Hopkins is OVERALL a better fighter then Roy

[Mickey Gomez]

Hey wankimir303, how about that fight at the weekend?

[Truth]

As long as a fighter fights, he is being judged by his performance.

So you were judging Leonard against Camacho?

And 13 years isn't longevity?

[Chunk..]

As a massive Roy Jones fan, it pains me to say this but i'd have to go with Hopkins on this one.

Bernard Hopkins could fight any style of fight. He could fight inside, outside, brawl, & box (look at his fights with Tito & Echols).

He's never been KO'd (RJJ has been back to back)

He knew how to EASILY beat Tarver & RJJ got beat by Tarver twice (one of the loses was a KO).

20 successful title defenses of the middleweight (160lbs.) crown (He broke HAGLER'S record of 13 defenses)

12 Years Unbeaten (1993-2005)

He moved up in weight on captured the Light Heavyweight Title (even Ray Robinson failed to capture the Light Heavyweight Title)

He's has MORE longevity (He's 43 & still winning).

Noticeable Wins:
Felix Trinidad (KO'd)
Oscar De La Hoya (KO'd)
Antonio Tarver (easy decision)
Ronald 'Winky' Wright (close decision)
Kellt Pavlik( Took that kid to school!)

**** you for making pick Hopkins over Roy!

[Truth]

WOW, good idea. Where did you get the Poster?

I used to watch the fight to help me go to sleep; it's the same as taking Benadryl.

https://www.bobpaceboxing.com

[RichCCFC]

Prime Jones whoops his ass, his achievements are better too.

Hopkins is great and all but will always be remembered as the second best fighter of his era.

[RayLeonard82]

Your prime is what ppl go by. Not who was the better older fighter. I'll take Roy's superior freakish athletic ability from age 20 to age 32.

The difference is i would have retired after the 1st Tarver fight.

[Benny Leonard]

All I'm saying is, people are getting too caught up in this prime thing.

As long as a fighter fights, he is being judged by his performance. Roy was more dominating then Hopkins but look who is OVERALL been more competitive in every single fight. They both have 5 losses but look who has 2 Ko losses on his record while the other guy only lost split decisions.

LONGEVITY should count for something when taking a fightes legacy into account. That's something Roy doesn't have despite his superios 4-divison champion resume.

Ali is regarded by many as the Greatest HW Champion, yet he has more losses than some others...and bad defeats against the likes of Spinks, Holmes, and Berbick. It's also arguable that he lost to Norton.

People will remember Ali prior to the layoff and how great he was. And will give him a ton of credit for what he did when he came back despite the decreased attributes. They will forget the Parkinson version. That's why when you see highlights put together; they tend to show the fighter at his best.


I was watching the "who was the best P4P best fighter" from a British program from ??...anyway, one of the guys was talking about Robinson and he commentated on what one of the fighters said to him when asked about his win against Sugar Ray Robinson, he said: "I beat a Man named Ray Robinson, but I didn't beat Sugar Ray Robinson."

Roy was what, 33 or 34 when he moved back down to fight Tarver?
That is a long time in the sport for Roy. Look when he started.

[-Hyperion-]

All I'm saying is, people are getting too caught up in this prime thing.

As long as a fighter fights, he is being judged by his performance. Roy was more dominating then Hopkins but look who is OVERALL been more competitive in every single fight. They both have 5 losses but look who has 2 Ko losses on his record while the other guy only lost split decisions.

LONGEVITY should count for something when taking a fightes legacy into account. That's something Roy doesn't have despite his superios 4-divison champion resume.

longevity does count sometimes...but its not like roy started losing at 25.......

and hopkins turned pro late, his body wasn't wore down earlier by a long amateur career, he was a fit guy all through his career, his style allows him to not get punched that much, he doesnt care to give excitement so he is (almost)never in wars...its not terribly surprising to see why he can still fight at a high level.......but he had a top level and that top level he achieved aint got nothing on roys top level....

[Truth]

As a massive Roy Jones fan, it pains me to say this but i'd have to go with Hopkins on this one.

Bernard Hopkins could fight any style of fight. He could fight inside, outside, brawl, & box (look at his fights with Tito & Echols).

He's never been KO'd (RJJ has been back to back)

He knew how to EASILY beat Tarver & RJJ got beat by Tarver twice (one of the loses was a KO).

20 successful title defenses of the middleweight (160lbs.) crown (He broke HAGLER'S record of 13 defenses)

12 Years Unbeaten (1993-2005)

He moved up in weight on captured the Light Heavyweight Title (even Ray Robinson failed to capture the Light Heavyweight Title)

He's has MORE longevity (He's 43 & still winning).

Noticeable Wins:
Felix Trinidad (KO'd)
Oscar De La Hoya (KO'd)
Antonio Tarver (easy decision)
Ronald 'Winky' Wright (close decision)
Kellt Pavlik( Took that kid to school!)

**** you for making pick Hopkins over Roy!

chunk this first time i've disagreed with you. but its all good.

[Vladimir303]

So you were judging Leonard against Camacho?

And 13 years isn't longevity?

No, not at all. Try to take thing into context will ya

I made this thread just hours ago: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=222635

I'm stictly talking about Hopkins-Jones. They're much closer to each other in greatness, age, and fought similar opponents between 2002-2008. And Hopkins did much better and he is older.