That Roy Jones was shot.
WORD, dawg.
Printable View
That Roy Jones was shot.
WORD, dawg.
By Joe Calzaghe :shocking:
:badass::badass::badass:
Roy looked old not shot. He would still give dawson a good fight and demolish a Pavlik.
Old, shot - whatever.
Point is, he hasn't been a great fighter for many moons.
I can't believe that a lot of people picked Roy on this one...
Have you seen any of Jones' old fights? He's old and shot. I'd definitely take Dawson and Pavlik (depending on the weight) over him. He'd get slaughtered laying on the ropes against Pavlik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Yeah, it's a credit to Jones - as shot as he is he's still at least a little bit competitive against anyone.
But he looked like an old man in there tonight. The writing was on the wall in the 2nd and 3rd rounds - he was doing to RJJ what RJJ used to do to everyone else: making them miss and making them look stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHHave you seen any of Jones' old fights? He's old and shot. I'd definitely take Dawson and Pavlik (depending on the weight) over him. He'd get slaughtered laying on the ropes against Pavlik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Roy stepped it up thats why he failed. This weight crap is delusion he stepped up the comp. Calzaghe is way to busy and way to tough for even 2 prime Roys.
Had it not been for a lucky forearm smash Joe schooled him, beat him up.
You can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by CFHHave you seen any of Jones' old fights? He's old and shot. I'd definitely take Dawson and Pavlik (depending on the weight) over him. He'd get slaughtered laying on the ropes against Pavlik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Roy stepped it up thats why he failed. This weight crap is delusion he stepped up the comp. Calzaghe is way to busy and way to tough for even 2 prime Roys.
Had it not been for a lucky forearm smash Joe schooled him, beat him up.
Not really. It didn't take a shot fighter to make Roy look that way :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
I think Calzaghe missed fair bit to, and I don't know how Joe got the 12th round. I don't know why Roy wouldn't have gone to the body on the outside, when a guy is almost matching your speed you go to the body, It opens everything else up, but I was super surprised he hurt Joe so badly, especially with his forearm, I knew Roy's power was gone. I still think when he threw punches Joe couldn't react effectively, but Roy never threw punches. His reflexes weren't horrible, but he reminded me of Ray Robinson(when he got old not older, but OLD) and all those other guys, except he couldn't throw combinations or with power anymore. He didn't have the speed differential he is used to(and would have had if they had fought 7 years ago) he couldn't quite counter in situations he would have countered Calzaghe. And Joe's shinanigans would have gotten him lambasted.
This is exact reason why i didn't want Joe Calzaghe to win, now you will never hear the end of Joe Calzaghe fan boys saying this garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHYou can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Roy stepped it up thats why he failed. This weight crap is delusion he stepped up the comp. Calzaghe is way to busy and way to tough for even 2 prime Roys.
Had it not been for a lucky forearm smash Joe schooled him, beat him up.
Your actually an idiot, Joe got hit plenty of times, he just threw punches and JOnes hardly threw punches at all. Chad Dawson and Pavlik would knock Roy Jones Jr out, well maybe not Pavlik. I am actually surprised JOe didn't land more against either Hopkins or JOnes when he had them on the ropes those biased cunts I had to listen to from Brittain were sucking his cock.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by CFHHave you seen any of Jones' old fights? He's old and shot. I'd definitely take Dawson and Pavlik (depending on the weight) over him. He'd get slaughtered laying on the ropes against Pavlik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Roy stepped it up thats why he failed. This weight crap is delusion he stepped up the comp. Calzaghe is way to busy and way to tough for even 2 prime Roys.
Had it not been for a lucky forearm smash Joe schooled him, beat him up.
BUt Chad Dawson has a high work rate, he is faster at this point than either Joe or Roy. And he still has pop to his punches.
Whatever the ifs and where fors Jones took the fight at this stage of his career in his own backyard and got pony knocked out of him .. and woulda done anytime he fought against JC..
:badass::badass::badass:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBThis is exact reason why i didn't want Joe Calzaghe to win, now you will never hear the end of Joe Calzaghe fan boys saying this garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHYou can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Roy weas never busy enough to beat Calzaghe that why he fought bin men and school teachers.
roy is great but really you dont think Calzaghe is greater?
Sorry who moderates these boards? BAN right here.
Incorrect. Jones Circa 1995-2000 knocks the living shit out of Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamdaddio
Calzaghe fanboys should not be criticizing the resumes of other fighters. Calzaghe is a great fighter, but prime for prime Jones is a league above him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBThis is exact reason why i didn't want Joe Calzaghe to win, now you will never hear the end of Joe Calzaghe fan boys saying this garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Roy weas never busy enough to beat Calzaghe that why he fought bin men and school teachers.
roy is great but really you dont think Calzaghe is greater?
Sorry who moderates these boards? BAN right here.
I agree, though I do think at times JC would've made it a difficult fight for him. Not that that takes anything away from Calzaghe, he's undoubtedly a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigIncorrect. Jones Circa 1995-2000 knocks the living shit out of Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamdaddio
Of course he is. I am a big fan of Calzaghe, he is an all time great.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI agree, though I do think at times JC would've made it a difficult fight for him. Not that that takes anything away from Calzaghe, he's undoubtedly a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigIncorrect. Jones Circa 1995-2000 knocks the living shit out of Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamdaddio
But I honestly believe that RJJ in his prime was about the the third or fourth best fighter ever. SRR, Ali and Louis are better IMO.
HOWEVER, we'll never know that for sure because he should have been more proactive in securing legacy defining fights when he was in his prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigIncorrect. Jones Circa 1995-2000 knocks the living shit out of Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamdaddio
BAN!
I'm not sure if I would consider Calzaghe an ATG. Skill-wise? Probably, but my initial thought is that I still find his level of competition to be below that of an ATG. I'd really have to think more about it to give a definate answer as to whether I'd consider him an ATG, but I would certainly consider him a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigOf course he is. I am a big fan of Calzaghe, he is an all time great.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI agree, though I do think at times JC would've made it a difficult fight for him. Not that that takes anything away from Calzaghe, he's undoubtedly a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
But I honestly believe that RJJ in his prime was about the the third or fourth best fighter ever. SRR, Ali and Louis are better IMO.
HOWEVER, we'll never know that for sure because he should have been more proactive in securing legacy defining fights when he was in his prime.
Yeah, ban me;D
A past his best Chris Eubank (who admitted he was scared of Roy Jones) gave Calzaghe one of his toughest fights.
You can ban blokes for stating FACT.:D
I can see one coming ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by GreigIncorrect. Jones Circa 1995-2000 knocks the living shit out of Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamdaddio
BAN!
He's an ATG because he reigned at SM for a decade, fought and beat two legends on American soil (both past their best IMO) and, if he's true to his word, will retire undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHQuote:
Originally Posted by GreigOf course he is. I am a big fan of Calzaghe, he is an all time great.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
But I honestly believe that RJJ in his prime was about the the third or fourth best fighter ever. SRR, Ali and Louis are better IMO.
HOWEVER, we'll never know that for sure because he should have been more proactive in securing legacy defining fights when he was in his prime.
I'm not sure if I would consider Calzaghe an ATG. Skill-wise? Probably, but my initial thought is that I still find his level of competition to be below that of an ATG. I'd really have to think more about it to give a definate answer as to whether I'd consider him an ATG, but I would certainly consider him a great fighter.
I'd
Pretty good resume.
His biggest wins, IMO are Eubank, Hopkins (disputed), and Kessler. I'm just not sure that qualifies him as an ATG. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that initially I'm not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigHe's an ATG because he reigned at SM for a decade, fought and beat two legends on American soil (both past their best IMO) and, if he's true to his word, will retire undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHQuote:
Originally Posted by Greig
I'm not sure if I would consider Calzaghe an ATG. Skill-wise? Probably, but my initial thought is that I still find his level of competition to be below that of an ATG. I'd really have to think more about it to give a definate answer as to whether I'd consider him an ATG, but I would certainly consider him a great fighter.
I'd
Pretty good resume.
You make a very good point about him dominating the division though, I'm starting to think that he merits ATG status based on that and his skill level...
I'm afraid I don't have a very firm opinion one way or the other on the subject, makes for a boring debate I guess :p
Do you honestly want to compare their records you are fighting a losing battle. Besides Kessler and Hopkins who has Joe foughten if you mention a shot Eubanks and Roy Jones you are proving your ignorance if you mention Lacy you are proving your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by ICBThis is exact reason why i didn't want Joe Calzaghe to win, now you will never hear the end of Joe Calzaghe fan boys saying this garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Roy weas never busy enough to beat Calzaghe that why he fought bin men and school teachers.
roy is great but really you dont think Calzaghe is greater?
Sorry who moderates these boards? BAN right here.
I think Roy beats a lot of the top guys inthe p4p argument if they fought against eachother, but He didn't fight the type of names some of these guys did. I think if you are comparing primes he is a top 10 p4p, but being a great fighter means more than that. After this fight I definitely have Hopkins moving ahead of Roy on the p4p ATG list.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigOf course he is. I am a big fan of Calzaghe, he is an all time great.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI agree, though I do think at times JC would've made it a difficult fight for him. Not that that takes anything away from Calzaghe, he's undoubtedly a great fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
But I honestly believe that RJJ in his prime was about the the third or fourth best fighter ever. SRR, Ali and Louis are better IMO.
HOWEVER, we'll never know that for sure because he should have been more proactive in securing legacy defining fights when he was in his prime.
HAHAHA ban you....ban you, someone might just tell markus that guys that have been here longer then two seconds dont get banned that easily. Dickheads who have been hear for two seconds do ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
I must disagree Taeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by TaethI think Roy beats a lot of the top guys inthe p4p argument if they fought against eachother, but He didn't fight the type of names some of these guys did. I think if you are comparing primes he is a top 10 p4p, but being a great fighter means more than that. After this fight I definitely have Hopkins moving ahead of Roy on the p4p ATG list.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigOf course he is. I am a big fan of Calzaghe, he is an all time great.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
But I honestly believe that RJJ in his prime was about the the third or fourth best fighter ever. SRR, Ali and Louis are better IMO.
HOWEVER, we'll never know that for sure because he should have been more proactive in securing legacy defining fights when he was in his prime.
For a start, Jones has a win over Hopkins.
Second, Jones won belts at 160, 168, 175 and heavyweight. B-Hop never did that.
Third, a lot of Hopkins biggest wins were against guys he had distinct size and weight advantages over (DLH, Winky, Pavlik). Lets not forget that at light heavyweight his resume consists of a shot Tarver and a bunch of guys moving up.
No, B-Hop is a great fighter, but Roy is greater IMO.
I'll start by saying I sincerely believe a prime RJJ beats Prime Calzaghe
BUT comments about RJJ being way past his best, whilst being right, don't also take into account that the same could be said for Calzaghe. Alright he's not 'way' past his best but he is definitely not the guy that beat Lacy. 2006 Lacy hits harder than today's version of Jones or B-hop and he caught Clzaghe clean a few times in the early rounds a dn Calzaghe never went down like he did in his last 2 fights (I have only see the KD so far in the RJJ fight - watching it later) But people say Jomnes is shot, because he has been KOed twice, well who's fault is that, he shouldn't have got KOed twice should he , Calzaghe hasn't ever been knocked out, he gets up and wins. Apart from the big 2 losses RJJ wasn't in many really hard fights was he, so was 39 with 55 fights, Calzaghe was 36 with 45 fights, they are both past their best, admidetly Jones more so than JC, but that's because he's had a couple of hidings against 2 'Good' not 'Great' fighters. Again I will say imo Jones Prime for prime beats JC, but let's not think that this was a prime 28 year old that just beat RJJ either.
I agree BigH, Joe is past his best as well.
But then it starts getting ridiculous - well, uh, Joe is still probably 75% of what he was at his best. But then Roy is probably only about 40% of when he was at this best so how do we rate the win blah blah blah.
Bottom line is, at good as Joe's win was tonight, you can't read a whole lot into it.
I'm sure I speak for the majority of boxing fans on this site when I say THESE ARE FIGHTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FUCKING YEARS AGO!
Prime versus prime. Roy wasted his prime fighting bums, and, truth be told, so did Joe.
I disagree here.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigI must disagree Taeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by TaethI think Roy beats a lot of the top guys inthe p4p argument if they fought against eachother, but He didn't fight the type of names some of these guys did. I think if you are comparing primes he is a top 10 p4p, but being a great fighter means more than that. After this fight I definitely have Hopkins moving ahead of Roy on the p4p ATG list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
For a start, Jones has a win over Hopkins.
Second, Jones won belts at 160, 168, 175 and heavyweight. B-Hop never did that.
Third, a lot of Hopkins biggest wins were against guys he had distinct size and weight advantages over (DLH, Winky, Pavlik). Lets not forget that at light heavyweight his resume consists of a shot Tarver and a bunch of guys moving up.
No, B-Hop is a great fighter, but Roy is greater IMO.
Styles make fights, for one.
You can't use a fighters loss against someone against them.
Hopkins would defeat more opposition/styles than Jones would.
That, imo, makes him p4p the better fighter. Just because roy had to style
to beat hopkins doesn't mean he's suddenly better because he holds a victory over him.
If 1 beats 3 - 10. But loses to 2, and 2 loses to 4, 5 and 6, who 1 beat.
Then who is the better fighter? No question, 1 is.
Also. Let's keep in mind hopkins was still perfecting his craft when he fought Roy. Since then Hopkins had gotten better and better with each fight, which would possibly indicate he wasn't quite primed yet? While Roy didn't get any better, just began moving up in weights.
Just my thoughts on the whole " Roy beat hopkins, he has to be better ATG ranked ".
Now.. One of the reasons Hopkins imo goes down better ranked than Roy is because other than his jones fight you can argue that hopkins has never been beaten. Hes also never been so much as scratched. His incredible title reign, number of defenses, and the level that he fights at at such an old age. These are all enormous feats and imo hold equal weight to roys accomplishments.
We see how great hopkins is at 175. Now that Roy lost his next and final fight may be at Heavyweight. People can easily argue that Hopkins could have gone up in weight classes and won the straps too, just like roy did. It's a very good arguement too considering how beautifuly he's made the transition to the new weight at such an old age.. so no question he could have done it then aswell.. but was intent on making history in the midweight division and not moving up in weight classes.
There are so many variables to these guys careers, we could argue forever.
imo, it's Roys prime skill, multi-weight championships that make him great.
Versus Hopkins resume, Midweight accomplishments, and level of comp at an old age.
People will always argue that hopkins was bigger than his best wins.
But atleast with hopkins, unlike roy, we don't have to look at his prime and rank him
based on what he did years ago. With hopkins, we can judge him by his past AND his present. Because the man is STILL great.
Roy has a great past. Hopkins has a great past, present, and maybe even future if he's
serious about the move to heavyweight.
Roy is done.. he's gotten all of his badges and achievements out of the way.
Hopkins is actually still going strong. If he hasn't surpassed Roy in ATG rank already,
then he will.
But as stated before 95% of Nards important wins are over smaller guys moving up in weight and in the middle of all that he had his fair share of Tomato cans mixed into, I say nard will always be one step below Roy in the ATG department.. I believe that James Toney would beat Hopkins, he is on par defensively works harder in a fight and counters beautifully and would have matched him and strength..Perfect style to beat HopkinsQuote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileI disagree here.Quote:
Originally Posted by GreigI must disagree Taeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
For a start, Jones has a win over Hopkins.
Second, Jones won belts at 160, 168, 175 and heavyweight. B-Hop never did that.
Third, a lot of Hopkins biggest wins were against guys he had distinct size and weight advantages over (DLH, Winky, Pavlik). Lets not forget that at light heavyweight his resume consists of a shot Tarver and a bunch of guys moving up.
No, B-Hop is a great fighter, but Roy is greater IMO.
Styles make fights, for one.
You can't use a fighters loss against someone against them.
Hopkins would defeat more opposition/styles than Jones would.
That, imo, makes him p4p the better fighter. Just because roy had to style
to beat hopkins doesn't mean he's suddenly better because he holds a victory over him.
If 1 beats 3 - 10. But loses to 2, and 2 loses to 4, 5 and 6, who 1 beat.
Then who is the better fighter? No question, 1 is.
Also. Let's keep in mind hopkins was still perfecting his craft when he fought Roy. Since then Hopkins had gotten better and better with each fight, which would possibly indicate he wasn't quite primed yet? While Roy didn't get any better, just began moving up in weights.
Just my thoughts on the whole " Roy beat hopkins, he has to be better ATG ranked ".
Now.. One of the reasons Hopkins imo goes down better ranked than Roy is because other than his jones fight you can argue that hopkins has never been beaten. Hes also never been so much as scratched. His incredible title reign, number of defenses, and the level that he fights at at such an old age. These are all enormous feats and imo hold equal weight to roys accomplishments.
We see how great hopkins is at 175. Now that Roy lost his next and final fight may be at Heavyweight. People can easily argue that Hopkins could have gone up in weight classes and won the straps too, just like roy did. It's a very good arguement too considering how beautifuly he's made the transition to the new weight at such an old age.. so no question he could have done it then aswell.. but was intent on making history in the midweight division and not moving up in weight classes.
There are so many variables to these guys careers, we could argue forever.
imo, it's Roys prime skill, multi-weight championships that make him great.
Versus Hopkins resume, Midweight accomplishments, and level of comp at an old age.
People will always argue that hopkins was bigger than his best wins.
But atleast with hopkins, unlike roy, we don't have to look at his prime and rank him
based on what he did years ago. With hopkins, we can judge him by his past AND his present. Because the man is STILL great.
Roy has a great past. Hopkins has a great past, present, and maybe even future if he's
serious about the move to heavyweight.
Roy is done.. he's gotten all of his badges and achievements out of the way.
Hopkins is actually still going strong. If he hasn't surpassed Roy in ATG rank already,
then he will.
Even Tarver for example, there is a stark contrast in the Tarver that fought Jones and the one that fought Hopkins, Tarver was much slower, pushing his punches etc... No one made a big deal out of that fight other than what Hopkins did because everyone hates Tarver, but it was apparent that Tarver was slipping bad too
There's also a start contrast to the Winky that fought Taylor and the Winky that Fought Bhop.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT RockBut as stated before 95% of Nards important wins are over smaller guys moving up in weight and in the middle of all that he had his fair share of Tomato cans mixed into, I say nard will always be one step below Roy in the ATG department.. I believe that James Toney would beat Hopkins, he is on par defensively works harder in a fight and counters beautifully and would have matched him and strength..Perfect style to beat HopkinsQuote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileI disagree here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
Styles make fights, for one.
You can't use a fighters loss against someone against them.
Hopkins would defeat more opposition/styles than Jones would.
That, imo, makes him p4p the better fighter. Just because roy had to style
to beat hopkins doesn't mean he's suddenly better because he holds a victory over him.
If 1 beats 3 - 10. But loses to 2, and 2 loses to 4, 5 and 6, who 1 beat.
Then who is the better fighter? No question, 1 is.
Also. Let's keep in mind hopkins was still perfecting his craft when he fought Roy. Since then Hopkins had gotten better and better with each fight, which would possibly indicate he wasn't quite primed yet? While Roy didn't get any better, just began moving up in weights.
Just my thoughts on the whole " Roy beat hopkins, he has to be better ATG ranked ".
Now.. One of the reasons Hopkins imo goes down better ranked than Roy is because other than his jones fight you can argue that hopkins has never been beaten. Hes also never been so much as scratched. His incredible title reign, number of defenses, and the level that he fights at at such an old age. These are all enormous feats and imo hold equal weight to roys accomplishments.
We see how great hopkins is at 175. Now that Roy lost his next and final fight may be at Heavyweight. People can easily argue that Hopkins could have gone up in weight classes and won the straps too, just like roy did. It's a very good arguement too considering how beautifuly he's made the transition to the new weight at such an old age.. so no question he could have done it then aswell.. but was intent on making history in the midweight division and not moving up in weight classes.
There are so many variables to these guys careers, we could argue forever.
imo, it's Roys prime skill, multi-weight championships that make him great.
Versus Hopkins resume, Midweight accomplishments, and level of comp at an old age.
People will always argue that hopkins was bigger than his best wins.
But atleast with hopkins, unlike roy, we don't have to look at his prime and rank him
based on what he did years ago. With hopkins, we can judge him by his past AND his present. Because the man is STILL great.
Roy has a great past. Hopkins has a great past, present, and maybe even future if he's
serious about the move to heavyweight.
Roy is done.. he's gotten all of his badges and achievements out of the way.
Hopkins is actually still going strong. If he hasn't surpassed Roy in ATG rank already,
then he will.
Even Tarver for example, there is a stark contrast in the Tarver that fought Jones and the one that fought Hopkins, Tarver was much slower, pushing his punches etc... No one made a big deal out of that fight other than what Hopkins did because everyone hates Tarver, but it was apparent that Tarver was slipping bad too
To the Pavlik who fought Taylor, and the Pavlik who fought Bhop.
B-Hop has a way of taking people out of their element. Not denying anything you are saying though, but we have to realize that many fights respect bernard and that respect gets them ruinned in the ring.
As for Nard vs Toney. God I wish this could have happened. I don't see toney winning though. Toney is very flat footed and one thing toney has always allowed his ENTIRE career is for people to side step around him and take advantage of his flat feet. This is something Bernard ALWAYS does, even to people who fight on their toes.. and Hopkins on movement alone wins in a toney fight imo.
I.E Griffin vs Toney.
IMO it is ver very dificult to call Hopkins V Toney. It has a lot to do of when and under what cirumstances. All three (Hop, Roy, Toney) are brilliant back foot fighters, so IMO it would depend a lot of who would crack first and start pressing. This is where the circumstances come in, in the Roy-Hop fight Bernard was the unknown quantity at the time, and probably felt that he HAD to press the action more to get the decision. Toney HAD to press the action against Jones since he started to get behind in the scorecards early. Contrast this to the last 7 years of Hopkins career where in most fights he blankly refused to come forwards, which he payed dearly for against Taylor since he probably expected the close rounds to go the champions way.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT RockBut as stated before 95% of Nards important wins are over smaller guys moving up in weight and in the middle of all that he had his fair share of Tomato cans mixed into, I say nard will always be one step below Roy in the ATG department.. I believe that James Toney would beat Hopkins, he is on par defensively works harder in a fight and counters beautifully and would have matched him and strength..Perfect style to beat HopkinsQuote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileI disagree here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
Styles make fights, for one.
You can't use a fighters loss against someone against them.
Hopkins would defeat more opposition/styles than Jones would.
That, imo, makes him p4p the better fighter. Just because roy had to style
to beat hopkins doesn't mean he's suddenly better because he holds a victory over him.
If 1 beats 3 - 10. But loses to 2, and 2 loses to 4, 5 and 6, who 1 beat.
Then who is the better fighter? No question, 1 is.
Also. Let's keep in mind hopkins was still perfecting his craft when he fought Roy. Since then Hopkins had gotten better and better with each fight, which would possibly indicate he wasn't quite primed yet? While Roy didn't get any better, just began moving up in weights.
Just my thoughts on the whole " Roy beat hopkins, he has to be better ATG ranked ".
Now.. One of the reasons Hopkins imo goes down better ranked than Roy is because other than his jones fight you can argue that hopkins has never been beaten. Hes also never been so much as scratched. His incredible title reign, number of defenses, and the level that he fights at at such an old age. These are all enormous feats and imo hold equal weight to roys accomplishments.
We see how great hopkins is at 175. Now that Roy lost his next and final fight may be at Heavyweight. People can easily argue that Hopkins could have gone up in weight classes and won the straps too, just like roy did. It's a very good arguement too considering how beautifuly he's made the transition to the new weight at such an old age.. so no question he could have done it then aswell.. but was intent on making history in the midweight division and not moving up in weight classes.
There are so many variables to these guys careers, we could argue forever.
imo, it's Roys prime skill, multi-weight championships that make him great.
Versus Hopkins resume, Midweight accomplishments, and level of comp at an old age.
People will always argue that hopkins was bigger than his best wins.
But atleast with hopkins, unlike roy, we don't have to look at his prime and rank him
based on what he did years ago. With hopkins, we can judge him by his past AND his present. Because the man is STILL great.
Roy has a great past. Hopkins has a great past, present, and maybe even future if he's
serious about the move to heavyweight.
Roy is done.. he's gotten all of his badges and achievements out of the way.
Hopkins is actually still going strong. If he hasn't surpassed Roy in ATG rank already,
then he will.
Even Tarver for example, there is a stark contrast in the Tarver that fought Jones and the one that fought Hopkins, Tarver was much slower, pushing his punches etc... No one made a big deal out of that fight other than what Hopkins did because everyone hates Tarver, but it was apparent that Tarver was slipping bad too
Technically I think your onto something but Toney is a rare animal, he was been able to take a carbon copy of himself and trek 50lbs north fighting guys and assimilating power from true heavyweights.. Thats the difference, I couldnt see Hop taking his style and beating Jirov, Holyfield, Ruiz Peter(regardless of the judges Toney beat him the 1st fight) etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileThere's also a start contrast to the Winky that fought Taylor and the Winky that Fought Bhop.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT RockBut as stated before 95% of Nards important wins are over smaller guys moving up in weight and in the middle of all that he had his fair share of Tomato cans mixed into, I say nard will always be one step below Roy in the ATG department.. I believe that James Toney would beat Hopkins, he is on par defensively works harder in a fight and counters beautifully and would have matched him and strength..Perfect style to beat HopkinsQuote:
Originally Posted by intoccabile
Even Tarver for example, there is a stark contrast in the Tarver that fought Jones and the one that fought Hopkins, Tarver was much slower, pushing his punches etc... No one made a big deal out of that fight other than what Hopkins did because everyone hates Tarver, but it was apparent that Tarver was slipping bad too
To the Pavlik who fought Taylor, and the Pavlik who fought Bhop.
B-Hop has a way of taking people out of their element. Not denying anything you are saying though, but we have to realize that many fights respect bernard and that respect gets them ruinned in the ring.
As for Nard vs Toney. God I wish this could have happened. I don't see toney winning though. Toney is very flat footed and one thing toney has always allowed his ENTIRE career is for people to side step around him and take advantage of his flat feet. This is something Bernard ALWAYS does, even to people who fight on their toes.. and Hopkins on movement alone wins in a toney fight imo.
I.E Griffin vs Toney.
Thats saying something about the mans in ring intelligence, skill and toughness.. I think the shoulder rolling, countering and matching up with the dirty tactics would wear Hop out down the stretch, Toney can take your heart in a fight and I think the fact that Toney is always running his mouth and taunting would get Hop pretty damned frustrated
Would have been a classic.But I think Toney's bad habit of timing out rounds,taking off in spots,would have cost him.Hopkins at that stage was not the lay back pot shot artist we have seen recently and could spin off and had a big volume.Could get Toney off balance and equally get into Toney's head imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT RockTechnically I think your onto something but Toney is a rare animal, he was been able to take a carbon copy of himself and trek 50lbs north fighting guys and assimilating power from true heavyweights.. Thats the difference, I couldnt see Hop taking his style and beating Jirov, Holyfield, Ruiz Peter(regardless of the judges Toney beat him the 1st fight) etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabileThere's also a start contrast to the Winky that fought Taylor and the Winky that Fought Bhop.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Rock
To the Pavlik who fought Taylor, and the Pavlik who fought Bhop.
B-Hop has a way of taking people out of their element. Not denying anything you are saying though, but we have to realize that many fights respect bernard and that respect gets them ruinned in the ring.
As for Nard vs Toney. God I wish this could have happened. I don't see toney winning though. Toney is very flat footed and one thing toney has always allowed his ENTIRE career is for people to side step around him and take advantage of his flat feet. This is something Bernard ALWAYS does, even to people who fight on their toes.. and Hopkins on movement alone wins in a toney fight imo.
I.E Griffin vs Toney.
Thats saying something about the mans in ring intelligence, skill and toughness.. I think the shoulder rolling, countering and matching up with the dirty tactics would wear Hop out down the stretch, Toney can take your heart in a fight and I think the fact that Toney is always running his mouth and taunting would get Hop pretty damned frustrated
Bhop named himself the executioner for his antics. Hard to see toney getting in nards head. But nard definitely didn't have the wisdom and maturity he has now, so it's very possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'NawlinsWould have been a classic.But I think Toney's bad habit of timing out rounds,taking off in spots,would have cost him.Hopkins at that stage was not the lay back pot shot artist we have seen recently and could spin off and had a big volume.Could get Toney off balance and equally get into Toney's head imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by JT RockTechnically I think your onto something but Toney is a rare animal, he was been able to take a carbon copy of himself and trek 50lbs north fighting guys and assimilating power from true heavyweights.. Thats the difference, I couldnt see Hop taking his style and beating Jirov, Holyfield, Ruiz Peter(regardless of the judges Toney beat him the 1st fight) etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by intoccabile
Thats saying something about the mans in ring intelligence, skill and toughness.. I think the shoulder rolling, countering and matching up with the dirty tactics would wear Hop out down the stretch, Toney can take your heart in a fight and I think the fact that Toney is always running his mouth and taunting would get Hop pretty damned frustrated
Overall though,great points, and i just wish it could have appened.