Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckwopat
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigragu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckwopat
I think Hopkins fought tougher competition and achieved much more than Roy, and he done while fighting stiffer competition. He fought Roy when he was green. If they would've fought in the last 10 years, B-Hop would have beat his a**.
P4P B-Hop should also be higher than Roy. He's never been knocked out, and he beat the crap out of both fighters who knocked Roy on his face.
man who beat the man *shakes head* I think they'll be equal on p4p rankings.
that's an at best...B-HOP cannot be rated over RJJ because of the loss...speculate about the what if's.....the bottome line is still RJJ won and they will be fore ever linked to that fight...I call them even....or 1-1a if you will....
And Daniel Santos will forever be better than Margarito? Oscar will forever be better than Julio Cesar Chavez (maybe)?
as it stands right now YES!...sure he's the champ now but who's to say Santos won't come back and vie for the title...their careers are far from over.....
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckwopat
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigragu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckwopat
I think Hopkins fought tougher competition and achieved much more than Roy, and he done while fighting stiffer competition. He fought Roy when he was green. If they would've fought in the last 10 years, B-Hop would have beat his a**.
P4P B-Hop should also be higher than Roy. He's never been knocked out, and he beat the crap out of both fighters who knocked Roy on his face.
man who beat the man *shakes head* I think they'll be equal on p4p rankings.
that's an at best...B-HOP cannot be rated over RJJ because of the loss...speculate about the what if's.....the bottome line is still RJJ won and they will be fore ever linked to that fight...I call them even....or 1-1a if you will....
And Daniel Santos will forever be better than Margarito? Oscar will forever be better than Julio Cesar Chavez (maybe)?
Did Santos go on to dominate 3 divisions north of the one he beat Margarito in ??? And was CHavz past or before his prime?
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Did Santos go on to dominate 3 divisions north of the one he beat Margarito in ??? And was CHavz past or before his prime?
[/quote]good questions to ask Starr.....well how bout it? Tuck?
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigragu
Did Santos go on to dominate 3 divisions north of the one he beat Margarito in ??? And was CHavz past or before his prime?
good questions to ask Starr.....well how bout it? Tuck?
[/quote]
Now its just knit picking.
Roy Jones won titles in four weight classes, but he only dominated one, the lightheavy division. Jones was flexible in jumping weight. He should be credited for that, but I personally think dominating a single weight class for a long period of time is harder. If you jump around in weight, you can sort of pick your opponents, like John Ruiz, but if you stay at the same weight you face just about everybody that's trying to take your spot.
And the Chavez comment...he wasn't in his prime. Neither was Hopkins. It doesn't matter if it was before or after. Hell, that's a good point for Hopkins. He's well past his prime and still kicking ass.
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Roy is higher than Bernard because when they fought roy beat him..and they both were just has cautious in that fight....Roy has beat far better competition, was 49-1 (dq) 36 years old before he lost...and the reason hopkins was able to not be discouraged after his two losses where because he didn't get ktfo....
here we go again...a fighter does something and now everyone wants over hype the accomplishment...yeah bhop destroyed tarver...which is exactly what bernard and calzaghe said a prime roy would have done to tarver...
point is..tarver wasn't all that to begin with, and most wanted bhop to beat him because he was a loud mouth, lucky crackhead that caught roy...
and bernard moving up to LHW...isn't all that because by his own admission he could have done it 5 years ago, but chose to stay at MW because the risks were lower and he knew he could capitalize on the division being weak and break the title defence record....
so bhop is great..but a prime roy kicks his a** anyday of the week and twice on sunday..regardless of what version bhop it is he loses to a prime roy everytime...
Disagree with virtually everything you tried to say. If one of your reasonings for Roy ranking higher than Hopkins is because he won when they fought, than I guess Clinton Mitchell must also rank higher than Bernard, considering he beat him too. The fact is Bernard was not the fighter he would become later and everyone knows that. It's also laughable to say Roy beat better competition, let alone FAR better competition ;D ;D. You do realize that Roy had his top p4p spot snatched by nearly half of boxing writers before he even lost because his opponents were jokes right? That's when some guys started putting Mosley or Trinidad #1, pretty embarrassing when you think about it. Even intellegent Jones fans acknowledge that Hopkins would have given Roy problems no matter when they fought. It's clear you see things through Roy rose colored glasses though. I agree with everyone else that they rank evenly.
bernard hopkins - "i stayed at middleweight because the risk was lower and i could capitalize and go for the records of hagler and monzon"
Do you really think had roy stayed at middle weight we'd even be talking about him (benard) on this level? He should almost credit his claim to fame, the middleweight record to RJJ...even emauel steward said that bernard breaking that record wasn't that impressive...
And i'm tired of this "green" crap...their records where virtually identical when they fought....
everyone is making all this noise because bhop when up to middleweight and won they lightheavy belt...
so what division did roy start in?
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
i'm....as a middleweight went up to lightheavy.....
didn't roy do that already?
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Roy is higher than Bernard because when they fought roy beat him..and they both were just has cautious in that fight....Roy has beat far better competition, was 49-1 (dq) 36 years old before he lost...and the reason hopkins was able to not be discouraged after his two losses where because he didn't get ktfo....
here we go again...a fighter does something and now everyone wants over hype the accomplishment...yeah bhop destroyed tarver...which is exactly what bernard and calzaghe said a prime roy would have done to tarver...
point is..tarver wasn't all that to begin with, and most wanted bhop to beat him because he was a loud mouth, lucky crackhead that caught roy...
and bernard moving up to LHW...isn't all that because by his own admission he could have done it 5 years ago, but chose to stay at MW because the risks were lower and he knew he could capitalize on the division being weak and break the title defence record....
so bhop is great..but a prime roy kicks his a** anyday of the week and twice on sunday..regardless of what version bhop it is he loses to a prime roy everytime...
Disagree with virtually everything you tried to say. If one of your reasonings for Roy ranking higher than Hopkins is because he won when they fought, than I guess Clinton Mitchell must also rank higher than Bernard, considering he beat him too. The fact is Bernard was not the fighter he would become later and everyone knows that. It's also laughable to say Roy beat better competition, let alone FAR better competition ;D ;D. You do realize that Roy had his top p4p spot snatched by nearly half of boxing writers before he even lost because his opponents were jokes right? That's when some guys started putting Mosley or Trinidad #1, pretty embarrassing when you think about it. Even intellegent Jones fans acknowledge that Hopkins would have given Roy problems no matter when they fought. It's clear you see things through Roy rose colored glasses though. I agree with everyone else that they rank evenly.
bernard hopkins - "i stayed at middleweight because the risk was lower and i could capitalize and go for the records of hagler and monzon"
Do you really think had roy stayed at middle weight we'd even be talking about him (benard) on this level? He should almost credit his claim to fame, the middleweight record to RJJ...even emauel steward said that bernard breaking that record wasn't that impressive...
And i'm tired of this "green" crap...their records where virtually identical when they fought....
everyone is making all this noise because bhop when up to middleweight and won they lightheavy belt...
so what division did roy start in?
You keep on using 'ifs' in your argument. If they fought again, if Bernard moved up 5 years ago. 'Ifs' mean absolutely nothing. The only things that mattered is what happened, ranking greatness seldom has to do with who's better, it's simply who was greater throughout their career. You make good arguments on Roy's behalf but the fact remains Hopkins' arguments are just as legitamate. It's alright for you to give Roy credit for beating Hopkins but it's not ok to say he cracked 2 out of 3 times to Tarver? Because Roy wasn't in his prime when Tarver beat him? Well neither was Hopkins when Roy beat him. You can't have it both ways. By your reasoning, both Tarver and Glen Johnson should outrank Jones.
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Roy is higher than Bernard because when they fought roy beat him..and they both were just has cautious in that fight....Roy has beat far better competition, was 49-1 (dq) 36 years old before he lost...and the reason hopkins was able to not be discouraged after his two losses where because he didn't get ktfo....
here we go again...a fighter does something and now everyone wants over hype the accomplishment...yeah bhop destroyed tarver...which is exactly what bernard and calzaghe said a prime roy would have done to tarver...
point is..tarver wasn't all that to begin with, and most wanted bhop to beat him because he was a loud mouth, lucky crackhead that caught roy...
and bernard moving up to LHW...isn't all that because by his own admission he could have done it 5 years ago, but chose to stay at MW because the risks were lower and he knew he could capitalize on the division being weak and break the title defence record....
so bhop is great..but a prime roy kicks his a** anyday of the week and twice on sunday..regardless of what version bhop it is he loses to a prime roy everytime...
Disagree with virtually everything you tried to say. If one of your reasonings for Roy ranking higher than Hopkins is because he won when they fought, than I guess Clinton Mitchell must also rank higher than Bernard, considering he beat him too. The fact is Bernard was not the fighter he would become later and everyone knows that. It's also laughable to say Roy beat better competition, let alone FAR better competition ;D ;D. You do realize that Roy had his top p4p spot snatched by nearly half of boxing writers before he even lost because his opponents were jokes right? That's when some guys started putting Mosley or Trinidad #1, pretty embarrassing when you think about it. Even intellegent Jones fans acknowledge that Hopkins would have given Roy problems no matter when they fought. It's clear you see things through Roy rose colored glasses though. I agree with everyone else that they rank evenly.
bernard hopkins - "i stayed at middleweight because the risk was lower and i could capitalize and go for the records of hagler and monzon"
Do you really think had roy stayed at middle weight we'd even be talking about him (benard) on this level? He should almost credit his claim to fame, the middleweight record to RJJ...even emauel steward said that bernard breaking that record wasn't that impressive...
And i'm tired of this "green" crap...their records where virtually identical when they fought....
everyone is making all this noise because bhop when up to middleweight and won they lightheavy belt...
so what division did roy start in?
I'd go along with the theory that Hopkins and Jones should be on a level when it comes to their standing in the history of boxing, but when Jones fought Hopkins he was at the top of his game. Arguments can be made for Hopkins e.g. 'He wasn't as great then as he was to become' etc etc, but IMO the fact of the matter is that Roy Jones then would beat any version of Bernard Hopkins.
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
this reminds me of MAB and Morales
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Roy is higher than Bernard because when they fought roy beat him..and they both were just has cautious in that fight....Roy has beat far better competition, was 49-1 (dq) 36 years old before he lost...and the reason hopkins was able to not be discouraged after his two losses where because he didn't get ktfo....
here we go again...a fighter does something and now everyone wants over hype the accomplishment...yeah bhop destroyed tarver...which is exactly what bernard and calzaghe said a prime roy would have done to tarver...
point is..tarver wasn't all that to begin with, and most wanted bhop to beat him because he was a loud mouth, lucky crackhead that caught roy...
and bernard moving up to LHW...isn't all that because by his own admission he could have done it 5 years ago, but chose to stay at MW because the risks were lower and he knew he could capitalize on the division being weak and break the title defence record....
so bhop is great..but a prime roy kicks his a** anyday of the week and twice on sunday..regardless of what version bhop it is he loses to a prime roy everytime...
Disagree with virtually everything you tried to say. If one of your reasonings for Roy ranking higher than Hopkins is because he won when they fought, than I guess Clinton Mitchell must also rank higher than Bernard, considering he beat him too. The fact is Bernard was not the fighter he would become later and everyone knows that. It's also laughable to say Roy beat better competition, let alone FAR better competition ;D ;D. You do realize that Roy had his top p4p spot snatched by nearly half of boxing writers before he even lost because his opponents were jokes right? That's when some guys started putting Mosley or Trinidad #1, pretty embarrassing when you think about it. Even intellegent Jones fans acknowledge that Hopkins would have given Roy problems no matter when they fought. It's clear you see things through Roy rose colored glasses though. I agree with everyone else that they rank evenly.
bernard hopkins - "i stayed at middleweight because the risk was lower and i could capitalize and go for the records of hagler and monzon"
Do you really think had roy stayed at middle weight we'd even be talking about him (benard) on this level? He should almost credit his claim to fame, the middleweight record to RJJ...even emauel steward said that bernard breaking that record wasn't that impressive...
And i'm tired of this "green" crap...their records where virtually identical when they fought....
everyone is making all this noise because bhop when up to middleweight and won they lightheavy belt...
so what division did roy start in?
You keep on using 'ifs' in your argument. If they fought again, if Bernard moved up 5 years ago. 'Ifs' mean absolutely nothing. The only things that mattered is what happened, ranking greatness seldom has to do with who's better, it's simply who was greater throughout their career. You make good arguments on Roy's behalf but the fact remains Hopkins' arguments are just as legitamate. It's alright for you to give Roy credit for beating Hopkins but it's not ok to say he cracked 2 out of 3 times to Tarver? Because Roy wasn't in his prime when Tarver beat him? Well neither was Hopkins when Roy beat him. You can't have it both ways. By your reasoning, both Tarver and Glen Johnson should outrank Jones.
i don't put jones ahead of bhop just because he beat him...that's just the first point...and a very clear non-specualtive one at that...all the rest are speculations...
you don't think hopkins was ready for roy...well the IBF thought otherwise that's why they fought for the title....and just because bhop is better as an old man doesn't mean that he's better than roy.....trust me i think bhop is great i just don't get all excited because he moved up and beat a one hit wonder in tarver..yeah it was impressive, very, but the fact is tarver was never on bhop's level anyway....
doesn't matter that roy was ko'ed... you know as well as every one else that roy had one foot out of the door....and bernard was beaten twice by taylor so throw that in there too....
roy was undefeated for 15 years...and was 36 when he lost legitimately...bernard middle weight defenses consists of rematches with fighter he had already KO'ed..this was a very clever method of padding the record..none of these did anything in their careers but lose to bernard....except glen johnson...
And what are these "ifs" your referring to?
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by smashcrusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Roy is higher than Bernard because when they fought roy beat him..and they both were just has cautious in that fight....Roy has beat far better competition, was 49-1 (dq) 36 years old before he lost...and the reason hopkins was able to not be discouraged after his two losses where because he didn't get ktfo....
here we go again...a fighter does something and now everyone wants over hype the accomplishment...yeah bhop destroyed tarver...which is exactly what bernard and calzaghe said a prime roy would have done to tarver...
point is..tarver wasn't all that to begin with, and most wanted bhop to beat him because he was a loud mouth, lucky crackhead that caught roy...
and bernard moving up to LHW...isn't all that because by his own admission he could have done it 5 years ago, but chose to stay at MW because the risks were lower and he knew he could capitalize on the division being weak and break the title defence record....
so bhop is great..but a prime roy kicks his a** anyday of the week and twice on sunday..regardless of what version bhop it is he loses to a prime roy everytime...
Disagree with virtually everything you tried to say. If one of your reasonings for Roy ranking higher than Hopkins is because he won when they fought, than I guess Clinton Mitchell must also rank higher than Bernard, considering he beat him too. The fact is Bernard was not the fighter he would become later and everyone knows that. It's also laughable to say Roy beat better competition, let alone FAR better competition ;D ;D. You do realize that Roy had his top p4p spot snatched by nearly half of boxing writers before he even lost because his opponents were jokes right? That's when some guys started putting Mosley or Trinidad #1, pretty embarrassing when you think about it. Even intellegent Jones fans acknowledge that Hopkins would have given Roy problems no matter when they fought. It's clear you see things through Roy rose colored glasses though. I agree with everyone else that they rank evenly.
bernard hopkins - "i stayed at middleweight because the risk was lower and i could capitalize and go for the records of hagler and monzon"
Do you really think had roy stayed at middle weight we'd even be talking about him (benard) on this level? He should almost credit his claim to fame, the middleweight record to RJJ...even emauel steward said that bernard breaking that record wasn't that impressive...
And i'm tired of this "green" crap...their records where virtually identical when they fought....
everyone is making all this noise because bhop when up to middleweight and won they lightheavy belt...
so what division did roy start in?
You keep on using 'ifs' in your argument. If they fought again, if Bernard moved up 5 years ago. 'Ifs' mean absolutely nothing. The only things that mattered is what happened, ranking greatness seldom has to do with who's better, it's simply who was greater throughout their career. You make good arguments on Roy's behalf but the fact remains Hopkins' arguments are just as legitamate. It's alright for you to give Roy credit for beating Hopkins but it's not ok to say he cracked 2 out of 3 times to Tarver? Because Roy wasn't in his prime when Tarver beat him? Well neither was Hopkins when Roy beat him. You can't have it both ways. By your reasoning, both Tarver and Glen Johnson should outrank Jones.
i don't put jones ahead of bhop just because he beat him...that's just the first point...and a very clear non-specualtive one at that...all the rest are speculations...
you don't think hopkins was ready for roy...well the IBF thought otherwise that's why they fought for the title....and just because bhop is better as an old man doesn't mean that he's better than roy.....trust me i think bhop is great i just don't get all excited because he moved up and beat a one hit wonder in tarver..yeah it was impressive, very, but the fact is tarver was never on bhop's level anyway....
doesn't matter that roy was ko'ed... you know as well as every one else that roy had one foot out of the door....and bernard was beaten twice by taylor so throw that in there too....
roy was undefeated for 15 years...and was 36 when he lost legitimately...bernard middle weight defenses consists of rematches with fighter he had already KO'ed..this was a very clever method of padding the record..none of these did anything in their careers but lose to bernard....except glen johnson...
And what are these "ifs" your referring to?
Doesn't matter that Roy was KOd? Um, actually, it does kind of matter, and in a huge way. You'd have a much better argument if Roy was KOd in his first fight with Tarver, but he wasn't, he won it fair and square by pulling out the late rounds. He got KTFO in the rematch, so again, if Tarver get's no credit for that, Roy gets no credit for beating Hopkins, can't have it both ways. And Bernard losing to Taylor in the fashion he did isn't nearly as bad as the fashion in which Jones lost. And it's even more hysterical that you choose to use the word 'padding' in regards to Hopkins record. Can you name one middleweight the man didn't face? Because I can name handfuls of guys in each division Roy was in that he never faced. If anyone of these two guys padded their records, sorry to say Roy is far more guilty of that than Bernard.
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
bernard hopkins should most definatly be rank higher then roy jones...yes bhop lost to roy...lets look at what happen afterwards...roy division hoops hand picking oppenents...while bhop built a legacy in the middleweight division...bhop sat at his kingdom and all who came to take it from him he face...ROY went on a journey going on to fight abc champions in different division...prime or not...ROY was finally hit flush and he was knock out...and that was the end of roy...bhop reaching 40 loses twice by close fights to taylor...goes on to challenge tarver the man who banish roy...and bhop dominates tarver at the age of 41 at roy's lightheavy division...
its a matter of who survive longer...at 41 bhop still has never been hurt or knock out...between the two of them bhop outlast roy...bhops technically rough and tough style against roys speed and atletic style in 12 rounds or in a career speed and atleticism will decrease more...while technic and inner toughness will always remain if not increase...
I have a question though...
list me someone alike trinidad and oscar that roy has fought? (note bhop k.o both tito and oscar)
(tarver glen k.o jones both lost to bhop)
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyboNe
bernard hopkins should most definatly be rank higher then roy jones...yes bhop lost to roy...lets look at what happen afterwards...roy division hoops hand picking oppenents...while bhop built a legacy in the middleweight division...bhop sat at his kingdom and all who came to take it from him he face...ROY went on a journey going on to fight abc champions in different division...prime or not...ROY was finally hit flush and he was knock out...and that was the end of roy...bhop reaching 40 loses twice by close fights to taylor...goes on to challenge tarver the man who banish roy...and bhop dominates tarver at the age of 41 at roy's lightheavy division...
its a matter of who survive longer...at 41 bhop still has never been hurt or knock out...between the two of them bhop outlast roy...bhops technically rough and tough style against roys speed and atletic style in 12 rounds or in a career speed and atleticism will decrease more...while technic and inner toughness will always remain if not increase...
I have a question though...
list me someone alike trinidad and oscar that roy has fought? (note bhop k.o both tito and oscar)
(tarver glen k.o jones both lost to bhop)
weren't tito and oscar both smaller than bhop? and didn't roy beat the shit out of pound for pound king James toney? james toney is better than everyone hopkins ever faced...except roy of course...
name one fighter that benard hopkins beat that was on top of the pound for pound list..... in fact the only fighter he that was even ranked pound for pound was tito and tito was the smaller man moving up..so go figure...
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyboNe
bernard hopkins should most definatly be rank higher then roy jones...yes bhop lost to roy...lets look at what happen afterwards...roy division hoops hand picking oppenents...while bhop built a legacy in the middleweight division...bhop sat at his kingdom and all who came to take it from him he face...ROY went on a journey going on to fight abc champions in different division...prime or not...ROY was finally hit flush and he was knock out...and that was the end of roy...bhop reaching 40 loses twice by close fights to taylor...goes on to challenge tarver the man who banish roy...and bhop dominates tarver at the age of 41 at roy's lightheavy division...
its a matter of who survive longer...at 41 bhop still has never been hurt or knock out...between the two of them bhop outlast roy...bhops technically rough and tough style against roys speed and atletic style in 12 rounds or in a career speed and atleticism will decrease more...while technic and inner toughness will always remain if not increase...
I have a question though...
list me someone alike trinidad and oscar that roy has fought? (note bhop k.o both tito and oscar)
(tarver glen k.o jones both lost to bhop)
weren't tito and oscar both smaller than bhop? and didn't roy beat the S*** out of pound for pound king James toney? james toney is better than everyone hopkins ever faced...except roy of course...
name one fighter that benard hopkins beat that was on top of the pound for pound list..... in fact the only fighter he that was even ranked pound for pound was tito and tito was the smaller man moving up..so go figure...
Slow down there Burt Sugar, Toney had to kill himself to make 168 for that fight, just like Jones had to kill himself to make 175 for Tarver. It wasn't the great Roy we all know that Tarver beat, and it wasn't the great Toney we all know that Roy beat. And on top of that, Hopkins wasn't favored over either Trinidad or Tarver.
p.s.--Toney was never p4p king. Last I checked Pernell Whitaker held that distinction at that time.
Re: How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImRipped
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyboNe
bernard hopkins should most definatly be rank higher then roy jones...yes bhop lost to roy...lets look at what happen afterwards...roy division hoops hand picking oppenents...while bhop built a legacy in the middleweight division...bhop sat at his kingdom and all who came to take it from him he face...ROY went on a journey going on to fight abc champions in different division...prime or not...ROY was finally hit flush and he was knock out...and that was the end of roy...bhop reaching 40 loses twice by close fights to taylor...goes on to challenge tarver the man who banish roy...and bhop dominates tarver at the age of 41 at roy's lightheavy division...
its a matter of who survive longer...at 41 bhop still has never been hurt or knock out...between the two of them bhop outlast roy...bhops technically rough and tough style against roys speed and atletic style in 12 rounds or in a career speed and atleticism will decrease more...while technic and inner toughness will always remain if not increase...
I have a question though...
list me someone alike trinidad and oscar that roy has fought? (note bhop k.o both tito and oscar)
(tarver glen k.o jones both lost to bhop)
weren't tito and oscar both smaller than bhop? and didn't roy beat the S*** out of pound for pound king James toney? james toney is better than everyone hopkins ever faced...except roy of course...
name one fighter that benard hopkins beat that was on top of the pound for pound list..... in fact the only fighter he that was even ranked pound for pound was tito and tito was the smaller man moving up..so go figure...
Slow down there Burt Sugar, Toney had to kill himself to make 168 for that fight, just like Jones had to kill himself to make 175 for Tarver. It wasn't the great Roy we all know that Tarver beat, and it wasn't the great Toney we all know that Roy beat. And on top of that, Hopkins wasn't favored over either Trinidad or Tarver.
p.s.--Toney was never p4p king. Last I checked Pernell Whitaker held that distinction at that time.
doesn't matter if hop was favored..he was the bigger man...so why did it surprise anyone that the bigger man knocked out the smaller men?.....that just says that even the odds makers bought into the superstar hype and not common sense.....even if toney was number two..he's still better than anyone bhop ever faced..... ;)
