

[rorymac]

C'Mon "That is no comparison!" How many fights or wins has Jimmy Young had between that Foreman fight and 1994?! When you imply Hopkins deserves "no credit" for beating Roy in his later years just isn't fair to Bernard and all the hard work and training he put in for the fight. And, even with that he didn't exactly wipe the floor with Roy, either. I thought he dominated a younger Pavlik even more than RJJ. How do you explain that? As I said earlier, both were on the slide. Perhaps, Roy a bit moreso. But, at least give B-Hop some props rather than none at all...

Just gonna say....

When guys like Poet, Dan, Barn, Jab, Bo, Reed etc are telling you he's an elite ATG, you'd better believe it.

[Mintcar923]

Just gonna say....

When guys like Poet, Dan, Barn, Jab, Bo, Reed etc are telling you he's an elite ATG, you'd better believe it.

For the record or maybe I was misunderstood. Back when Jones was in his prime many experts were saying he had fought a lot of stiffs. True, he did fight some stiffs. He also fought some good fighters, too. But, I was just curious about how other fans viewed him when I was wondering if people viewed him as an "elite ATG.." I never did say he wasn't. He was one of my favorites, as well...

[THE REED]

It seems like they were saying he was shot as early as Tarver 2. If you think about it, Tarver was maybe the only other fighter to seriously challenge him other than that early fight against Bernard. But, what exactly made him go on the slide, anyway? The move to heavyweight?? There are a lot of theories. As far as OP saying I'm comparing Jones-Hopkins 2 to Foreman-Moorer.. I'm just saying that fighters deserve credit for being successful at an advanced age. Thats all I meant. You know, Jones wasn't the only fighter Hopkins beat in his later years. Just implying to give B-Hop the same kind of credit many give Big George.

Great, give Hopkins all the credit you want for being a successful fighter late into his 40s.

Talk about the Pascal win, the Pavlik win to an extent, the Tarver win... But when you bring up the Roy win you lose credability, and youre reaching.

Roy was an un ranked, outmatched, shot fighter of the 90s.

Bernard fighting successfully late into his 40s does not somehow mean that he can go on a senior tour and get credit for beating competition that isnt ranked.

Age is not a determining factor for ability.

Fact... Roy had not beaten a top ranked fighter in SEVEN YEARS, and was coming off a first round TKO loss to a nobody in Danny Green when he fought Bernard.

Roy was DONE on every level at that point, point blank period, drop the argument.

[Anthony342]

The first undisputed unified light heavyweight champion since Michael Spinks? Yeah, I'd say he's an ATG and had all-time great ability. Were there ever guys he should've fought that he didn't? At light heavyweight, I have a hard time believing that since he reigned supreme there for so long. Maybe at middleweight or super middle? I'm not sure though. What I am sure of is the guy needs to retire already. If he keeps it up much longer, he might start to look as bad as Evander Holyfield. I hope that never happens.