Who will be remembered as the better fighter???

[THE REED]

It does figure into perception of a fighter. Thats part of what sticks in peoples minds.

When you are speaking of accomplishments only the very best names on a resume will stick out, in 20 years unless you are a hardcore boxing fan you think people will remember John David Jackson or Kieth Holmes were very
good wins of Hopkins' resume? They will basically remember him for a handfull of fighters he beat De La Hoya, Trinidad and Wright and Pavlik to a lesser extent.
Same thing when speaking of Jones. They will only look at the biggest nights of his career, and not look at the totality of his accomplishments.

They both have their share of big wins, and one of the things people will have is their memories of how these and their lesser fights were won.

Main thing I am saying is that how people percieve these guys and the ease with which they fought will have a bearing on how they are remembered.

Well Im talking about the people who actually RANK ATG lists... Bert Sugar for example... The people who actually RANK the fighters, DO remember what was involved with these fighters and the circumstances.



As far as what people will remember... I think both Bernard and Roy will be remembered each for their own ways... Bernard especially on how well he did at his age and his MW defenses....and Roy for the way he performed in the ring during his prime...


You have a guy who had 20 mw title defenses... 1st in history

The other guy is the only MW to go up to HW in 106 years.


You have one guy who may have more STAR names on his resume.... but these STAR names all had to come up in weight to actually fight him.

On the other Roy might have fewer STAR names on his list, yet Roy had to go UP in weight to beat all of them.

[THE REED]

Thats why it is so hard to compare the two. You know Ali in his prime was a lot like RJ no one could touch him he was too fast did everything based on speed and athleticism, but what seperates him from Roy Jones is the fact that when age got the better of him he developed his technical skills and his ring smarts to get him the W against younger stronger fighter, and RJ just couldn't do that. On the other hand Hopkins has proven that he can **** with the best of them at 44, which in my book places him just a tad bit over Jones on the ATG list.

So Roy accomplished his legacy by the time he was 35.... and Bernard is JUST now getting on Roys level at 43?

and that puts Bernard over?

[street bully]

It does figure into perception of a fighter. Thats part of what sticks in peoples minds.

When you are speaking of accomplishments only the very best names on a resume will stick out, in 20 years unless you are a hardcore boxing fan you think people will remember John David Jackson or Kieth Holmes were very
good wins of Hopkins' resume? They will basically remember him for a handfull of fighters he beat De La Hoya, Trinidad and Wright and Pavlik to a lesser extent.
Same thing when speaking of Jones. They will only look at the biggest nights of his career, and not look at the totality of his accomplishments.

They both have their share of big wins, and one of the things people will have is their memories of how these and their lesser fights were won.

Main thing I am saying is that how people percieve these guys and the ease with which they fought will have a bearing on how they are remembered.

True, but you have to remember these two cleaned out their respective divisions, and the people they fought were top contenders and while they made them look like nobodies the rest of their division struggled with them.

[!! Shawn]

Thats why it is so hard to compare the two. You know Ali in his prime was a lot like RJ no one could touch him he was too fast did everything based on speed and athleticism, but what seperates him from Roy Jones is the fact that when age got the better of him he developed his technical skills and his ring smarts to get him the W against younger stronger fighter, and RJ just couldn't do that. On the other hand Hopkins has proven that he can **** with the best of them at 44, which in my book places him just a tad bit over Jones on the ATG list.

No, Ali never bothered with that. He just had the fortune of having an iron jaw. Roy with an Iron jaw would still be the light heavyweight champion of the world.

[street bully]

So Roy accomplished his legacy by the time he was 35.... and Bernard is JUST now getting on Roys level at 43?

and that puts Bernard over?

You know it is very hard comparing these two fighter, who were clearly the two best of their generation. You have RJ beating Hopkins, while many claim Hopkins was green. But then you have Hopkins destroying the two men that knocked Jones out and you have others claiming that Jones was past it. What I'm saying is that prime for prime they acomplished so much, but when you look at what they did when they were clearly past it you have to give the nod to Hopkins.

[Motofan]

Well, Hopkins did more, but Roy will always be remembered for being the total freak of nature that he was in his prime. Roy was one of the few fighters that seemed unbeatable. So I would have to say Roy.

[street bully]

No, Ali never bothered with that. He just had the fortune of having an iron jaw. Roy with an Iron jaw would still be the light heavyweight champion of the world.

Yeah, I get what your saying, but an iron jaw alone wouldn't have got Ali past the monsters he went through when he was clearly so past his best.

[THE REED]

You know it is very hard comparing these two fighter, who were clearly the two best of their generation. You have RJ beating Hopkins, while many claim Hopkins was green. But then you have Hopkins destroying the two men that knocked Jones out and you have others claiming that Jones was past it. What I'm saying is that prime for prime they acomplished so much, but when you look at what they did when they were clearly past it you have to give the nod to Hopkins.

So lets say fighter A completes 10 feats in 15 years

and fighter b completes 10 feats in 20 years....

your saying fighter b gets the nod... because he could just do it longer, even though it wasnt necessarily more...

[DarchinyFAN]

Well Im talking about the people who actually RANK ATG lists... Bert Sugar for example... The people who actually RANK the fighters, DO remember what was involved with these fighters and the circumstances.

Well I was mainly answering the threadstarter who made no distinction with my first post. Second post was in defense of my original post.

To answer you as far as accomplishment goes, its a very tough call. I could probably be convinced either way.

On a side note, as far as Bert Sugar goes, he is a great read, but he bases alot of his rankings on perception of fighters, I mean I read his 100 Greatest of All Time book (BTW it had 10000000 typos, who the hell edits for that man) and there were lots of guys who got their rankings based more on reputation of their ring skill than by their actual records. I am not advocating one or another, just saying both figure in, especially when you are talking the elite of the elite.

[THE REED]

Well I was mainly answering the threadstarter who made no distinction with my first post. Second post was in defense of my original post.

To answer you as far as accomplishment goes, its a very tough call. I could probably be convinced either way.

On a side note, as far as Bert Sugar goes, he is a great read, but he bases alot of his rankings on perception of fighters, I mean I read his 100 Greatest of All Time book (BTW it had 10000000 typos, who the hell edits for that man) and I there were lots of guys who got their rankings based more on reputation of their ring skill than by their actual records. I am not advocating one or another, just saying both figure in, especially when you are talking the elite of the elite.

fair enough.... unreal, no published book should have typos...