BoxRec

Jones, Hopkins is overated - bigtime!

becareful not to rate Jones too high in alltime lists, but he does fair better than BHop who shouldn't be on them at all!

When Hopkins wins a HW world championship I'll rate Him higher. When he fights someone in their prime, at around their prime weight, that was as good as Toney was I'll rate Hopkins higher.

Toney wasnt at his prime weight when he fought Jones, he was badly weight drained at the time.

I think Hopkins has had the better career myself. Jones burnt brighter in his prime but I'm not sure that outweighs Hopkins' longevity or superior record.

Bernard Hopkins has certainly has a much more intresting career concerning his circumstances, such as his age etc.

dr_devious wrote:Toney wasnt at his prime weight when he fought Jones, he was badly weight drained at the time.

he supposedly was..not jones fault toney puts on that much weight look at him now

jones defiantly rates higher than b hop

Likewise it's not Hopkin's fault Jones lost weight and got obliterated by Tarver . . .

The only way I'd rank Roy over Hopkins is if Jones beats Calzaghe, and that ain't happening.

If Bernard beats Pavlik there is NO doubt.

People are confusing natural talent/flashiness with greatness.

Right now, it's pretty close IMO.

Roy holds a win over Hops, but Hops has whupped two guys that own Jones.

I think each man's next fight could tell the tale. If Hops beats Pavlik and Roy loses to Calzaghe, I'd put Hops over Jones hands down. If the reverse happens, I'd probably give the edge to Jones.

If both men either win or lose, it's still up for debate IMO.

dempseyfire wrote:Likewise it's not Hopkin's fault Jones lost weight and got obliterated by Tarver . . .

The only way I'd rank Roy over Hopkins is if Jones beats Calzaghe, and that ain't happening.

If Bernard beats Pavlik there is NO doubt.

People are confusing natural talent/flashiness with greatness.

Says it all

After Hoplins' win at the weekend is anyone willing to change their opinion?

Seems to me that this is becoming a question being answered by the fighters themselves.

Maybe Roy can do a Ben Johnson and beat Calzaghe...

Ezzard wrote:After Hoplins' win at the weekend is anyone willing to change their opinion?

Seems to me that this is becoming a question being answered by the fighters themselves.

Maybe Roy can do a Ben Johnson and beat Calzaghe...

I erally don't see RJJ Winning.

Although he is younger than Hopkins, RJJ has decline much much faster from his prime than Hopkins has.

Would be good if Jones won just so we could see a rematch with Hopkins.

I rate Jones higher but Hopkins keeps adding quality wins to his resume while Roy's last good win was the first Tarver fight.

Minotauro wrote:I rate Jones higher but Hopkins keeps adding quality wins to his resume while Roy's last good win was the first Tarver fight.

Well RJJ Lost his next two against Tarver so.....

observer1 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Likewise it's not Hopkin's fault Jones lost weight and got obliterated by Tarver . . .

The only way I'd rank Roy over Hopkins is if Jones beats Calzaghe, and that ain't happening.

If Bernard beats Pavlik there is NO doubt.

People are confusing natural talent/flashiness with greatness.

Says it all

yeah, if you want to ignore the fact that jones beat hopkins.

This is an easy question. Roy Jones.

He was the most talented, he did more with his career. Easily won 4 titles and dominated each one. he whipped X head to head. The only edge Hopkins has is he's lasted longer

Elton John wrote:This is an easy question. Roy Jones.

He was the most talented, he did more with his career. Easily won 4 titles and dominated each one. he whipped X head to head. The only edge Hopkins has is he's lasted longer

Don't agree...

I think Hopkins has unquestionably achieved more. The Jones argument relies on the idea of him burning brighter for a shorter period.

Jones beat Hopkins who beat Tarver who beat Jones...

Ezzard, not to be difficult but wasn't Roy on top for some time. The way I see it he dominated the middleweights in '92 and 3 including Hopkins then the other divisions throughtout the 90's and beyond so that's about 11 years altogether.

bjermaine wrote:

observer1 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Likewise it's not Hopkin's fault Jones lost weight and got obliterated by Tarver . . .

The only way I'd rank Roy over Hopkins is if Jones beats Calzaghe, and that ain't happening.

If Bernard beats Pavlik there is NO doubt.

People are confusing natural talent/flashiness with greatness.

Says it all

yeah, if you want to ignore the fact that jones beat hopkins.

Nobody is ignoring that...

Only thing being ignored is the fact a rematch should have happened, which did not. Maybe at around 2001 at a catch weight. In fact even now they can have a rematch at LH. Hopkins would win easy. Even at 43.

Very rarely is there a change in my own personal boxing policy,at least when it comes to the serious issues.

There are the standards.
Biggest punchers in my time,Julian Jackson,Mike Tyson ect.
Finest boxers,Pernell Whitaker,Mike McCallum ect.
Greatest fights,Hagler v Hearns,Morales v Barrera 1 ect.
Biggest upsets,Douglas v Tyson,Honeyghan v Curry ect.

Some people may agree or disagree with some of those choices, but I'm guessing it's fair to say the picks are fairly close to the mark.


Times do change,not very often.
I haven't really moved on much in a long time.

But on the 18th October 2008 there was a major shift in my way of thinking.
Things changed and I gave it a lot of thought.

The question ... Is Roy Jones going to be remembered as a greater fighter than Bernard Hopkins.
The answer has changed from yes ... to NO.

But more,much more importantly something bigger happened.
This for me marked a massive swing in boxing history.
To cut a long story short Pernell Whitaker had allways been the best boxer I had seen in my time.
That has now changed.
It's taken many many years for it to do so but there is a new sheriff in town.

Bernard Hopkins went over the top against Kelly Pavlik and became the greatest fighter I have seen since the time I started watching boxing back in 1984.

Just putting myself on the record here.
I think the argument for Hopkins supercedes that of Whitaker,Jones,Hagler and Leonard.

That's where I stand.

Bernard Hopkins has made it,it's close but Hopkins has put enough distance between himself and the others to warrant this achievement.

Bernard may not be pretty to watch,but he is so effective at what he does.
He just keeps rolling on despite his age and no one has ever beaten him up or clearly outmastered him as a 20 or 40 year old boxer.
That takes some doing and none of the others have been able to match that.

Evander wrote:Very rarely is there a change in my own personal boxing policy,at least when it comes to the serious issues.

There are the standards.
Biggest punchers in my time,Julian Jackson,Mike Tyson ect.
Finest boxers,Pernell Whitaker,Mike McCallum ect.
Greatest fights,Hagler v Hearns,Morales v Barrera 1 ect.
Biggest upsets,Douglas v Tyson,Honeyghan v Curry ect.

Some people may agree or disagree with some of those choices, but I'm guessing it's fair to say the picks are fairly close to the mark.


Times do change,not very often.
I haven't really moved on much in a long time.

But on the 18th October 2008 there was a major shift in my way of thinking.
Things changed and I gave it a lot of thought.

The question ... Is Roy Jones going to be remembered as a greater fighter than Bernard Hopkins.
The answer has changed from yes ... to NO.

But more,much more importantly something bigger happened.
This for me marked a massive swing in boxing history.
To cut a long story short Pernell Whitaker had allways been the best boxer I had seen in my time.
That has now changed.
It's taken many many years for it to do so but there is a new sheriff in town.

Bernard Hopkins went over the top against Kelly Pavlik and became the greatest fighter I have seen since the time I started watching boxing back in 1984.

Just putting myself on the record here.
I think the argument for Hopkins supercedes that of Whitaker,Jones,Hagler and Leonard.

That's where I stand.

Bernard Hopkins has made it,it's close but Hopkins has put enough distance between himself and the others to warrant this achievement.

Bernard may not be pretty to watch,but he is so effective at what he does.
He just keeps rolling on despite his age and no one has ever beaten him up or clearly outmastered him as a 20 or 40 year old boxer.
That takes some doing and none of the others have been able to match that.

Evander, i actually agree with you *falls of chair*

Many here say Hopkins fights to negative etc.

Fact is Hopkins is an old-school Counter-Fighter. He is one of very few fighters that can turn the match into his own pace. Whether he wants it to be slow or fast, he seems to manage to do so with ease.

To the casual fan, it may not be pretty, but it's boxing. Hopkins is not there to trade punches so people watching can get cheap thrills. He is trying to win, doing so effectivley and efficiently. It's worked for him his entire career.

He may not be a Mike Tyson, but he is arguebly the best technical boxer in history. His win against Pavlik was just icing on the cake. Hopkins should retire. At 43, although shockingly good, he has seen better days.

Elton John wrote:This is an easy question. Roy Jones.

He was the most talented, he did more with his career. Easily won 4 titles and dominated each one. he whipped X head to head. The only edge Hopkins has is he's lasted longer

no surprise, this post, coming from someone who thought Terry Norris raised boxing to new heights

anyways I agree Hopkins greater all round legacy than RJJ. RJj was too ephemeral, his 'skills' too much based on freakish athleticism, and he had all-round flaws that came out as he aged.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:When Hopkins wins a HW world championship I'll rate Him higher. When he fights someone in their prime, at around their prime weight, that was as good as Toney was I'll rate Hopkins higher.

My thoughts exactly.

Jones was the better fighter, & would beat Hopkins any time, at any weight, time & again. Hopkins, in equally-plain measure, has the better resume, & will rightly be remembered as the more accomplished fighter, if not the greater one.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Jones was the better fighter, & would beat Hopkins any time, at any weight, time & again. Hopkins, in equally-plain measure, has the better resume, & will rightly be remembered as the more accomplished fighter, if not the greater one.

Yeah, like today at LH