who had the better carrer/story? B-hop or Jones?

[TredKiller]

who had the better carrer in terms of there story, resume, accomplishments, fighting style???

resumes:

Jones: undefeated Toney, Hill, hopkins, Pazienza, McCallum, Griffin, Harding, woods, ruiz, tarver, past it trinadad.

B-hop: undefeated lipsey, jackson, undefeated johnson, undefeated Echols, holmes, undefeated trinadad, past it oscar, joppy, eastman, tarver, wright, undefeated pavlik.

story's:

Jones: ripped of at the olimpics. dominated almost everyone he fought,
is the only former MW champ to become HW champ in 100 years,
only lost when going back down in wieght. only real losses past his prime.

B-hop: turnd pro after coming out of the penatentury. lost his first fight by MD, had a winning streak, then lost to RJJ, some say he was to "green" for the fight. held the MW championship for a LONG time, makeing 20 defenses,
only started losing in his 40's. went up to LHW when 40 years old, and beat the champ. and in his 40's is still beating elite level fighters.

fighting style:

Jones: very fast, not very fundumentally sound boxer, but very fast with power.

B-hop: in his prime a defensive fighter, but with a good workrate, as he got older, very defensive, tactical.

[MANGLER]

RJ had the better career. I guess his 'story' ain't as good cuz he came from the Olympics (even tho he was robbed blind), and Bhop aged much better.

[Obama]

Lot of holes there. Echols wasn't undefeated, Oscar wasn't past it, then plenty of other guys that were past it aren't listed as past it. Not to mention, you haven't even listed all the credible opponents each fighter beat. But I digress...

story: B-Hop
resume: B-Hop
paper accomplishments: RJJ
fighting style: RJJ more spectacular, B-Hop more effective to withstand the test of time

[mickey malone]

Another tough one...
I say Hopkins had the better career, as it so often appears (on this forum) he is the more popular fighter (especially in the USA) So public demand gives him the nod...
However, Hopkins couldn't beat Jones (infact, he got totally shut out, & in my opinion, still would) Not only that, but Jones done the biz at Heavy, & all told, won more titles..
What goes against Jones, were the weight weakend defeats against Tarver & Johnson... Two fighters, that were both schooled by Hopkins... Hopkins has never been KTFO...
I give this one to B/Hop, but only on the irony that Jones moving up to heavy affected his resolve... Also, will Jones still be doing it at 45? I doubt it.....

[TredKiller]

Lot of holes there. Echols wasn't undefeated, Oscar wasn't past it, then plenty of other guys that were past it aren't listed as past it. Not to mention, you haven't even listed all the credible opponents each fighter beat. But I digress...
story: B-Hop
resume: B-Hop
paper accomplishments: RJJ
fighting style: RJJ more spectacular, B-Hop more effective to withstand the test of time

well i typed it over fast, and jus got out of work, gimmie a break lol

Another tough one...
I say Hopkins had the better career, as it so often appears (on this forum) he is the more popular fighter (especially in the USA) So public demand gives him the nod...
However, Hopkins couldn't beat Jones (infact, he got totally shut out, & in my opinion, still would) Not only that, but Jones done the biz at Heavy, & all told, won more titles..
What goes against Jones, were the weight weakend defeats against Tarver & Johnson... Two fighters, that were both schooled by Hopkins... Hopkins has never been KTFO...
I give this one to B/Hop, but only on the irony that Jones moving up to heavy affected his resolve... Also, will Jones still be doing it at 45? I doubt it.....

i agree

[colly10]

Jones in his prime beats b-hop in his prime. Hopkins has obviously had a better career because he has managed to stay at the top for so long but Jones was the greater fighter

[Ivansmamma]

Both have great careers but i think Jones are greater, Jones moved up in weight, his biggest wins are against bigger fighters, Hopkins biggest wins are against smaller figthers like De La Hoya, Trinidad Pavlik. Some say Jones didnt take risks but i think he took more risks than Hopkins. Jones beat Hopkins when they fougt. But on the other hand Hopkins never got KO:d. Roy was greater in his prime but Hopkins career had more longevity.

[Bushbaby]

Hopkins has the better career,he has never been dominated,he was the underdog on 3 occations that I'm aware of and he's never been stopped!!Plus he is the best defensive fighter of the last 2 decades!!

[Obama]

Another tough one...
I say Hopkins had the better career, as it so often appears (on this forum) he is the more popular fighter (especially in the USA) So public demand gives him the nod...
However, Hopkins couldn't beat Jones (infact, he got totally shut out, & in my opinion, still would) Not only that, but Jones done the biz at Heavy, & all told, won more titles..
What goes against Jones, were the weight weakend defeats against Tarver & Johnson... Two fighters, that were both schooled by Hopkins... Hopkins has never been KTFO...
I give this one to B/Hop, but only on the irony that Jones moving up to heavy affected his resolve... Also, will Jones still be doing it at 45? I doubt it.....

You can't be serious. Roy Jones is washed up. He hasn't beat a credible fighter since the first Tarver fight, which many don't believe he deserved to win.

[Uturn]

Probably Hopkins, he's had a better career (never really been dominated in any fights). I think Prime Jones was the better fighter though. Jones should have called it a day a while ago. He's only making things worse for himself!