two questions on B-Hop's all time standing...

[THE REED]

Bernard Hopkins is greater than RJJ.

RJJ beat a green Hopkins who lacked experiance. Hopkins was in control of the fight near the end had it been a 15 rounder, RJJ would have been executed and soul taken just like every other B-hop opponent. Look what happened when he took on B-hop with experiance.

RJJ wasnt a heavyweight champ he beat Ruiz who is a journeyman in any decent era. RJJ got bossed by Johnson and Tarver whereas Hopkins destroyed them.

Hopkins has 20 defences at MW, noone in history can f#ck with that.

He beats Pascal and dawson then hes top 20.

He continues his dominance till hes 50 then he may be top 10.

Bringing up the rematch in 2010 has part of your evidence as to why hes better overall is asinine.

Also, the Glen Johnson that Bernard faced and the one Roy faced were too completely different fighters.

2005 Glen Johnson knocks out the Johnson that Bernard fought too..

20 title defenses, absolutely.

First MW to get a HW ittle in 100 years... you cant **** with that either.

Nard never fought a fighter as skilled as James Toney either... Roy moved up in weight and sonned him.

It's not so "cut and dry"

[Tyson.]

Hopkins was 28 at the time of the first Jones fight, with 23 professional fights. Roy was 24 with 21 fights.

Hopkins was green? Hopkins was in his physical prime and had two more pro fights than Roy. Only difference was Roy's amatuer record. But still, Hopkins was older with just as much pro experience.

Bottomline, when they were closes to their prime years physically, Roy won with an injured hand.

Rubbish.

Roid Jones was prime for that fight. A green Hopkins had clear control of the fight at the end. If he fought a prime Hopkins he would get schooled like he did in the rematch.

[Truth]

That amateur record you speak of is pretty important. While Roy was in the Olympics fighting on the highest stage possible hopkins was fighting in prison. Roy already experienced all the media and fighting on a big stage, hopkins hadn't. Number of pro fights and age doesn't mean prime. It's experience and level of opposition.

I agree with alot of this. But when you say roy had already experienced the media/big stage.....but the hopkins vs. jones 1 fight was an undercard fight on HBO, its not like it was BIG superfight. I'm not sure if that was a factor in that fight.

Im curious about this too, what age would you say Hopkins hit his best years as a fighter?

[IMDAZED]

Rubbish.

Roid Jones was prime for that fight. A green Hopkins had clear control of the fight at the end. If he fought a prime Hopkins he would get schooled like he did in the rematch.

Nah this is rubbish.

[IMDAZED]

I agree with alot of this. But when you say roy had already experienced the media/big stage.....but the hopkins vs. jones 1 fight was an undercard fight on HBO, its not like it was BIG superfight. I'm not sure if that was a factor in that fight.

Im curious about this too, what age would you say Hopkins hit his best years as a fighter?

A 33 year old Hopkins was the man. Unfortunately for him, when he was at his peak Jones was at an even bigger peak.

[Tyson.]

Bringing up the rematch in 2010 has part of your evidence as to why hes better overall is asinine.

Also, the Glen Johnson that Bernard faced and the one Roy faced were too completely different fighters.

2005 Glen Johnson knocks out the Johnson that Bernard fought too..

20 title defenses, absolutely.

First MW to get a HW ittle in 100 years... you cant **** with that either.

Nard never fought a fighter as skilled as James Toney either... Roy moved up in weight and sonned him.

It's not so "cut and dry"

A paper title is all it was. When has Ruiz ever been the best fighter at heavyweight, in what era would he be a champion. All Roy did was beat a contender from a poor era.

Toney was weight drained and unprepared for RJJ. He had to lose 44lbs in 8 weeks. If you discredit Tarvers win over RJJ then RJJ never beat a prime Toney.

Its cut and dry, Bernard is the better fighter now as proven by the rematch. What more proof do you want. A rubber match?

[THE REED]

A paper title is all it was. When has Ruiz ever been the best fighter at heavyweight, in what era would he be a champion. All Roy did was beat a contender from a poor era.

Toney was weight drained and unprepared for RJJ. He had to lose 44lbs in 8 weeks. If you discredit Tarvers win over RJJ then RJJ never beat a prime Toney.

Its cut and dry, Bernard is the better fighter now as proven by the rematch. What more proof do you want. A rubber match?

Please shut up.

[jrosales13]

Bernard Hopkins is greater than RJJ.

RJJ beat a green Hopkins who lacked experiance. Hopkins was in control of the fight near the end had it been a 15 rounder, RJJ would have been executed and soul taken just like every other B-hop opponent. Look what happened when he took on B-hop with experiance.

RJJ wasnt a heavyweight champ he beat Ruiz who is a journeyman in any decent era. RJJ got bossed by Johnson and Tarver whereas Hopkins destroyed them.

Hopkins has 20 defences at MW, noone in history can f#ck with that.

He beats Pascal and dawson then hes top 20.

He continues his dominance till hes 50 then he may be top 10.

You also think that Tyson is greater than Holmes, Holyfield, and Lewis right?

Is funny that you mention the 20 titles defenses for Hopkins but ignore Holmes 20 title defenses when making a case that he is only "good" but not ATG let alone not greater than Tyson.

[djtmal]

I what?...........

chill dude i'm f'ing whitcha

[Truth]

you start your career at 160 and you beat a heavyweight title holder, thats impressive. John Ruiz was decent heavyweight in his day, he wasnt great by a long shot, but he was a competant fighter. Its not like Roy beat Sly Stallone for the heavyweight title in a charity fight or something. lol