Those who rank Roy Jones over Hopkins..why?

title defenses mean nothing???since when?they mean everything,they=dominance over a long period of time and means he cleaned the division out..since wen does defending your title mean nothing? We've been over this so many times, Larry. Yes, Title defences mean nothing. It's not an impressive accomplishment to defend your title against nobodies. Sven Ottke has 21 defences. What does it mean? Nothing. Arthur Abraham has a lengthy list. As does Virgil Hill. As does Bute. They all mean nothing.

I don't give his fights with "The Body Snatcher" much credit. Toney fought him in his prime, Roy didn't. The Body Snatcher is so underrated. No surprise Toney calls him the best he ever fought.

Harding and Griffin were undefeated and potentially ruined by Jones so you have to grant them access. Tito was blown-up so an * there, Dlh blown-up * there, Taver got famous on a lucky punch * there. Pascal, MC Pavlik, and Cloud are new breed bums 3 *'s there...can have Winky. Hopkins is only oldest champ because the talent pool shrunk while he was active. Another * right there. Talent comparison, Jones was a supernova. Doomed to burn out. Hopkins is like an crusty camp fire that won't go out. Doesn't matter how weak you think a division is if a 48 year old man is still on top he is special

To me longevity is the only thing Hopkins has or will ever have over RJJ. I'll never rank Hopkins over RJJ. I know who did more. I know who beat better guys. I know who was better when they were both young. It's no question the way I rate fighters that RJJ has it over Hops and always will.

Roy has the slight edge Its close resume wise , but RoY accomplished more and won h2h Roy is a pioneer to his 15 yr undefeated. Style Never lost in his prime. Plus b hop waited so long to make the rematch

Although Hopkins beating Tavoris Cloud, Jean Pascal, Kelly Pavlik, Antonio Tarver was impressive. These guys just don't stack up well vs the old school fighters. Roy Jones was more dominant vs MOST fighters while Hopkins kind of uses his craft to beat one dimensional guys like Cloud, Pascal, Pavlik. Not taking anything away from Hopkins but his wins are little overblown. When he stepped up against athletic guys like Jermain Taylor and Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones he lost. Trinidad is his best win.

to those who favor hopkins, i understand the longevity point. their competition is comparable but if you give the edge to hopkins i understand...BUT do yall really believe that hopkins was better? as in, he could beat roy? isn't that really what matters in the end? at their peaks hopkins would have a slim chance of beating roy.

More dominant, better top wins. Pretty basic conclusion really. This.......

I think Roy has an edge in popularity, he was the more exciting fighter of the 2, his style was cool to watch he made the competition look silly, plus hes a former Heavyweight champ, fighter of the decade, Id watch him any day over B hop. But Hop is still going strong even tho he needs to quit before he gets killed. But you have to give him props

What are some of you guys talking about. Winky Wright was a very defensive career 154 lber. with almost no attack except a left jab. Hopkins was a light-heavy who dieted down to 160. When they met at 170 it was basically one of three fights he's had in the past 6 years and he was flabby and out of shape. Also Hopkins is over 3" taller and rehydrates to about 180-85. Wright was about 37 and well done as a fighter. He had two more fights over the next 6 years and lost each one. he had no (W)right to be fighting at 170 against a much bigger man. Jones was virtually, truly, unbeatable for nearly 15 years un til Tarver threw that eyes-closed punch. And at that, Jones should never have come down to lt.heavy again. He ruined his body by doing it, as do so many others. But i suppose it was nearly time anyway for him to lose. With Jones, it was obvious that no matter whom the opponent was Jones would coast to an easy win. Hopkins never looked like that except against his collection of policemen and cabdrivers. He had to grit and foul his way to win.

He beat better fighters and was more dominant in doing it It's not just who you beat. It's how and when you beat them.

well lets list each fighters top wins Roy-Hopkins,Toney,Ruiz,Tarver Hopkins-Tito,Oscar,Tarver,Pavlik,Pascal,Cloud,Winky and lets add history Roy-1st fighter in over 100 years to win a title at middleweight and heavyweight Hopkins-oldest champion ever and still going montell griffin was a better fighter than pavlik, pascal and cloud. and probably better than winky @ 170.

Tito and Oscar were little compared to Hopkins so was winky if take hill and Johnson over Oscar and winky jmo but they had no business being at 160 or 170 Tito was also undefeated and had a Middleweight title he won by brutal ko

And just because he beat them when both were prime does not mean he ranks ahead...Jmm lost to freddy norwood and chris john in his prime..do they rank higher then him?

the only thing hopkins has on jones (and everybody else for that matter) is longevity. but he was not the better fight.

well lets list each fighters top wins Roy-Hopkins,Toney,Ruiz,Tarver Hopkins-Tito,Oscar,Tarver,Pavlik,Pascal,Cloud,Winky and lets add history Roy-1st fighter in over 100 years to win a title at middleweight and heavyweight Hopkins-oldest champion ever and still going Tito and Oscar were little compared to Hopkins so was winky if take hill and Johnson over Oscar and winky jmo but they had no business being at 160 or 170

Hopkins has the better resume, but we all know a Prime Roy was a freak of a nature. Roy Jones = better fighter Hopkins = longevity at the top of game It was a shame Hopkins wasn't giving the win he deserved v Calzaghe.

Roy Jones could have had 100 title defences if he decided to milk and stay at 160 for an exhaustingly long amount of time. Hopkins title defences mean nothing. Title defences in general mean nothing. Less than 10 of those defences were impressive or legitimate wins. Roy Jones is the better fighter both historically and head to head. title defenses mean nothing???since when?they mean everything,they=dominance over a long period of time and means he cleaned the division out..since wen does defending your title mean nothing?

I thought Hopkins won but still, Wright had no business at light heavyweight, he looked out of shape there and tired. He was already a small middleweight no need to go up to light heavyweight. I don't give Hopkins much credit for that one, especially since I feel Wright was past it. Nor do I. Wright's done nothing before and nothing since at 170 lbs.

Not to mention the fact that I really don't think Hopkins won that fight, to be honest. Winky outlanded Hopkins and was the winner imo Dude, you for real,, you thought winky won that fight,,, cant hate too much because i have been in the minority before when it comes to scorecards,,, but i thought for sure hopkins won that fight,,,,, winky didnt do much after about 5 rounds,,