1. In regards to Jones switching classes.. The only potential flaw this shows is that he left the weights before he beat all "the" boxers at that particular class. I'll admit, my knowledge of the specific divisions back in the mid 90s isn't strong, but it seems like there may have been more to do at 160 and 168, before he completely dominated 175, like Hopkins did at 160.Maddox wrote: 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.
No rows here, we're here to discuss and debate are we not?~ MIKEE ~ wrote:not wishing to cause a row - he beat Johnson and Tarver, who beat Jonesbollox wrote:Maybe if Hopkins had beaten say.........Toney and.........Jones he'd be closer to Jones' level
but then hopkins was before his best when Jones beat him?bollox wrote:No rows here, we're here to discuss and debate are we not?~ MIKEE ~ wrote:not wishing to cause a row - he beat Johnson and Tarver, who beat Jonesbollox wrote:Maybe if Hopkins had beaten say.........Toney and.........Jones he'd be closer to Jones' level
I'm of the belief that Jones' best weight was 168. He was virtually untouchable during this time. These 2 fights were at 175 and when Jones was past his very best
I'm not so sure that a 28 year old with a couple of dozen fights behind him wasn't in his prime, or can show too much further improvement. And I don't think his title reign was against any fighters that posed a serious threat~ MIKEE ~ wrote:but then hopkins was before his best when Jones beat him?bollox wrote:No rows here, we're here to discuss and debate are we not?~ MIKEE ~ wrote: not wishing to cause a row - he beat Johnson and Tarver, who beat Jones
I'm of the belief that Jones' best weight was 168. He was virtually untouchable during this time. These 2 fights were at 175 and when Jones was past his very best
Yes, Jones left some weightclasses without beating every good fighter in them, but that's what happens when fighters jump weightclasses. People always complain about PBF hopping classes without fighting every good fighter....same with DLH.... So what you say is absolutely true. My statement was aimed at whoever it was that said "well Hopkins had 20 title defenses and Jones didn't have that many in any one weight class so Hopkins is better". That's garbage....especially when you factor in that Jones did have 20+ title defenses, just not all in one division. Hopkins ruled a relatively weak middleweight division for years, while Jones defended titles in 3 different weight classes. I personally think that Jones's resumee is better because he jumped weight divisions.JCS wrote:
1. In regards to Jones switching classes.. The only potential flaw this shows is that he left the weights before he beat all "the" boxers at that particular class. I'll admit, my knowledge of the specific divisions back in the mid 90s isn't strong, but it seems like there may have been more to do at 160 and 168, before he completely dominated 175, like Hopkins did at 160.
2. I agree with that, but some would say that a great fighter learns to adapt as they lose their abilities. It seems that all Jones can do is cover up on the ropes against C+ competition.
In regards to Hopkins/Jones I.. Jones won rather easily, and 116-112 may have been generous to Hopkins, but I seriously think this fact is highlighted a bit too much. After all, its 1 fight out of careers which span roughly 20 years...
Jones was a great deal more flashy versus his competition, and neither of them had amazing ledgers as far as opposition quality goes, but I think its unfair to say Jones would beat Hopkins today.. I just can't see that one happening. Jones fights like his legs are gone... and Hopkins can still move at 42. Jones can't take a shot either... he's like a poor man's Calzaghe at this point.
I think their careers are essentially even.
Hey, just wondering.. can we bring up the positive steroid tests and raise the big shadow over Jones' career.. like they're doing with Bonds?
Probably Jones.. but I don't think THAT says it all either.Maddox wrote: In their primes, who would you pick to win? I'd take Jones, by as dominant a performance as the first time. Who would you pick? I think that says it all.....
Picking Jones to beat Hopkins when both fighters were in their prime says it all, after we've compared both fighters in terms of the competition they faced, accomplishments, etc.... and both fighters come out close. Not the case for Forrest-Mosely.JCS wrote:Probably Jones.. but I don't think THAT says it all either.Maddox wrote: In their primes, who would you pick to win? I'd take Jones, by as dominant a performance as the first time. Who would you pick? I think that says it all.....
I could show you how by using different eras, but that'd be too easy.. so I'll just use Vernon Forrest and Shane Mosley.
They DID fight in their primes.. Forrest won both fights easy.. but wouldn't you say Mosley had that far better career?
)I don't know that I have a clear top 10, my top 10 lists change all the time. But I would say top 5 would be 1) Hagler 2) Monzon 3) Robinson 4) Greb 5) Hopkins. In terms of the rest it would probably be Tiger, Fullmer, LaMotta, Walker, Ketchell, not necessarily in that order. I'm not saying that Hopkins is clearly above those guys, I wouldn't object to someone ranking some or even all of those guys over Hopkins... I'm just saying the case can be made for Hopkins being there, and that I personally would put him there. It also depends on whether someone thought Hopkins beat Taylor, which I thought he did. In fact, I think it could be argued that he should have won the first Mercado fight.Ezzard wrote:FineI Feel Fine wrote:To quote Robert Ebert "I'm comfortable with your opinion, and I won't even tell you where you can stick it."ringsider wrote:Hopkins is not a top 5 MW of all time. Come'on get real.......
5 seems a bit too high for me but he is a great one. What does your MW top 10 look like?
Jesus dumbass, you really can't get your head around this concept, can you?ringsider wrote: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.
Probably is the first time that I agree with you in any topic.I Feel Fine wrote:Hopkins is my favorite fighter today, and I only partially like Jones, but I would say Jones. Not by that much, but I would give Jones the edge. Hopkins has 20 Middleweight title defenses, but Jones has 6 Super Middleweight defenses and 10 Light Heavyweight defenses so its not that huge a difference to me. Hopkins edges Jones in defenses, Jones edges Hopkins in titles won. Jones' wins over a green Hopkins and over Toney were better than Hopkins' wins over Tito, Oscar and Wright. Jones' win over Ruiz is better than Hopkins' win over Tarver. Jones lost to Tarver, but I acount that to age and weight drain, same with Hopkins' losses to Taylor... though I felt Hopkins deserved those decisions. Hopkins has more longevity, though, he was able to come off those questionable losses and beat two (at the time) top 10 P4P fighters in Tarver and Wright, while Jones coming off his losses to Tarver and Johnson has become something of a side show. So longevity definitely goes to Hopkins. But still, Jones himself was the best fighter in the world for a very long time, so its not like Jones didn't have any longevity. Jones was great for his first 13 or so years, Hopkins was great for his last 13 or so years.
I would say their rankings should be close, I would only rank Jones ahead of Hopkins by one or two slots, but in the end I would still go with Jones.
Hopkins has to be ahead of Jones at Middleweight, though, to say otherwise is crazy. Hopkins to me is #5 at Middleweight all time, Jones only had two championship fights there, the fact that one of those wins was over Hopkins isn't enough to put him ahead of Hopkins at that weight class.
Perfectly said, homicideHenry, perfectly said. I also say the same thing. Jones was not even the best fighter of the 90s decade...Pernell Whitaker should earn that distinction as the best figter pound per pound of the 90s. Even Evander Holyfield to me, was better than Jones in the 90s decade. Holyfield and Whitaker fought the very best of their times, while Jones missed to fight the very best like Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, Darius Machiwelski, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson and Chris Eubanks.HomicideHenry wrote:All I was meaning Decagon is that Hopkins fought the NUMBER ONE guy at LHW, while Jones fought a HW who was top ten material, yes, but certainly was no HW champion in anyone's mind, WBA strap or not. Ruiz was the worst possible HW Jones could have fought, and even then still had special treatment in that fight against The Huggy Bear.
And I'm tired of this weight gain BS. It's all an excuse. Sure you could pass that off on the first Tarver fight, but the second, third and the Johnson fight? Come on now! I never heard Jake LaMotta ever blame weight gains or losses for his losses in the ring, and that man lost and gained back probably 10,000 pounds through out his career.
It's Hopkins who turned out the better performances in a more advanced age, not Jones. It's Hopkins whose still a main player in the sport, not Jones. It's Hopkins who was more impressive at MW than Jones was at LHW. Jones might have been faster and had the bigger mouth (dont see how being a big blow hole makes you entertaining but w/e), but it's Hopkins who had the heart, longetivity, perseverance and skills to still be a P4P world class fighter in his early to mid 40's and solidified himself as one of the ATG division jumpers.
I mean come on now, Billy Conn beat better LHW's and HW's than Jones did against Ruiz, yet I don't hear people talk up Billy Conn as much as Jones. Archie Moore fought the best MW's, LHW's and HW's of his time, yet Jones is somehow magically better or just as impressive---Jones side stepped alot of opponents either for money, BS about never fighting in Europe or like I said earlier, being a dick tease to the sport.
Like one boxing article once said, Jones might have the skills to have been something, but if he had the chance to fight Moore, Conn, Charles and Foster he wouldn't. He's the most over-rated fighter I have ever seen in my life. He's a man who could have been, but chose not to, despite having all the skills and all the attention.
Boxing ain't based on what if's but by records, and Hopkins is clearly done more for his legacy than Jones ever did. Period.
Cmon Mikee, Jones was very faded when Tarver and Johnson beat him. Theres no argument in saying that because Hopkins beat these two that makes him better than Jones.~ MIKEE ~ wrote:not wishing to cause a row - he beat Johnson and Tarver, who beat Jonesbollox wrote:Maybe if Hopkins had beaten say.........Toney and.........Jones he'd be closer to Jones' level
Perfectly said, homicideHenry, perfectly said. I also say the same thing. Jones was not even the best fighter of the 90s decade...Pernell Whitaker should earn that distinction as the best figter pound per pound of the 90s. Even Evander Holyfield to me, was better than Jones in the 90s decade. Holyfield and Whitaker fought the very best of their times, while Jones missed to fight the very best like Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, Darius Machiwelski, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson and Chris Eubanks.elmersalsa. None of the two are top 50 greatest fighters pound per pound in my list. I ranked Jones Jr at 72 and Hopkins at 75 all-time 100 greatest fighters.
Jones 72 of all time this statement alone shows that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Also jones number 10 light heavy of alltime, yeah, ok mate, you might want to adjust your ratings a touch.
OK serious...I have never said that Jones ducked those fighters that I have mentioned. But he never made the effort to fight the VERY BEST LIKE HOLYFIELD OR WHITAKER DID.serious wrote:Perfectly said, homicideHenry, perfectly said. I also say the same thing. Jones was not even the best fighter of the 90s decade...Pernell Whitaker should earn that distinction as the best figter pound per pound of the 90s. Even Evander Holyfield to me, was better than Jones in the 90s decade. Holyfield and Whitaker fought the very best of their times, while Jones missed to fight the very best like Gerald McClellan, Nigel Benn, Darius Machiwelski, Michael Nunn, Julian Jackson and Chris Eubanks.elmersalsa. None of the two are top 50 greatest fighters pound per pound in my list. I ranked Jones Jr at 72 and Hopkins at 75 all-time 100 greatest fighters.
Jones 72 of all time this statement alone shows that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Also jones number 10 light heavy of alltime, yeah, ok mate, you might want to adjust your ratings a touch.
How in the world Jones should be the best of the 90s?...Lik Mike Tyson said: "That's LUDICROUS!!!"
Explain to me how people always jump to the conclusion that it was jones that was doing the ducking. He failed to fight McClellan and jackson yet he fought hopkins who was the best middleweight out of the three. he failed to fight benn eubank or nunn yet fought and beat Toney who was a better super middle at the time. Eubank has already conceaded that he never thought jones because it was a fight that he could not win.
Nobody's saying that throughout jones' career he beat a load of all time great fighters but not many alltime great fighters do leave a list of ATG fighters on their records. but what he did do for 14 years is beat everyone that he did fight easily including hopkins and toney and griffin 2 and ruiz and anyone else he fought.
elmersalsa wrote how hopkins had longevity, and is still around today, yes but saying that he hasn't been at the top for as long as jones and he has a style that allows him to carry on for longer. Is foreman a greater fighter than ali because he was able to go on till his mid 40's and ali couldn't, no, so don't use that in regards to this topic, because it doesn't hold up. yes fighters should when discussing atg's be judged on a number of things and longevity is one but jones was at the top for well over a decade, and achieved titles in four weight divisions including heavyweight, and as i said before it doesn't matter who he fought at the time the point is many people fought he couldn't do it and he did. I don't see no one including hopkins in a hurry to tackle the current crop of heavies that aint looking much better then it was back then.
peace out!