Who should be rated higher Hopkins or Jones?

[markl]

How can you be greater than a man who beat you soundly at what you are supposed to be great at?

Ali/Norton anyone?

[HomicideHenry]

I just don't see the logic, really, in saying just because someone beat them, that they were automatically better. There has been many fighters that I can think of off the top of my head who over came losses to become better than the men who defeated them:

Muhammad Ali lost to Frazier, Norton and Leon Spinks. But in the end Ali's career achievments out weighed all their accomplishments.

Ray Robinson lost to Jake LaMotta, Carmen Basilio, Gene Fullmer, but in the end he is generally considered p4p the greatest fighter of all time.

Archie Moore lost three times to Ezzard Charles, and due to that Moore is out right called second to Charles in the LHW division's ATG's. But Moore's longetivity, combined with being shut out from a MW title shot for the first 15 or so years of his career, and capping off his career still ranked considerably high as both a LHW and HW when he was nearly 50 years old, truly trumps Charles' wins over him by a long shot.

Or how about Fitzsimmons losing twice to Jim Jefferies? Yet outside of Jefferies retiring undefeated (like Marciano), he didn't exactly accomplish as much as Fitz, who was boxing's first triple crown champion and was a contender all the way up to his 50th birthday.

Does Jack Johnson's loss to Marvin Hart hurt his ATG standing? Hell no.

Yes, Jones beat Hopkins. Yes their accomplishments are somewhat even, but then again Hopkins is alot like Jim Braddock, he peaked twice. Jones burnt out like a shooting star across the heavens after facing Ruiz. Will Hopkins be able to keep up the pace? Who knows, but the records show that Hopkins has a slight edge over Jones. Compare each man's opponents throughout the years, and you'll see.

[HomicideHenry]

Ok Dec, I want you to make the case for Ezzard Charles, and I'll make a case for Archie Moore. How does that sound to you?

[ringsider]

If a guy beats you.....he is better than you. It is not that tough to figure out guys. Jones and Hopkins fought once. Jones easily beat him. End of debate.

[m1kee50]

If a guy beats you.....he is better than you. It is not that tough to figure out guys. Jones and Hopkins fought once. Jones easily beat him. End of debate.

And if they fought again now and Hopkins beat him? Does that make them even?

[bollox]

If a guy beats you.....he is better than you. It is not that tough to figure out guys. Jones and Hopkins fought once. Jones easily beat him. End of debate.

And if they fought again now and Hopkins beat him? Does that make them even?

The one who wins a fight today is simply the one that has regressed less

[Ezzard]

If a guy beats you.....he is better than you. It is not that tough to figure out guys. Jones and Hopkins fought once. Jones easily beat him. End of debate.

And if they fought again now and Hopkins beat him? Does that make them even?

The one who wins a fight today is simply the one that has regressed less

But doesn't that have an imapct on how great you are?

Ali had regressed less than Frazier by the time of their 3rd fight...

[bollox]

And if they fought again now and Hopkins beat him? Does that make them even?

The one who wins a fight today is simply the one that has regressed less

But doesn't that have an imapct on how great you are?

Ali had regressed less than Frazier by the time of their 3rd fight...

No way i'm afraid. I don't see why the result of a fight between 2 middle aged past their best fighters impacts on their greatness or otherwise

Ali and Frazier had cemented their respective legacies well before their third fight

As another example, Jones fairly easily beat Toney in '93 was it? Can you see Jones beating Toney today? I can't

[Ezzard]

The one who wins a fight today is simply the one that has regressed less

But doesn't that have an imapct on how great you are?

Ali had regressed less than Frazier by the time of their 3rd fight...

No way i'm afraid. I don't see why the result of a fight between 2 middle aged past their best fighters impacts on their greatness or otherwise

Ali and Frazier had cemented their respective legacies well before their third fight

As another example, Jones fairly easily beat Toney in '93 was it? Can you see Jones beating Toney today? I can't

If they're both old then why not? Jones and Hopkins have already cemented their legacies.

IMO is Jones or Hopkins lose to younger top fighters at this age it does not diminish what they did but if they beat other gifted opponents then it does improve their ranking.

The other thing that bothers me a little is that one fight does not necessarily give you total dominance. If Frazier and Norton had never rematched Ali they'd be 1-0 against him. I don't think this would make them better fighters, so are they getting penalised for losing close fights against possibly the greatest HW of all-time? Seems a bit harsh if so.

If Hopkins beat Jones now it would not diminish my opinion of Jones but it would improve my ranking of Hopkins (slightly).

Also, if Toney beat Jones today that would have a bearing on Toney.

[Ambling Alp]

I don't believe that one fight is the end all be all. However, if the fight was when both fighters was in their primes, than it has to carry some weight. If the rest of their careers were about even, the winner of the head to head fight should be considered better.

If one fighter is not in his prime and loses to a fighter who is, then the result shouldn't mean anything.

If both fighters are past their primes, then it's a harder question. I would say the farther they are past it, then the less it means. For example, if Foreman would have fought Holmes when they in their mid 40's, then it wouldn't have meant much what would have happened. It's almost like saying that Old-Timers games in baseball or the Senior Tennis and Golf Tours are important.

As for Hopkins-Jones, if they fought right now, I don't think it would mean much. Nor would Jones-Toney.

On the other hand longevity has to count for something. A fighter who is on top for a very long should be given some credit.

[ringsider]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

[Ezzard]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

I don't know... Don't quote me on this, but didn't someone on this board once mention something about styles make fights...?

[Ezzard]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

Jones beat Hopkins who beat tarver and Johnson who beat Jones who...

hang on...

[JCS]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

Wow, you are really lost, aren't you?

Ross Puritty beat Wlad Klitschko. So is Puritty better overall?

Give me a break. Go talk about something you can understand. Your ignorance pisses me off.

[Elton John]

Jones was so much better than Hopkins in every way. 4 time champion.

Bernard was a good fighter but there is a wide gap between being good and having astronomical talent. Roy had astronomical talent and it showed when the two of them squared off which is as direct a comparison as you could ask for.

Did I mention Roy won that one easily while sporting a broken hand and weight drained?

[Elton John]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

I have to agree this time. You can't discount the loss saying losses don't necessarily mean you're inferior to the guy you lose to.

Bernard has a bad habit of almost never losing. Both men on the upswing of their career when it happened. Jones losing after 35 years of age, 14 years fighting professionally, and under special circumstances. In other words he was through as a fighter when he lost those fights.

The one that matters is Jones-Hopkins. So as to who's better, we have our answer.

[dempseyfire]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

I have to agree this time. You can't discount the loss saying losses don't necessarily mean you're inferior to the guy you lose to.

Bernard has a bad habit of almost never losing. Both men on the upswing of their career when it happened. Jones losing after 35 years of age, 14 years fighting professionally, and under special circumstances. In other words he was through as a fighter when he lost those fights.

The one that matters is Jones-Hopkins. So as to who's better, we have our answer.

The fact that Hopkins at 42 is still beating top PFP fighters doesn't say anything???

So you are saying A beating B means A is better than B? So is Schmeling better than Louis? Louis was "on the upswing" . . .discount the rematch, b/c Jones-Hopkins II never happened. And Schmeling-Louis was not nearly as competetive as Roy-Bernard was.

To say Hopkins was on the "upswing" is pushing it . . he was an undefeated, solid fighter, but one can see from the film he was not the fighter he would become 4 years later.

[Ambling Alp]

Memory does play tricks on people.
The fight wasn't any easy fight for Jones. Hopkins was competitive.
This wasn't some sort of showdown with both fighters at their best when it took place.
He wasn't nearly that well known. Hopkins had not reached his best when they fought. He hadn't beaten anyone at all at this point. It would be about 4 years before he would be.
Some people are putting way too much stock in this fight.

[Elton John]

Come on guys lets do it again...

You fight someone, they beat you, they are therefore better than you.

We are not talking about who they beat, when they beat who, or career length, etc.etc.etc. If a guy beats you, he is better than YOU. Jones easily beat Hopkins.

Therefore and ergo Jones was better than Hopkins.

See how simple that was?

I have to agree this time. You can't discount the loss saying losses don't necessarily mean you're inferior to the guy you lose to.

Bernard has a bad habit of almost never losing. Both men on the upswing of their career when it happened. Jones losing after 35 years of age, 14 years fighting professionally, and under special circumstances. In other words he was through as a fighter when he lost those fights.

The one that matters is Jones-Hopkins. So as to who's better, we have our answer.

The fact that Hopkins at 42 is still beating top PFP fighters doesn't say anything???

So you are saying A beating B means A is better than B? So is Schmeling better than Louis? Louis was "on the upswing" . . .discount the rematch, b/c Jones-Hopkins II never happened. And Schmeling-Louis was not nearly as competetive as Roy-Bernard was.

To say Hopkins was on the "upswing" is pushing it . . he was an undefeated, solid fighter, but one can see from the film he was not the fighter he would become 4 years later.

Bernard has longevity going for him. Roy is not the fighter he was when he was younger. Then, no one could compete with him in icluding Hopkins
himself.

Both were fighting for a title weren't they? Both were at the same stage of development and both turned pro the same year. You can't use the argument that Hopkins was too young or too old-he was 28.

But your argument of Louis-Schmeling is a good one. Of that there's no doubt. But Bernard has never been a big enough hitter for the likes of Roy. Hit Roy with everything he had and it wasn't enough. Roy didn't so much as blink.

No one can say he didn't make the most of the opportunity but Roy just had his number.

I have no doubt X would do a job on Roy now but only because Roy isn't the same fighter. But beating shells doesn't count for anything in my opinion.

[JCS]

I have to agree this time. You can't discount the loss saying losses don't necessarily mean you're inferior to the guy you lose to.

Bernard has a bad habit of almost never losing. Both men on the upswing of their career when it happened. Jones losing after 35 years of age, 14 years fighting professionally, and under special circumstances. In other words he was through as a fighter when he lost those fights.

The one that matters is Jones-Hopkins. So as to who's better, we have our answer.

The fact that Hopkins at 42 is still beating top PFP fighters doesn't say anything???

So you are saying A beating B means A is better than B? So is Schmeling better than Louis? Louis was "on the upswing" . . .discount the rematch, b/c Jones-Hopkins II never happened. And Schmeling-Louis was not nearly as competetive as Roy-Bernard was.

To say Hopkins was on the "upswing" is pushing it . . he was an undefeated, solid fighter, but one can see from the film he was not the fighter he would become 4 years later.

Bernard has longevity going for him. Roy is not the fighter he was when he was younger. Then, no one could compete with him in icluding Hopkins
himself.

Both were fighting for a title weren't they? Both were at the same stage of development and both turned pro the same year. You can't use the argument that Hopkins was too young or too old-he was 28.

But your argument of Louis-Schmeling is a good one. Of that there's no doubt. But Bernard has never been a big enough hitter for the likes of Roy. Hit Roy with everything he had and it wasn't enough. Roy didn't so much as blink.

No one can say he didn't make the most of the opportunity but Roy just had his number.

I have no doubt X would do a job on Roy now but only because Roy isn't the same fighter. But beating shells doesn't count for anything in my opinion.

So you can tell him that he can't use the argument that Hopkins wasn't in his prime yet... but then, you use a similar one.

They are both at similar stages now... at the end of their careers, and in fact, Hopkins is 4 years older... what's the difference?? Right?? Oh, thats because it would not suit your argument... Too bad.

Don't be a hypocrit.

[Ambling Alp]

Ordinarily I would agree that it seemed important that Jones and Hopkins had been pros about the same length of time when they fought.
If Hopkins never got any better than it would accurrate. However, Hopkins was a late bloomer. He became a much better (albiet it boring) fighter.
Hopkins hadn't fought anyone before he fought Jones. Any decent champion would have beaten Hopkins in 1993.
It wasn't a big deal for Jones to do so and no one thought much about at a the time.
In 1994 Hopkins only got a draw with Segundo Mercado, who no one would confuse with a great fighter.

They both seldom lost after that. Jones was more impressive beating his creampuff opponents than Hopkins was beating his mediocre opponents.
Who looks better against completely overmatched opponents shouldn't be a major factor when rating fighters.

Let also not forget that Jones lost to Montell Griffin, though he obviously avenged this loss. Jones did beat Toney which is more impressive than any of Hopkins wins. However, Hopkins has other wins (most notably Tarver and Wright) that are more impressive than any of Jones other wins.

If you just objectively look at their careers, instead of who looked better in highlights, you would have to conclude that it's very close.

[HomicideHenry]

I never thought I'd really say this, but I all but agree with Alp's assesment on Jones and Hopkins.....but, then again I bring up some interesting points:

Alp said Jones win over James Toney more or less trumps Hopkins wins over Tarver and Wright---but then again, Toney at this juncture in his career was having massive problems with weight gains and weight losses. According to Toney (who is about as 'truthful' as Archie Moore ever was ) claims he was severely dehydrated in that fight. But one thing is for certain Toney did have weight issues.

Now, Hopkins win over Tarver was pretty amazing considering Hopkins was over 40 and was jumping into a new division and beat the man who twice defeated Roy Jones---but then again, is the victory solid? Remember, Tarver had to lose weight to get back to LHW, because of his role in ROCKY BALBOA he had to gain an additional 20 or so pounds. Could the weight loss resulted in Hopkins win?

Let's say for the sake of argument that weight did play a tremendous issue in both men's victories over Toney and Tarver---that more or less makes the theory that Jones' win over Toney trumps Hopkins' wins over Tarver and Wright not as grand as once thought. It raises more questions than answers.

One thing is for certain, Jones' own career declined due to his weight gains and weight losses (never stayed around long enough at MW to show what he was made of, at LHW he more or less beat a bunch of stiffs and guys either not in their primes or out of shape, and his one night HW experiment resulted in the downfall of his career) while Hopkins' weight gain has only benefited his career by making him arguably the best fighter from 160-175 in the world, and for the last decade or more he has proven that, and it can be argued in his favor that he could beat the Calzaghe's of the world for a few more years (2-3 tops).

Hopkins, like Joe Walcott, Lennox Lewis, Jim Braddock, George Foreman, Max Schmeling, Edor Jofre, and some others before him, not only got better with age, but more or less peaked twice in his career.

But if we are strictly looking at Jones' LHW title reign and Hopkins' MW reign, then yes, it is very close as to who out done who. Both men really fought nobody while as champions until later in their careers. But Jones did beat Hopkins...so yes, Jones does get an edge over Hopkins.

Everything else these men done in their careers....Hopkins gets the upperhand in achievments, though it has been Jones who has gotten the most praise throughout the years. In my opinion, Hopkins has done more than Jones....but if Jones was slightly better than Hopkins back then, and Hopkins is now and doing more for his legacy than Jones did (by taking bigger risks than Jones), it leaves this argument dead even.

Jones vs Hopkins= DRAW

[Elton John]

The fact that Hopkins at 42 is still beating top PFP fighters doesn't say anything???

So you are saying A beating B means A is better than B? So is Schmeling better than Louis? Louis was "on the upswing" . . .discount the rematch, b/c Jones-Hopkins II never happened. And Schmeling-Louis was not nearly as competetive as Roy-Bernard was.

To say Hopkins was on the "upswing" is pushing it . . he was an undefeated, solid fighter, but one can see from the film he was not the fighter he would become 4 years later.

Bernard has longevity going for him. Roy is not the fighter he was when he was younger. Then, no one could compete with him in including Hopkins
himself.

Both were fighting for a title weren't they? Both were at the same stage of development and both turned pro the same year. You can't use the argument that Hopkins was too young or too old-he was 28.

But your argument of Louis-Schmeling is a good one. Of that there's no doubt. But Bernard has never been a big enough hitter for the likes of Roy. Hit Roy with everything he had and it wasn't enough. Roy didn't so much as blink.

No one can say he didn't make the most of the opportunity but Roy just had his number.

I have no doubt X would do a job on Roy now but only because Roy isn't the same fighter. But beating shells doesn't count for anything in my opinion.

So you can tell him that he can't use the argument that Hopkins wasn't in his prime yet... but then, you use a similar one.

They are both at similar stages now... at the end of their careers, and in fact, Hopkins is 4 years older... what's the difference?? Right?? Oh, thats because it would not suit your argument... Too bad.

Don't be a hypocrit.

I said Bernard has the longevity. He'll never be short on accomplishments and he's kept his old form whereas Roy is now a punching bag and future veggie.

What counts IMO is the outcome of their match back in the day. Some might not agree arguing that Bernard hadn't reached his full potential but I can't see the outcome any different. Roy would still too quick for him and Bernard can't hurt Roy. And with two good hands in a rematch who knows what might happen?

Besides, as I recall, Bernard ducked out of a rematch because he wasn't satisfied with the % even tho he was getting 6 mil which is far more than he ever got for a fight. Even tho he took a lesser % for Oscar (knowing full well his chances for a win were much better)

When you duck a fighter it's not without good reason.

[Maddox]

Bernard Hopkins, in my opinion, should be rated higher than Jones.

Why?

#1- Like Jones did at LHW, Hopkins cleaned out the entire MW division. 20+ title defenses irregardless if most were against men who had no prayer to win (same as Jones he never defended the LHW title really against anyone who was any good at all or to begin with) is nothing to sneeze at whatsoever. Hopkins is in a class that has only three other men: Calzaghe, Holmes and Louis, at least when it comes to title defenses.

And mind you, wasn't until he was 40 that he lost the crown! I can't really name any fighter outside of George Foreman who had such a ridiculously high success rate at such an advanced age for a fighter. Hopkins longetivity should be #2 on this list. Let's look at it this way; Jones who vanquished Hopkins (very close fight) is all washed up and has been after fighting Ruiz, Toney has more or less devolved back into the mindset that he can get as fat as he wants and still make a million dollars (in short he's washed up also)...and it's still Hopkins whose a main player on the world wide boxing scene.

#3- His accomplishments above MW are just as impressive as Jones' one night HW cock tease. Here was Hopkins, supposedly all 'too old' and 'over the hill' and he makes the move to LHW against Antonio Tarver who arguably won all three of his fights with Jones (the first was given to Jones but was controversial, the second was a KO win for Tarver and the third was an easy decision win for Tarver). We all said he was crazy and would lose, that he had no chance. But what happens? Not only does Hopkins win, he wins EASILY. Tarver would have had better chances spitting into the wind and eluding the spit wad when it came back. THEN, Hopkins takes on Winky Wright and we all said the same thing again...but then Hopkins wins EASILY again.

The difference between what Jones did at HW and what Hopkins is doing at LHW is that Jones fought a man who was a solid top ten guy with a trinket title belt, but was certainly no Lennox Lewis---Hopkins more or less fought the Lennox Lewis of the LHW division and then defeated the Wladimir Klitschko (Wright) of the LHW division!

And Hopkins wants Joe Calzaghe now. If Hopkins beats Calzaghe, not only would it mean that Hopkins beat possibly the greatest Super Middleweight in history, it would also show that between MW and LHW, there probably is no better fighter in the last 50 years who has jumped back and forth between those three weight classes---save possibly one: Sugar Ray Robinson, and Robinson never won the LHW title, though he challenged for it against Joe Maxim.

The thing with Jones, that holds him back, least in my mind, is that UNLIKE Hopkins, Jones was mostly about money and hype, rather accepting $10 million dollars to fight two bums such as Ricky Frazier and David Telesco, rather than fight anyone worth anything for less money. Jones didn't give a shit about his legacy, all he cared about was knocking out some hapless third or second tier opponent, collect his millions and then spout off at the mouth that he was 'the greatest of all time'.

Not to say Hopkins didn't fight bums, but then again, who really was there for Hopkins to fight and defend the title against that he already hadn't already defeated? By the time someone new came around (Jermain Taylor) Hopkins was 40 yrs old and done had 20 some championship fights. Not to really make excuses, but there is such things as being the victim of your own dominance---Joe Louis faced the same problems, hence the infamous 'bum of the month' era.

So, therefore, I place Bernard Hopkins well ahead of Roy Jones, Jr.

1. The fact that Hopkins had more title defenses just means he stayed in one division longer than Jones did. Jones has fought in more weight classes and therefore didn't accumulate 20 defenses in one division, but rather accumulated that amount in 3 different weight classes. Middle, Super-Middle, Light-Heavy. Your point #1 is useless.

2. Fighting style determines how long a fighter can last. Speed/reflexes go first and that's where Jones was truly gifted. His entire unique style was based on speed and reflexes. Once the speed and reflexes started to go, Jones was done. Hopkins has a style that allows him to remain competitive with his advanced age. Foreman was successful in his 40's because of his extreme power....while Ali was not effective because his speed and reflexes were gone. The fact that Hopkins is still able to be competitive is based on his style....and the style of the fighters he's facing. Joe Calzaghe would destroy Hopkins....but he's still able to beat the defensive Winky's of the world.

3. Jones edged Tarver, but it was clear that he won that fight. To say it was controversial isn't really true at all. Close, yes. But no more controversial than Hopkins-Wright (which really wasn't controversial). I remember people saying that Hopkins wouldn't do well against Tarver, but the same thing was said about Jones vs. Ruiz.

Comparing Tarver to Lewis and Wright to Klitschko is just plain stupid. Lewis was the undisputed Heavyweight champion for years and he ruled his division. Tarver beat the Lewis of the Light heavyweights....Roy Jones! Tarver was more like a Hasim Rahman or a Oliver McCall. Not sure how a puffy, soft Wright is comparable to Klitschko, but it's not like Wright was an established Light Heavyweight contender. Again, stupid, stupid comparison.

You're obviously a Hopkins fan....which is fine....except that your too biased towards Hopkins. To say that Jones beat bums and that's bad but Hopkins beat bums and that's okay is pretty lame. Jones was just as much a victim of his own dominance as Hopkins....actually probably more so. Jones actually went rounds without getting hit a single time. I could probably count on one hand how many rounds Jones lost over a 10 year span. Jones and Hopkins beat some bums, but those were their mandatory defenses. I'm really not sure what kind of point you were trying to make with the whole Jones fought bums and that's bad while Hopkins fought bums and that's comparable to Joe Louis bum of the month club.

Your arguments for Hopkins over Jones aren't very good. All you have to do is watch the two of them fight. Jones was stellar and amazing. Hopkins was good....even great....but not the same. There's a reason Jones made the big bucks long before Hopkins did....Jones was absolutely incredible to watch.

The fact that Jones beat Hopkins should mean something. The fight was not close and the judges were generous to give Hopkins 4 rounds. It wasn't a blow-out or a mismatch....but Hopkins was out of his league....the fight was before Hopkins' prime, but it was before Jones's too.

In fact...if they fought today....I'd pick Roy to win it. Styles make fights and Roy's style will always give Hopkins fits.

Jones is ahead of Hopkins. Jones is at the top of his generation. No doubt.

[jimmy the gent]

a great post!
The best and most accurate yet on this thread