Hopkins is OVERALL a better fighter then Roy

[Truth]

The difference is, most fighters can't afford to retire at a young age of 32 because they're not making Delahoya money. In that case, it's better for your health to have Hopkins's abilities and never truely lose a fight or get embarassed.

that i agree with.

[Chunk..]

chunk if i lived in england i would come to your house and tell you why I disagree. but i'm real tired right now. lol

I'll pm you sometime this week on why...if you want.

No problem mate. I can talk Roy till the cows come home!

[Truth]

No problem mate. I can talk Roy till the cows come home!

i'm kind of shot right now. i'm just so tired mentally of coming on here and arguing about things. lol. But I'll give it some thought, and pm you this week.

[Vladimir303]

But remember, Roy was good up until he came back down. Unlike Hopkins, Roy moved up past middle-weight all the way to Heavyweight, although the HW was just one fight so we should concentrate more on the move up to Light-Heavyweight.


And like Roy, Tarver came back down and suffered the same fate...which Hopkins took advantage of.

Hopkins best wins will be Pavlik, Tito, and Oscar. One Middleweight, one Welter, and a fighter that started at lightweight. Do you really think any of them would beat Roy in his Prime?

I do give him credit for his other wins at Middleweight, like Johnson and Echols, but Roy was fighting against bigger fighters.

Listen, every fighter in his own way has a circumstance that prevents him from being a 100% in the ring. Hopkins fans would tell you that Hopkins wasn't in his prime yet when he lost to Jones. Toney fans would tell you that he was drained when he got schooled by RJJ. Big deal. The fights happened and only fighter can claim to never have lost unaminously and that's hopkins. Also, do you really think Tarver would have beaten Hopkins whether he moved to 200lb for the Rocky role or not???I don't think so.

While I don't think Taver is better then Roy, RJJ had 2 more chances to seal the deal, especially the third fight and win the triology. He didn't commit and was satisfied just going the disatance. He wasn't in bad shape for that fight, he simply lost because he didn't commit. In that aspect, he shouldn't be excused like Ali was in 1980 when he got pounded by Holmes.

[-Hyperion-]

hopkins has lots of names since 2001.....but he lacks a bit of real substance......(and before 2001 he lacked both names AND a whole lotta substance....)

Johnson was very inexperienced....in fact for some 4 years he lost some competitive fights...after those 4 years is when he started getting blatantly jobbed...
Tito was a very good win.....a great win??no, at mw its only a very good win...
The MW DLH was a total non threat......
Tarver has pretty much proven himself to be a one hit wonder.....solid champion who ended an era, probably aint gona be in the HOF......
Winky jumped up from middle to light heavy after just 3 fights at mw...(and apparently all he did was not lose 10 pounds, the idiot.)
Pavlik is a good win, but Pavik hasnt proven himself..

dont get me wrong ive never denied Hopkins is a very good fighter...but things just played right for the guy....he had a good run in a mediocre 160 division.......that was vindicated by 2 fights........the win over tito(a legitamte very good win) and the win over oscar to charm the avarage idiot.....

tarver had looked bad vs Jones, while to me at least it was pretty obvous making 160 was bernards only problem vs Taylor, wich is why his stamina suffered....he was always a lhw, its not like he really would face a guy much bigger....

the winky wright fight was a good victory because of winkys high p4p status, but that fight was horrible....both winky and hopkins looked like ****.....not to mention winky clearly didnt belong at lhw....

id say to me, if so many people consider he gave calzaghe a close fight(i dont) thats his best performance......

[Big_L]

When I say that I'm looking at it as who I rather would be if I were a professional boxer and planned on (or had to fight, some don't make as much $ as others to retire early) fighting for 15-20 years

No doubt, Jones will go down as the greater fighter with respect to accomplishements, resume, etc,. 4-division champion, wins over Toney, Hopkins, winning a Heavyweight title etc,. There is no argument there.

roy did go 15 years without really losing a fight though. his longevity was superb.

[Vladimir303]

hopkins has lots of names since 2001.....but he lacks a bit of real substance......(and before 2001 he lacked both names AND a whole lotta substance....)

Johnson was very inexperienced....in fact for some 4 years he lost some competitive fights...after those 4 years is when he started getting blatantly jobbed...
Tito was a very good win.....a great win??no, at mw its only a very good win...
The MW DLH was a total non threat......
.

Look at the post I wrote I above. I covered this. Every fighter in his own way has a cirumstance. Toney wasn't at his best when RJJ beat him. This guy wasn't at his best at that time, etc, etc,.

Glen Johnson was inexperienced, Tarver was drained. Toney was drained also when he lost to RJJ.

Hopkins beat a better, younger more active version of Tito then RJJ did and did it much more impressive. Yet you can say that RJJ was too old when he fought Tito. Every fighter has a circumstance. It cuts both ways.

[McAlister]

lol@ u making comparisons of all the fights he had AFTER he came down from heavyweight hahahaa


thas funny........


Roy >>>>>> B-hop all day

[Benny Leonard]

Listen, every fighter in his own way has a circumstance that prevents him from being a 100% in the ring. Hopkins fans would tell you that Hopkins wasn't in his prime yet when he lost to Jones. Toney fans would tell you that he was drained when he got schooled by RJJ. Big deal. The fights happened and only fighter can claim to never have lost unaminously and that's hopkins. Also, do you really think Tarver would have beaten Hopkins whether he moved to 200lb for the Rocky role or not???I don't think so.

While I don't think Taver is better then Roy, RJJ had 2 more chances to seal the deal, especially the third fight and win the triology. He didn't commit and was satisfied just going the disatance. He wasn't in bad shape for that fight, he simply lost because he didn't commit. In that aspect, he shouldn't be excused like Ali was in 1980 when he got pounded by Holmes.

Tarver when he fought Johnson was a different fighter. Against Hopkins, it looked like he had nothing...and even after. That's what I'm saying.

The problem with the "RJJ had 2 more chances to seal the deal" is that ROY WAS FINISHED. His body could never get back on track; he killed it.
The body is a delicate machine, you cannot mess with it the way Roy did and at his age. Tarver and Chris Byrd are the other examples.

If you look at Roy prior to the move up and then after, that's evidence enough...even though I feel (like some others) that Roy had been on the decline even when he moved up...but at least he still had his legs and didn't look like a ghost like he would become.

Hopkins vs. Jones: Hopkins was young and a solid fighter at the time and you have to remember, he was good enough to get a title shot. Plus, he was boxing in jail; he was the Prison Champ.
You also have to add in the fact that he never chased Roy for a rematch, which is telling. When he finally did, after beating Tito, he priced himself out, which again, is telling.
That Hopkins is better than the 43 year old that fights now; that's for sure. That pot-shot, hold method would not work against a Prime Roy.

And even the Tito-Hopkins, which is arguably his last prime fight, Roy would be favored.

.............

"Circumstances":

Yes, everybody has their own circumstance to deal with; their own test; but some Tests are harder than others...are they not?

Just look at Kassim Ouma. Can Joe Calzaghe, Hatton, and all the rest who had family support and relatively decent lives compare to his Hell?


Lennox Lewis also pointed out one time that one thing that seperated his path from Tyson's, was that he had a loving Mother by his side at all times.
Although, I would add something Tyson said: Up until 13, my life was ****, but after that, I was put in a great position to succeed and given advantages others didn't have. {something like that}.

[Vladimir303]

Tarver when he fought Johnson was a different fighter. Against Hopkins, it looked like he had nothing...and even after. That's what I'm saying.

The problem with the "RJJ had 2 more chances to seal the deal" is that ROY WAS FINISHED. His body could never get back on track; he killed it.
The body is a delicate machine, you cannot mess with it the way Roy did and at his age. Tarver and Chris Byrd are the other examples.

If you look at Roy prior to the move up and then after, that's evidence enough...even though I feel (like some others) that Roy had been on the decline even when he moved up...but at least he still had his legs and didn't look like a ghost like he would become.

Hopkins vs. Jones: Hopkins was young and a solid fighter at the time and you have to remember, he was good enough to get a title shot. Plus, he was boxing in jail; he was the Prison Champ.
You also have to add in the fact that he never chased Roy for a rematch, which is telling. When he finally did, after beating Tito, he priced himself out, which again, is telling.
That Hopkins is better than the 43 year old that fights now; that's for sure. That pot-shot, hold method would not work against a Prime Roy.

And even the Tito-Hopkins, which is arguably his last prime fight, Roy would be favored.

.............

"Circumstances":

Yes, everybody has their own circumstance to deal with; their own test; but some Tests are harder than others...are they not?

Just look at Kassim Ouma. Can Joe Calzaghe, Hatton, and all the rest who had family support and relatively decent lives compare to his Hell?


Lennox Lewis also pointed out one time that one thing that seperated his path from Tyson's, was that he had a loving Mother by his side at all times.
Although, I would add something Tyson said: Up until 13, my life was ****, but after that, I was put in a great position to succeed and given advantages others didn't have. {something like that}.

My god, you're all over the place. I don't know how to respond to this.

All I can say it, you can keep excusing Roy and explain away how Hopkins in the 90's better. People will always disagree with you. I think the Hopkins of 2000-2005 is the best version of Hopkins. A seasoned, experienced executioner. And no Roy WAS NOT FINISHED, he didn't try his best in the third fight against Tarver. Ali vs Holmes was finished. Roy wasn't on that level of being done, no matter how you try and spin it.

All it was is him being happy to go the distance, while clowning around thinking the fans were entertained when they really were not.