Will A Win Over Roy Give Hopkins A Better Legacy Than Jones?

[S.G.]

Who is using it as a deciding factor? I'm not. But it's a notch for Jones, a fairly big one.



I agree with some of what you said, disagree with others but either way, I'm not sure how this affects the debate at all. And quite frankly, while Jones was at his physical peak around 95-96, he had it all together from 97 till about 2001. So no, I don't think he was significantly closer than Hopkins who seemed to be at his peak around 1997-2000.

Jones' peak started around 1994, 1995-ish and he sustained it to a large degree until about 2003 or whatever

Hopkins, in my personal opinion, didn't reach that marriage of physical peak and mentally coming into his own and mastering his style until about 1999 and has sustained the ability to compete on a pound-for-pound level up until, well, now really even despite his physical prime ending a few years ago.

So I'd say there is a notable timeline difference there which justifies the opinion that the Jones who fought Hopkins is a more accurate representation of his eventual self than is the case for Hopkins.

[Chr0nic]

Steve Collins lost to Reggie Johnson who Jones beat. Different time frames? Yes but somehow it doesn't stop people from bringing up Glen Johnson when comparing Hopkins and Jones.

Thulani Malinga defeated Nigel Benn, Omar Sheika and barely lost on points to an undefeated Chris Eubank but was flattened in six by Jones.

Jones' resume is underrated, if that's even possible.

the johnson that fought hopkins was completely differrent than the johnson that fought jones
johnson had'nt fought a live body till hopkins, and he fought witha completely differrent style

[Chr0nic]

Jones' peak started around 1994, 1995-ish and he sustained it to a large degree until about 2003 or whatever

Hopkins, in my personal opinion, didn't reach that marriage of physical peak and mentally coming into his own and mastering his style until about 1999 and has sustained the ability to compete on a pound-for-pound level up until, well, now really even despite his physical prime ending a few years ago.

So I'd say there is a notable timeline difference there which justifies the opinion that the Jones who fought Hopkins is a more accurate representation of his eventual self than is the case for Hopkins.

god damn, a fighter can sustain his peak for 9 years?

[IMDAZED]

Jones' peak started around 1994, 1995-ish and he sustained it to a large degree until about 2003 or whatever.

I disagree. Jones became much more refined in his later years. Much more body work, ring generalship and greater work on the inside where he was embarrassingly inept before.

Hopkins, in my personal opinion, didn't reach that marriage of physical peak and mentally coming into his own and mastering his style until about 1999 and has sustained the ability to compete on a pound-for-pound level up until, well, now really even despite his physical prime ending a few years ago.

I don't really disagree with this, although I'd say Hopkins in 1997 was the best version I saw.

So I'd say there is a notable timeline difference there which justifies the opinion that the Jones who fought Hopkins is a more accurate representation of his eventual self than is the case for Hopkins.

I disagree for reasons mentioned above.

[THE REED]

Jones' peak started around 1994, 1995-ish and he sustained it to a large degree until about 2003 or whatever

Hopkins, in my personal opinion, didn't reach that marriage of physical peak and mentally coming into his own and mastering his style until about 1999 and has sustained the ability to compete on a pound-for-pound level up until, well, now really even despite his physical prime ending a few years ago.

So I'd say there is a notable timeline difference there which justifies the opinion that the Jones who fought Hopkins is a more accurate representation of his eventual self than is the case for Hopkins.

Well, trying to figure out when Hopkins "prime" may have been is an opinion debate.... Bernard not losing a fight for 12 years after Roy beat him, is a fact that is not opinion.

[street bully]

Luckily for Roy, by the time this happened he had already accomplished so much... and dont just credit it to Roy simply "slowing down", dropping two weight classes and being knocked out twice would slow down anyones "comeback from adversity."

Which also didnt happen until he was 35... he was 49-1 at that point.

Hopkins may have done better later in his career, but Roy did better earlier in his career.

You are right, dropping from the 190s to 175 did leave him weight drained for the Tarver fight, but since then Roy still has most physcial advantages over his opponents, and he does fight or try to fight in the same style as his youth, but it does not work anymore.

[THE REED]

You are right, dropping from the 190s to 175 did leave him weight drained for the Tarver fight, but since then Roy still has most physcial advantages over his opponents, and he does fight or try to fight in the same style as his youth, but it does not work anymore.

Because Bernard uses better fundamentals in his old age then a Roy Jones does, does not somehow prove Hopkins resume to be greater.. It's a completely different topic.

[rskumm21]

I disagree. Jones has greater accomplishments IMO and beat better fighters. Hopkins has lasted longer but he was in his 30's when he defeated his first really good fighter. The age evens out.

Jones has better fighters? WTF? The only good fighters on his resume he lost to except for B-Hop which was a bull**** win for him anyways.

[THE REED]

Jones has better fighters? WTF? The only good fighters on his resume he lost to except for B-Hop which was a bull**** win for him anyways.

That was a good one, keep em coming.

[Chr0nic]

Jones has better fighters? WTF? The only good fighters on his resume he lost to except for B-Hop which was a bull**** win for him anyways.

quoted for ******ness