Greater Fighter, Roy Jones Jr or Thomas Hearns?

[Barnburner]

Hearns no-doubt, better competition overall.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

You can't argue that Hopkins was certainly not in his prime against Jones. Replace that Hopkins with the one that knocked out Trinidad, and I believe it would have been the other way around. Roy only won by like three rounds according to the judges. Think of how much different it would have been if it was the Hopkins that fought Trinidad and others while dominating the Middleweight division.

[CarlosG815]

Originally Posted by BG_Knocc_Out

You can't argue that Hopkins was certainly not in his prime against Jones. Replace that Hopkins with the one that knocked out Trinidad, and I believe it would have been the other way around. Roy only won by like three rounds according to the judges. Think of how much different it would have been if it was the Hopkins that fought Trinidad and others while dominating the Middleweight division.

Why did Bernard turn down a 60/40 split following his fight with Trinidad? The fact is Bernard was prime he was just not on the level of Roy Jones.

Beating Trinidad is your evidence? Trinidad's best days were as a welterweight and he went up against a legit middleweight.

All of Hopkins big wins, aside from Glen Johnson, were against smaller men. When he fought big guys like Roy Jones Jr, Jermain Taylor, Joe Calzaghe he was beaten.

His career defining wins and claim to fame are wins over Oscar (former lightweight, best days at welterweight), Felix Trinidad (Former jr welter, best days at welter), Winky Wright, another smaller guy. His win over Tarver is probably his best win with Tarver coming off a win over RJJ.

Roy Jones definitely wasn't at his best, as he was in the late 90's either, so had they fought later in what you call "Bernards prime" he would be dealing with a better Roy Jones... A Jones that would beat him more handily than he did the first time.

[Steak]

Originally Posted by bojangles1987

It's not on that level, but that was the first championship fight for Jones too. So it's not like he had any experience in that situation either.

well a year later Jones beat Toney in(arguably) his greatest performance.

I think Jones' win over Hopkins was good, but Hopkins still had a few years to go before being prime. I actually think Hopkins deserved the win over Mercado in the first fight, but he no doubt struggled...and Mercado was not a very good fighter. Hopkins was years away from being prime when he fought Jones, wheras Jones was not quite prime but definitely close to it.

Jones' win over Toney was far more impressive, and actually a win I overlooked a little too quickly when evaluating Hearns vs Jones. THAT was a great win.

[Steak]

Originally Posted by CarlosG815

Why did Bernard turn down a 60/40 split following his fight with Trinidad? The fact is Bernard was prime he was just not on the level of Roy Jones.

Beating Trinidad is your evidence? Trinidad's best days were as a welterweight and he went up against a legit middleweight.

All of Hopkins big wins, aside from Glen Johnson, were against smaller men. When he fought big guys like Roy Jones Jr, Jermain Taylor, Joe Calzaghe he was beaten.

His career defining wins and claim to fame are wins over Oscar (former lightweight, best days at welterweight), Felix Trinidad (Former jr welter, best days at welter), Winky Wright, another smaller guy. His win over Tarver is probably his best win with Tarver coming off a win over RJJ.

Roy Jones definitely wasn't at his best, as he was in the late 90's either, so had they fought later in what you call "Bernards prime" he would be dealing with a better Roy Jones... A Jones that would beat him more handily than he did the first time.

Hopkins era of middleweights was weak, no doubt, but he didnt beat them simply by 'being bigger'.

I think Jones would have beaten Hopkins regardless of his prime, but that doesnt change the fact that Hopkins was definitely not prime against Roy. Hopkins didnt look his best for another 4 years, and looked mediocre against Mercado a year after the Jones fight.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

Originally Posted by CarlosG815

Why did Bernard turn down a 60/40 split following his fight with Trinidad? The fact is Bernard was prime he was just not on the level of Roy Jones.

Beating Trinidad is your evidence? Trinidad's best days were as a welterweight and he went up against a legit middleweight.

All of Hopkins big wins, aside from Glen Johnson, were against smaller men. When he fought big guys like Roy Jones Jr, Jermain Taylor, Joe Calzaghe he was beaten.

His career defining wins and claim to fame are wins over Oscar (former lightweight, best days at welterweight), Felix Trinidad (Former jr welter, best days at welter), Winky Wright, another smaller guy. His win over Tarver is probably his best win with Tarver coming off a win over RJJ.

Roy Jones definitely wasn't at his best, as he was in the late 90's either, so had they fought later in what you call "Bernards prime" he would be dealing with a better Roy Jones... A Jones that would beat him more handily than he did the first time.

Bernard was not prime when he fought Jones, are you fvcking insane? Hopkins was much improved by the time he fought Trinidad and was a much more clever, crafty, and overall better fighter than when he fought Jones. How can you argue that? And don't play out the double-standards buddy, Hopkins resume has always been better than Jones', relatively speaking. Hopkins only lost when he fought bigger men? Let's not forget how close his fights with Taylor and Calzaghe were. His only legitimate loss was to Jones, which was still a competitive fight for the time.
The thing with Hopkins is that he is a fine whine, and has only gotten better with age. Jones is like a can of soda that when the carbonation depletes, he's left 'flat'.

[young_robbed]

Hearns by far!

[cja07007]

Originally Posted by BigStereotype

Roy Jones was better, Thomas Hearns was greater.

Well put. I was trying to articulate the same thought.

[The Surgeon]

Originally Posted by BigStereotype

Roy Jones was better, Thomas Hearns was greater.

Sounds odd but its spot on, i agree with this too!


Tommy had better opposition for sure.

As for Roy and Nard, Both guys were near the top of their game tho i think both would improve but either way prime for prime Roy Jones just has the beating of Hopkins imo

[SCtrojansbaby]

Originally Posted by blackirish137

Hearns, definitely.

He beat the better competition. hell, one of Jones' best wins, Virgill Hill, was beaten by Hearns...even though Hearns' best weight was 154lbs.

You name me guys that Jones beat that were as good as Benitez, Duran and Ray Leonard. The only one is Hopkins, and lets be honest, Hopkins was green.

WTF Hearns never beat Leonard and Duran was waaaaaaaaaaaay past his prime

Dominant wins over Toney and Hopkins in there primes are far greater the Hearns squeaking by Benitez and his next best win is against who? Pipino Cueves. Its not even close no objective person can say Hearns beat better competition or has a better resume

and yes Hopkins was in his prime 27 years old and went on to win like 25 in row after Roy beat him.