True or False: Prime Roy Jones jr was on another level than Prime Floyd?

I don't consider that to be Hopkins prime. Prime doesn't mean young age, it means when you are at your pinnacle two different things. Hopkins is fine wine he gotten better with age. That Hopkins that defeated Tito would had beaten Roy. Fine so Roy beaten James Toney and Hopkins. Still not better than Floyd resume at all. Well the point is not who has a better resume per se, though I would argue that Roy has a better resume because of those victories... But that is neither here nor there... The problem becomes when people qualify every win a fighter has. Keeping things simple is good... Was Chateau Hopkins at the perfect drinking temperature when he was pulled from the wine cellar to fight Jones? who knows, probably not, but he was Hopkins, he was able, and had his youth and some of his experience.

Ok. Didn't Floyd do most of his achievements past the age of 30? Why couldn't Roy? So I will agree with you if you admit Floyd had a longer and better prime period than Roy. I definitely agree with Glen , I am not too sure about Traver I feel like the magic man was always undervalued. Tarver was a great fighter, but he was also the same guy who Harding beat. Not to mention, Roy pretty much thoroughly beaten Harding when they fought (although it was slow start for Roy, he picked it up in the fight). Keep in mind, these fights were around the same time, and before Roy moved up in weight. Roy before his move up to heavyweight would have thoroughly beaten him, in my opinion. The fact the first fight was close/controversial, despite Roy being weakened from the cut tells me as much. Again: Roy's biggest problem was moving from light heavyweight to heavyweight. Roy, when he fought Ruiz on fight night, was around 196 - 199 lbs. (depending on what his clothes weighed). Roy, back when he fought at LHW (before moving up to Heavyweight), was approximately around 182-184 lbs. In fact, the fight prior to Ruiz, he supposedly weighed in on fight night around 182 lbs. Couple that with the fact he had supposedly, only around a 2 month window to cut weight for the Tarver fight, as he was originally planning to stay and contest at heavyweight. He failed to get fights made against Holyfield (who hated Don King/opted for James Toney), Corrie Sanders, and even Mike Tyson. That's why he eventually settled back to 175 for a money fight against Tarver. Normally, when you go on a cut, you generally opt for cutting 1-2 pounds of fat a week, in order to preserve muscle mass. Of course, Roy has to make weight, so I'm sure him and his team were in a tough bind at this point. Floyd never jumped up a massive amount of weight (I mean, put on a lot of weight) and cut back down. He always stayed and played to his strengths, without adding the weight. He was brilliant at his matchmaking, if not lucky in a way (in terms of his opposition available). Not every fighter ages the same, anyways.

I will agree to disagree. As long if you stop calling people dumb for having a different opinion. Looks like a few other people agree with me. Yes you are right. I should had left racism out of it. I changed my 40 to a 8.6 Lol. You disagreed to a different question and misrepresented Roy's prime. That's my problem with what you said. Roy is my all time favorite fighter and I'm well aware of what he did and how some newer fans judge his whole career based on some bad post-prime losses and what they can go see on B@xrec but those few things don't tell Roy's whole story. He was P4P#1 for the better part of a decade for a reason. I'm not going to act like those things didn't happen. Roy was a better fighter at their absolute peaks even if Floyd has obviously retired with a better resume.

Clear. Prime Roy >>> prime Floyd lol. no. Roy simply fought lesser talent for a longer period, during his prime.

Maybe you are just in the closet for black man. You have a superman image I think you are confused and use this as your outlet. I don't know what your talking about, the fact you can remember past conversations on here I know you have no life. I and I know you are going to block me for speaking the truth. Roy didn't prove anything in his speak but Hopkins, James Toney and a fat lazy Ruiz. Does he have a highlight reel of course but none of those hightreels are anyone to brag about. Mike McMullan, Virgil Hill, Hopkins, Tony were all good wins I will even throw in Vinny if you want. There you have. I am just plain dumb but you are dumber. If you wanted to count Floyd's prime since 1998 when he won the lineal title at featherweight. That man has a deep resume. I was shocked you said one accurate thing in there so I figured I'd give you kudos. ^ Leave race out of it next time :bounce:

different kind of athlete and fighter. roy jones had devastating, one punch power that carried. one of the most explosive athletes i've ever seen. he could knock out LHW with one shot. that's a different kindof dominance. you cojldn't hit him and he'd knock your head off. floyd was so good he was still damn near impossible to hit once he'd slowed down. again, different kind of dominance. you just couldn't hit him, and he could hit you as cleanly as he cared to. Good points except Floyd got hit a lot by Castillo. In his prime. Roy wasn't even challenged in his prime. That's the difference.

Roy in his prime is the best fighter I've ever seen. There were no close or debatable fights from the time he turned probably until he came back down from HW unless you want to count the first Griffin fight which gets blown out of proportion because Roy went years with out losing a round. This topic is all about who you like better on the end. They were both great champions and ATGs but there is no world in which Floyd was a better fighter than Roy in his prime. Roy's style in his prime was superior to technical fighters and he wasn't even close to being beaten like Floyd was. Good post.

different kind of athlete and fighter. roy jones had devastating, one punch power that carried. one of the most explosive athletes i've ever seen. he could knock out LHW with one shot. that's a different kindof dominance. you cojldn't hit him and he'd knock your head off. floyd was so good he was still damn near impossible to hit once he'd slowed down. again, different kind of dominance. you just couldn't hit him, and he could hit you as cleanly as he cared to.

Woah! yes use that old race tactic just because somebody doesn't agree with your standpoint they have to be dumb. This single parent household mindset got to go. It's for the women and birds. FYI you dont know a thing about me. It's time to get off the computer and enter the real world. Lol! What does race have to do with anything I said? Aren't Roy and Floyd both black fighters? I meant that you're a dumb f@ck. That's why I can't talk any sense into you. And I remember trying before now and it went nowhere. I said Roy was better at his peak and you went into resume's like a dumb f@ck speaking dumb f@cking things. I just don't have time for your racist, ignorant mind. Go get drunk on your 40 some more or something.

1993 Hopkins is not the same Hopkins in 2001. So we are all going to go ahead and lie about this ? OK. He didn't beat Tarver. Traver won that first fight imo. What happen in the rematch? What happen with Glen Johnson? What happen in their third Traver fight ? What happen with Calzaghe? Hopkins resume and Floyd is way better. If you giving Floyd a lose to castillo then give traver the win for the first fight ! Come on now get off of that. We are talking about fighters in their prime. Regardless about Tarver and Glen Johnson, Roy literally moved all the way down from heavyweight back to 175, where he was never the same again. It could have been the result of a cut that was too much (obviously cutting too quickly/too much weight/and or improperly is a big no-no), as well as the fact he was getting older. When he fought Tarver he was already 32? about to be 33. Cutting weight in your 20s is different from your 30s, especially when it's a lot of weight. Against Calzaghe ---- he was already 37, about to be 38. Roy wasn't in his prime against any of these fighters. Part of it was aging, part of it was a bad cut at a relatively old age. Roy at his best would have definitely beaten Glen & Tarver.

1993 Hopkins is not the same Hopkins in 2001. So we are all going to go ahead and lie about this ? OK. He didn't beat Tarver. Traver won that first fight imo. What happen in the rematch? What happen with Glen Johnson? What happen in their third Traver fight ? What happen with Calzaghe? Hopkins resume and Floyd is way better. If you giving Floyd a lose to castillo then give traver the win for the first fight ! Come on now get off of that. I thought your name reminded me of someone very unintelligent and now I remember debating you before. Now I recall who you are. You aren't worth my time. Too...too.....oh, nvm.

1993 Hopkins is not the same Hopkins in 2001. So we are all going to go ahead and lie about this ? OK. He didn't beat Tarver. Traver won that first fight imo. What happen in the rematch? What happen with Glen Johnson? What happen in their third Traver fight ? What happen with Calzaghe? Hopkins resume and Floyd is way better. If you giving Floyd a lose to castillo then give traver the win for the first fight ! Come on now get off of that. why? roy didnt lose. floyd did. lets not make false equivalencies

Roy in his prime is the best fighter I've ever seen. There were no close or debatable fights from the time he turned probably until he came back down from HW unless you want to count the first Griffin fight which gets blown out of proportion because Roy went years with out losing a round. This topic is all about who you like better on the end. They were both great champions and ATGs but there is no world in which Floyd was a better fighter than Roy in his prime.

It is true. Roy was more spectacular than Floyd.

Roy in his prime was more athletic. Floyd in his prime was the better all around fighter. Roy did more flashy things while Floyd did the more technically sound things. Roy would be Prime Shaq while Floyd would be Prime Tim Duncan.

His only win at his best was Toney. After that he lost to Traver and the rest. Floyd remained undefeated. Nonsense. Roy also beat ATG Hopkins when they were both close to prime years and went on to unify the LHW title, incl beating Tarver when he was already shot and beat a heavyweight for a title. The undefeated record isn't everything. And Floyd really lost in his prime to Castillo and Roy didn't lose til he was 35.

IMO there is nothing Floyd could do that Roy couldn't if he wanted to. However Floyd never had the explosive power of Roy. Not taking anything away from Floyd who at the lower weights was an amazing fighter. --- Tyny Jesus Chavez was beating TUE a new one before he was pulled by his celebrity trainer. That was the Template for the bigger, stinger Castillo who had be KOed 3x before. Then the Judah debacle where Roger storms the ring to start a ring Brawl. Fighters are DQed when their trainers jump on the Ring apron, a clear DQ loss, but not for TUE in Vegas.

IMO there is nothing Floyd could do that Roy couldn't if he wanted to. However Floyd never had the explosive power of Roy. Not taking anything away from Floyd who at the lower weights was an amazing fighter.

In hindsight is that we question Roy’s technique and abilities. While he was doing it, the same Man that toyed with Hopkins, Toney, Hill etc was just another level. My favorite Floyd fights are vs Manfreddy and Corrales, and technically Floyd is another level. But Floyd wasn’t that person that just bullied and beat the hell out of everybody. Castillo beat Floyd, in fact the fight wasn’t even close. In Roy’s prime, no fight was close, he destroyed everybody.

Hopkins was still very green and not in his prime yet and Toney was badly weight drained when he fought Roy. This is well documented. If Hopkins had fought Roy in 98' or 99' it would have been a much closer and competitive fight. Baloney. One can make any fighter's win a contingency. The bottom line is Roy beat two guys when they were in their prime fighting times.