Anybody remember this? this is a real argument between fighters

[soul_survivor]

60/40 and i'll whoop yo ass lol....Jones was the draw, already beat Hopkins....kinda hard to duck someone you 8-4....Hopkins didnt deserve 50/50....look at Jones resume in 2001 and then look at Hopkins

Jones saw a different Hopkins surface in the late 90s and early 00s, it's funny how Jones talks about Hopkins not beating a name, Jones hadn't beaten any names either, apart from Toney (hardly known in casual circles) and of course Bhop himself. By the end of 2001, Hopkins ended up beating one of the biggest name out there, a certain Tito Trinidad. Pretty much even stevens on resume at that point.

In terms of who was actually a "draw"...it's a loose use of the ward to describe Jones as a draw but yes, he was more so than Hopkins so I certainly understand the 60-40 argument but at the same time, Hopkins was the one moving up in weight and providing a fading Jones with a worthwhile name, regardless of their first fight. Looking back at that moment, I'm sure Jones wishes he had taken the fight, instead of fighting for scraps a decade later and losing in the worst fight ever.

[AllEyesOpen]

How effective could B-Hop have been at LHW back in the early '00. It would have made for a very interesting fight not the borefest we got years later.

[therealpugilist]

Jones saw a different Hopkins surface in the late 90s and early 00s, it's funny how Jones talks about Hopkins not beating a name, Jones hadn't beaten any names either, apart from Toney (hardly known in casual circles) and of course Bhop himself. By the end of 2001, Hopkins ended up beating one of the biggest name out there, a certain Tito Trinidad. Pretty much even stevens on resume at that point.

In terms of who was actually a "draw"...it's a loose use of the ward to describe Jones as a draw but yes, he was more so than Hopkins so I certainly understand the 60-40 argument but at the same time, Hopkins was the one moving up in weight and providing a fading Jones with a worthwhile name, regardless of their first fight. Looking back at that moment, I'm sure Jones wishes he had taken the fight, instead of fighting for scraps a decade later and losing in the worst fight ever.

Hopkins did improve by 2000 but he wasnt the athlete he was in 95-99...he was knocking mfers out and even when they fought he had an airtight defense


They barely hit each other clean


Yea we all wish this fight happened from 1999-03


Jones wouldbve been favored and Hopkins wasnt aggressive enough to beat Jones



Hopkins is a tactician who had trouble with athletic guys....Jones, Dawson, Padcal, Taylor


Hopkins eats up aggressive guys...never understood why peopl ethough pavlik would beat Hopkins when he was so basic but tough

[therealpugilist]

How effective could B-Hop have been at LHW back in the early '00. It would have made for a very interesting fight not the borefest we got years later.

indeed...hopkins was rougher, nastier, threw combos and hopkins from 1997-2001 was one of the best middleweight of all time in his prime.


He would have made it competitive but Jones would have landed the cleaner shots

[KeyboardWarrior]

This was during the Height of Roycott

[IMDAZED]

Jones saw a different Hopkins surface in the late 90s and early 00s, it's funny how Jones talks about Hopkins not beating a name, Jones hadn't beaten any names either, apart from Toney (hardly known in casual circles) and of course Bhop himself. By the end of 2001, Hopkins ended up beating one of the biggest name out there, a certain Tito Trinidad. Pretty much even stevens on resume at that point.

In terms of who was actually a "draw"...it's a loose use of the ward to describe Jones as a draw but yes, he was more so than Hopkins so I certainly understand the 60-40 argument but at the same time, Hopkins was the one moving up in weight and providing a fading Jones with a worthwhile name, regardless of their first fight. Looking back at that moment, I'm sure Jones wishes he had taken the fight, instead of fighting for scraps a decade later and losing in the worst fight ever.

A fading Jones? In 2002? He had options and proved it when he won a HW title the next year. Let's see now:

Jones was the FAR bigger draw

Jones was considered pound for pound #1 in the world

Jones already held a win over him

The MW belt Hopkins defended for so long was left by Jones

Hopkins turned down 60-40, turned down $6m and said in Ring magazine that it wasn't enough to face "Superman."

[IMDAZED]

This was during the Height of Roycott

I remember that. One of the corniest things in message board history.

[soul_survivor]

Hopkins did improve by 2000 but he wasnt the athlete he was in 95-99...he was knocking mfers out and even when they fought he had an airtight defense


They barely hit each other clean


Yea we all wish this fight happened from 1999-03


Jones wouldbve been favored and Hopkins wasnt aggressive enough to beat Jones



Hopkins is a tactician who had trouble with athletic guys....Jones, Dawson, Padcal, Taylor


Hopkins eats up aggressive guys...never understood why peopl ethough pavlik would beat Hopkins when he was so basic but tough

I'm not gonna argue, I feel most versions of Jones beat most versions of Hopkins but we'll neverk now for sure cos Jones got a bit too nervous.

In terms of your last point, you have to remember Pavlik had looked sensational at 160 and was going up against a 40+ Hopkins, whereas Pavlik was over a decade younger. Little did we know, Hopkins was going to have a resurgence in his 40s.

[soul_survivor]

A fading Jones? In 2002? He had options and proved it when he won a HW title the next year. Let's see now:

Jones was the FAR bigger draw

Jones was considered pound for pound #1 in the world

Jones already held a win over him

The MW belt Hopkins defended for so long was left by Jones

Hopkins turned down 60-40, turned down $6m and said in Ring magazine that it wasn't enough to face "Superman."

Jones was fading, doesn't mean he was bad, just that he wasn't what he was from 97-99, the absolute peak of his career. once someone goes over that peak, they start to fade, you could see bits and pieces of it in fights that followed those peak years, culminating in the first Tarver bout (weight issues aside).

Again, in terms oft he draw argument ,refer to what I had to say before, saying JOnes is a bigger draw than Hopkins doesn't mean much, since boxing's biggest draws at the time were Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, Tito and Oscar. Jones wasn't a draw beyond the boxing faithful.

P4P Jones was considered the best but p4p lists are a tricky argument and what does it even mean in this context? That Jones had the right to NOT fight a worthy opponent?

So what if Jones already had a win over him? Tarver could have refused the 3rd Jones fight on that basis lmao. Or LaMotta would never fight Robinson again or Frazier/Ali II didn't need to happen. What does this statement even mean?

[Dr Rumack]

There's a misconception out there that the first fight was somewhat competitive. It wasn't. Roy beat him easily; the only rounds Hopkins won were the rounds Roy took off. Honestly don't think B-Hop would have had a chance against anything bar a shot to shit Roy.