Who has a greater legacy? Hopkins vs Jones Jr

[windowMaker]

Roy tarnished his legacy, all i'm pointing out. He could've left when he was a king, or even after Antonio dropped him. But like many, he had to embarrass himself.

did Ezzard Charles tarnish his legacy?

[old cat]

Roy in his prime was just a better fighter. The Purest hate it but its true.

Who cares if his style did not hold up after his athleticism waned. He will be rightly remember as Super Man..............

[Jam Jars]

who roy fought in his next fight.


this was in 99. his last fight was 97. looking for a check is right.

Excuses, the myth is the "euros" didn't want to fight, which isn't true. Nigel Benn wanted to fight too.

[windowMaker]

Excuses, the myth is the "euros" didn't want to fight, which isn't true. Nigel Benn wanted to fight too.

Benn was done by 95.

[LacedUp]

Benn was done by 95.

It was 96, but thanks for looking at boxrec.

[windowMaker]

It was 96, but thanks for looking at boxrec.

what was 96? youre putting the ass in assumption right now

[MrTambourineMan]

Both are extremely overrated as far as all-time standings go.

Roy being the lesser of two evils when placing them.

[GoldenGloveLove]

exactly. just like tommy hearns won the longevity battle with ray leonard. but he'll never be considered greater. no knock against hopkins. roy was simply better.

Straight up.

did Ezzard Charles tarnish his legacy?

Yeah why do people keep trotting out that crap about Roy tarnishing his legacy? Almost all the best p4p guys were losing to people that wouldn't have sniffed their cracks in their primes. Nobody around now who bothers learning about the sport is forgetting about Charles and Pep and Robinson. RJJ's no different or Holyfield or whoever. What they did and who they were ain't going anywhere even if they fight till they're 60 and get knocked out 50 times. They're not erasing history. And anybody care if Hopkins loses to Dawson in his late forties? Not me. He's still a great fighter.

[windowMaker]

Straight up.



Yeah why do people keep trotting out that crap about Roy tarnishing his legacy? Almost all the best p4p guys were losing to people that wouldn't have sniffed their cracks in their primes. Nobody around now who bothers learning about the sport is forgetting about Charles and Pep and Robinson. RJJ's no different or Holyfield or whoever. What they did and who they were ain't going anywhere even if they fight till they're 60 and get knocked out 50 times. They're not erasing history. And anybody care if Hopkins loses to Dawson in his late forties? Not me. He's still a great fighter.

internet boxing fans, I call them. started watching around 2005 and youtube highlights basically

[Light_Speed]

Whilst all that is true, that doesn't make his resume particularly better if you break down who he beat. Look at his middleweight resume for example, there's a whole lot of unknowns in there. There's also a lot of fighters moving up in weight to face him, not established middleweights and smaller guys.

Roy Jones beat better fighters than Hopkins did, plus he was lightheavy champion, supermiddleweight champion and won a version of the heavyweight championship.

Not to mention he beat some ATGs for their weightclass in Mike McCallum, Toney and of course Hopkins himself.

Both Tito and Oscar won titles at MW before facing Bhop, so they didn't move up to face him. McCallum was washed up, Toney was weightdrained (his own fault, I know) and Hopkins wasn't a top P4P fighter when they fought in 93.

the best H2H fighter to ever live

That's subjective.

basically ruled and hardly lost rounds from the age of 16-35 yrs old

16? Are we counting amateur career now?

At the end of the day - Jones will be remembered by casuals, Hopkins will not.

****** argument. How many casuals know about Willie Pep and Archie Moore?