Who's legacy was damaged more back losing back to back: Hopkins or Jones?

hmm Yes, and the reason Hops didn't throw as many punches is because he's not what he was in his prime. In his prime he threw plenty of punches to go along with rough-housing tactics, which was very effective (vs Tito, Echols, etc.). Hopkins circa 1993-2001 would notch a clear win over Jermain and perhaps a late stoppage like he couldn't get in 2004.

Hopkins lost because the fight he should have fought (and the fight many people that he would do the second time) involved throwing many more punches than he actually did. That just isn't his style. But he still out landed Taylor in jabs and power shots and had a higher connect percentage. That didn't translate into a win because he didn't look impressive (didn't put too many punches together). 22 ppl for Jones? lol...Bias at its best. The reason Jones lost is the same Hopkins lost basically. They both were past their prime (for different reasons). Ask boxing historians, like Bert Sugar or our good friend whdempsey here, and the answer is clear. Neither guy's legacy is terribly affected and both are HOF locks.

hmm 22 ppl for Jones? lol...Bias at its best. The reason Jones lost is the same Hopkins lost basically. They both were past their prime (for different reasons). Ask boxing historians, like Bert Sugar or our good friend whdempsey here, and the answer is clear. Neither guy's legacy is terribly affected and both are HOF locks.

Yeah, that has boring written all over it, but if you're a Hopkins fan like myself you'd want him to redeem himself and to get the belts off the most boring fighter in boxing, is truly killing two birds with one stone. :boxing: Thats all we need Hopkins vs. Winky...fucking great! The sad part about it is that Hopkins is probably thinking the same thing.

Also, Hopkins is willing to fight again, against Winky too. I think he could redeem himself big time by beating Winky. Thats all we need Hopkins vs. Winky...fucking great! The sad part about it is that Hopkins is probably thinking the same thing.

Also, Hopkins is willing to fight again, against Winky too. I think he could redeem himself big time by beating Winky.

I think worst than being KO'd was Jones' unwillingness to finish off or try to finish off a stumbling Tarver. I think both fighters have tremendous legacies, and neither should have anything taken away from them based on their back to back losses. However, Jones did take a bit of a bigger bruise on his by getting Kayo'd, while 'Nard was decisioned, controversially

I think both fighters have tremendous legacies, and neither should have anything taken away from them based on their back to back losses. However, Jones did take a bit of a bigger bruise on his by getting Kayo'd, while 'Nard was decisioned, controversially

He lost a lot of weight going from heavy... thats a pretty good excuse. Imo Jones because he really didnt have an excuse...he just plainly lost 3 times in a row getting ko'd twice Hopkins went out and fought his heart out at the age of 40

Imo Jones because he really didnt have an excuse...he just plainly lost 3 times in a row getting ko'd twice Hopkins went out and fought his heart out at the age of 40

His fluid switches from southpaw to conventional and the use of that right jab also made me a big fan of his.

Truthfully, many of the people on this site don't remember the Hagler who usually dismantled his opponents in one sided fights when they talk abotu him. They think back to the later tired version of Hagler who went to war with Mugabi and HEarns, because that was the pleasing version for them to watch. Hagler's style in his prime was more pleasing for purists to watch because it was so technically sound and menacingly complete. The average joe-blow fan wouldn't have raved about him from watching him take apart Cyclone Hart or Bad Benny Briscoe. Maybe this is an unfounded assumption, so correct me if i'm incorrect.

The guy did bring up great points. I dont figure Hopkins' lackluster showing was being of a "lack of balls", its was his chess match type boxing that he does. Larry Merchant his the nail on the head about Hopkins being "economic" with his "energy". Hopkin's didnt use any more energy than he wanted to in that fight. You bring up two great points! Bernard talked after both fights how he was fresh as hell-many people who have come to Bernard's defense talk about his stamina problem-Im with you and Bernard, there appeared to be no stamina problem, lets call it how it was-a lack of effort/balls. Your second point-Bernard didnt look shot to you-fully agree he didint look shot too me either-he looked like the Bernard who played it safe against Tito for a long time, he looked like the same Bernard who beat Oscar, the same Bernard who beat Eastman etc. Roy may have lost a step, hell Roy may have lost 10 steps but I just dont buy into that same theory in regards to Bernard Hopkins-like you said he didnt look shot to me!

I also thought Hopkins was hit with a lot of shots a legend wouldnt have been hit with. You can say that Hopkins was trying to create opportunities that weren't there. I totally disagree and feel that Hopkins lost the fight because he wasn't putting punches together in number, so he didn't really open himself up to those stiff jabs that landed flushly. Your absolutely right he was never dominated but...with his style it is tuff too dominate him when he really isnt interested in fighting all that much. He had an opportunity to right a wrong and make good on a defeat that he should have never been dealt and what did he do? He did the same exact thing... I wanted to see Nard go out and try to beat Jermain Taylor, thats what an all time great should have done or at least put forth the effort-Nard talks about going out on his shield...in his three losses he was never willing to go out on his shield-I will hold this against him a bit.

I think 20 years from now, Hopkins will be talked about like Monzon, just because of the record to be honest. I like his fighting style, but he wasn't exciting. His style isn't something today's fans will tell their kids about 20 years from now. I for the most part agree... Roy Jones was being talked about as arguably the greatest p4p fighter in the history of the sport, his legacy of being great was cemented long ago but his claim as a SRR type is now over. Hopkins was hurt a bit too, you can say he was old which he was but too me he had fought the same fight he fought against Taylor twice for the last 5 years-yes even against Tito he was ultra cautious for a great portion of that fight (rightfully so against Tito but boy it turned into a real pattern.) Hopkins defense streak had people talking about him as one of the greatest middleweight champs of all time-too me this was always being overstated a bit but now I believe rightfully or wrongfully so he is no longer in this conversation.

i fully agree. in the second fight B-Hop showed a lack of two very important qualities of a champion - adaptability and the willingness to pull out all the stops to win. saying after the fight he was still "fresh as a daisy" - which was not far from truth - was a slap in the face to anyone who paid for that PPV. the second Tarver fight was also a piss-take from RJJ, but his recent losses came from being a shot fighter - B-Hop did not look shot to me. You bring up two great points! Bernard talked after both fights how he was fresh as hell-many people who have come to Bernard's defense talk about his stamina problem-Im with you and Bernard, there appeared to be no stamina problem, lets call it how it was-a lack of effort/balls. Your second point-Bernard didnt look shot to you-fully agree he didint look shot too me either-he looked like the Bernard who played it safe against Tito for a long time, he looked like the same Bernard who beat Oscar, the same Bernard who beat Eastman etc. Roy may have lost a step, hell Roy may have lost 10 steps but I just dont buy into that same theory in regards to Bernard Hopkins-like you said he didnt look shot to me!

the looses for both just ruined their carrers. as far legacies come; i think Roy's was weak after his loss to Johnson, for all the criticism about him "dodging" (im not saying he did or did not, but im taking into account what people think about roy's legacy, after all his legacy will be what people say in a couple of years when they hear the name rou jones jr) figthers, winning titles at middle, super middle light heavy and heavy weights does put him in a good position although i think he will be rembered more for the "got any excuses roy". Bernard's winning streak that has to get him somewheres and loosing as UD and a close SD to the best young upcomer at his weight is not that much of a horrible thing specially when youu are 40 years old, even though his better years happen until he was 30, also giving Tito his first defeat and beating DLH as bad as he did also guarantees that he will be rememberd in years to come. so no their looses did not affect their legacies too much, but they finished their carrers

Your absolutely right he was never dominated but...with his style it is tuff too dominate him when he really isnt interested in fighting all that much. He had an opportunity to right a wrong and make good on a defeat that he should have never been dealt and what did he do? He did the same exact thing... I wanted to see Nard go out and try to beat Jermain Taylor, thats what an all time great should have done or at least put forth the effort-Nard talks about going out on his shield...in his three losses he was never willing to go out on his shield-I will hold this against him a bit. i fully agree. in the second fight B-Hop showed a lack of two very important qualities of a champion - adaptability and the willingness to pull out all the stops to win. saying after the fight he was still "fresh as a daisy" - which was not far from truth - was a slap in the face to anyone who paid for that PPV. the second Tarver fight was also a piss-take from RJJ, but his recent losses came from being a shot fighter - B-Hop did not look shot to me.

I dont believe hopkins damaged his legacy much. He actually took the chance and fought a young gun. Both fights were close and could have gone either way so it's not like hopkins was EVER dominated Your absolutely right he was never dominated but...with his style it is tuff too dominate him when he really isnt interested in fighting all that much. He had an opportunity to right a wrong and make good on a defeat that he should have never been dealt and what did he do? He did the same exact thing... I wanted to see Nard go out and try to beat Jermain Taylor, thats what an all time great should have done or at least put forth the effort-Nard talks about going out on his shield...in his three losses he was never willing to go out on his shield-I will hold this against him a bit.

I got to say Roy Jones. People were rating him up to the standards of Sugar Ray Robinson but now they probably wouldn't dare. Hopkins' losses hurt him too but many including myself thought he won those fights so it doesn't affect him too much in my books. I for the most part agree... Roy Jones was being talked about as arguably the greatest p4p fighter in the history of the sport, his legacy of being great was cemented long ago but his claim as a SRR type is now over. Hopkins was hurt a bit too, you can say he was old which he was but too me he had fought the same fight he fought against Taylor twice for the last 5 years-yes even against Tito he was ultra cautious for a great portion of that fight (rightfully so against Tito but boy it turned into a real pattern.) Hopkins defense streak had people talking about him as one of the greatest middleweight champs of all time-too me this was always being overstated a bit but now I believe rightfully or wrongfully so he is no longer in this conversation.