... considering that RJJ was a supreme talent and Hopkins and he are virtually the same age and been in the sport for the same amount of time?
Why is Hopkins successful in these later years and RJJ isn't??
Printable View
... considering that RJJ was a supreme talent and Hopkins and he are virtually the same age and been in the sport for the same amount of time?
Why is Hopkins successful in these later years and RJJ isn't??
Rock-solid fundamentals.
Yea I was going to say that too :cool: I would add punch resistance ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bradlee180
Good question. Honestly, no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
I guess it is actually the opposite:What does Jones have that Hopkins doesn't?
Jones is about showmanship. He cannot just win in a boring -ass fashion. In his mind, this victory would mean or prove nothing.
I don't know about you but watching him carry the shadow of Mike McCallum made a nap easier. Roy had phenomenal reflex and instinct but he stated a few times he basically didn't care what the fans thought, it was HIM taking the risks. If he wanted to carry outclassed guys like Fermin Chirino, fans be damned. Hopkins was always the more well rounded boxing basics and more adaptable type of fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSeminGood question. Honestly, no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
I guess it is actually the opposite:What does Jones have that Hopkins doesn't?
Jones is about showmanship. He cannot just win in a boring -ass fashion. In his mind, this victory would mean or prove nothing.
Well yeah better fundamentals, a great chin, a more defensive approach, he's adapted... But it's not as if Roy Jones is the odd man out here, there is nothing unusual about his condition for a 45+ year old man. Hell out of the people who have been fighting as long as Hopkins has, Jones isn't even in bad company. Not to mention the vast majority of freak athletes rapidly lose that in their mid 30's, most just retire by then, in any sport. Roy has just stuck around way to long as so many do. You may as well ask what Hopkins has that Chris Eubank or Michael Nunn didn't, for some perspective on the eras.
Their mentalities are different also. Roy is a very talented man and extremely talented athlete. Bernard is a fighter. Every single aspect about Bernard is conflict, discipline and strategy. He had a quote that was very telling about who he is: "I can't sing like Oscar or rap/dance/play basketball like Roy. I am just a fighter".
Hopkins is still winning at the top level. Always figures out a way to win, whether it's fundamentals, desire, experience or smarts he keeps winning.
Agreed :) Hopkins has continued to challenge himself and fight against guys where he is not the favourite to win :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
It's a variety of things IMO. Hopkins has better fundamentals than Jones Jnr and he also didn't piss about with going up to HW and then jumping back down two weight classes. Jones Jnr messed his body up doing that and having relied so much on speed, was less able to adjust when his body wasn't quite the same. Hopkins went up in weight sensibly and was able to escape looking slightly less good in his final days at MW. In that sense, Hopkins is more savvy and self aware. He's a very smart man which is why I am a little confused about the Kovalev fight.
Id say speed and relexes were such a critical tool for Jones and not so much for Hopkins. These faded meaning Jones' body couldnt do what his mind wanted.
Roy is all talent. Just an on going exhibition of God given talent and confidence.
Bernard..? Well it's very hard for me to put in to words but there are two words that are key for Hopkins:
Adapt. Control.
You look up these two words and you see elements of Hopkins in all of them. In all aspects of his life there has been this ideology that consists of a solid balance between the two very strong elements of adapt and control.
This was pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
Roy Jones relies on his reflex and athleticism which has faded with age whereas Hopkins has boxing skills and knowledge which has allowed him to continue at the top level. Hopkins has to remain supremely fit but smart when he fights.
He's cagey...RJJ relied on pure athletic ability. Not saying RJJ didn't put in work, it's the difference between a more physically gifted boxer and a more mentally tough boxer.
guts, courage, smarter boxing mentality & a desire to fight the best fighters out there, and to not make excuses like roy always did.
roy was on top once, but the tables have turned in favor of the real fighter...a legend now, B-Hop!!!
That's not a fair assessment of Roy. Roy fought everyone he could fight and in his prime he fought more dangerous opponents than Hopkins did. Hopkins' run at middleweight lasted up until he faced a real middleweight in Jermain Taylor. Until that point Hopkins refused to move up in weight and fight RJJ or Toney.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1FightFan
Roy fought some good fighters, Roy even went to heavyweight and showed off his skills there....should have retired after that but hindsight is 20/20
Hopkins is solvent; Jones is not.
Money, health and happiness. :)
It's more a case of what Jones had that he doesn't have now.
Roy did it to himself, Idk if everyone remembers but Roy was supposed to fight Trinidad when Bernard came along and knocked out Tito. So instead of fighting Bernard he ducked him and took on Tarver twice and the second time he proceeded to get knocked out cold, then getting ktfo by Glenn Johnson, and later getting laid out by a bunch of bums. My point being that if Roy had taken the Hopkins fight instead of the Tarver fight he could have salvaged his legacy cause there would have been no shame in losing to a prime B Hop, but when you lose to the likes of Tarver and Johnson(both men were beaten by hopkins) and the manner in which he lost, it really tarnishes your legacy, and the rest of his losses just sealed it.
RJJ was a great talent but he lacked the heart and courage of Hopkins, and throughout his career his opposition was less than stellar fighting sub par competition. Ever since Roy got ktfo by Tarver he was just trying to survive in his fights, it was as though going the distance and losing was a victory to him as long as he didn't get knocked out.
The comments you made above negate the true part of your post: That is wasn't a fair assessment of Roy. Roy DID NOT fight everyone he could fight, or even a few of those he could have and should have fought (Benn, Eubank, Collins, G-Man, Hop rematch, Liles, Nunn, Darius...etc.). His competition after Toney was not up to his ability, to the point that people began boycotting his fights due to lack of competitive match ups (ROYCOTT was the name given to the movement).Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThat's not a fair assessment of Roy. Roy fought everyone he could fight and in his prime he fought more dangerous opponents than Hopkins did. Hopkins' run at middleweight lasted up until he faced a real middleweight in Jermain Taylor. Until that point Hopkins refused to move up in weight and fight RJJ or Toney.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1FightFan
Roy fought some good fighters, Roy even went to heavyweight and showed off his skills there....should have retired after that but hindsight is 20/20
As for more dangerous opponents than Hop, Roy took on and beat 1 fighter ranked p4p at the time they fought and that was James Toney. Hop fought these guys ranked p4p at the time he fought them: Tito (#2), Tarver (#8), Winky (#4), Joe C. (#4), Pavilik (#6), Pascal (#11). He also fought tough, respected challengers in Dawson, Cloud (undefeated when they fought), Shumenov, Joe Lipsey (undefeated when he ruined him), Glenn Johnson (undefeated when Hop beat him), Andrew Council, and Howard Eastman to name a few. Oscar was undersized, but Hop stopped him, as he should have. Additionally, Hop COMPLETELY cleaned out 160 beating every other champion at his weight and cleaning out the division before getting ripped off against Taylor (NOT the first true middleweight he fought, this was another comment that makes you look biased/uneducated).
The one thing you are correct on was that Roy was a supreme talent, and not a coward. He rose in weight and took on James Toney when Toney was the most feared champion out there. The truth is that Roy became a business man more than a fighter, which is good for him, and took on the least risk for the most reward. I give Roy credit for fighting Tarver and then giving him a rematch after the tough fight, but I think that once he lost it, he realized that he wasn't going to be remembered like he wanted and wanted to go back to being a fighter but found it was too late. If you look at Roy's competition throughout his career, he actually fought better guys when he was past his prime.
Last point, Hop chased Roy for the rematch for years and was willing to move to 168 but wasn't willing for the 60-40 split Roy demanded. Both were great fighters, but Hop will be higher on the ATG list than Roy for the amazing feats and career he has had. Roy was good enough to beat anyone in the history of the sport, but in his prime he never yearned for greatness or tested himself like Hop, Manny, Floyd, Oscar, Tito...etc. did.
Dunno man, I give Hopkins the nod big time as far as fighting more dangerous guys collectively and if we're talking prime I don't even know if that's ended yet for Hopkins??? It wasn't Hopkins need to chase Jones and by the time Hopkins fought Taylor Jones was already getting all he could handle from Tarver. Hopkins run at Middle is lined with knocking about five #1 ranked challengers, a unification tournament win and indeed a fight with Jones. Not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThat's not a fair assessment of Roy. Roy fought everyone he could fight and in his prime he fought more dangerous opponents than Hopkins did. Hopkins' run at middleweight lasted up until he faced a real middleweight in Jermain Taylor. Until that point Hopkins refused to move up in weight and fight RJJ or Toney.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1FightFan
Roy fought some good fighters, Roy even went to heavyweight and showed off his skills there....should have retired after that but hindsight is 20/20
Exactly right. Good post. I made some similar points above but you nailed it with the amount of #1 ranked challengers he beat. Not to mention anyone else who held a belt at his weight (Oscar/WBO, Holmes, Joppy...etc.). I have Hop above Hagler and Monzon historically, which I know is blasphemy, but I just think he had the better career with bigger/more impressive wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliDunno man, I give Hopkins the nod big time as far as fighting more dangerous guys collectively and if we're talking prime I don't even know if that's ended yet for Hopkins??? It wasn't Hopkins need to chase Jones and by the time Hopkins fought Taylor Jones was already getting all he could handle from Tarver. Hopkins run at Middle is lined with knocking about five #1 ranked challengers, a unification tournament win and indeed a fight with Jones. Not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThat's not a fair assessment of Roy. Roy fought everyone he could fight and in his prime he fought more dangerous opponents than Hopkins did. Hopkins' run at middleweight lasted up until he faced a real middleweight in Jermain Taylor. Until that point Hopkins refused to move up in weight and fight RJJ or Toney.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1FightFan
Roy fought some good fighters, Roy even went to heavyweight and showed off his skills there....should have retired after that but hindsight is 20/20
I think only the most hardcore Roy fanboys would rank him higher than Hopkins in terms of all time greatness. It's not even a debate that Hopkins is the better fighter in terms of overall resume and longevity. I was laughing real hard when a few days back I was reading an old thread here that said Roy would school Michael Spinks badly, the fanboys were saying that Spinks was a bum and would get steamrolled by Roy like what happened in the Tyson fight. Except the fanboys didn't know that SPinks is actually rated as one of the all time greats at LHW, who had chin, boxing ability, height, reach, and power. Whatever happened at HW was just the icing on the cake to a remarkable career. Yes, he got ko by Tyson in 91 seconds, but remember Spinks was no natural HW, but at LHW he holds his own against anyone in history.
I like Roy, I think he's an outstanding talent, but he had too many ex cops like Richard Frazier on his resume when you look at it in hindsight. And don't even use the excuse that Roy couldn't make the super fights happened, Oscar who's an even bigger star in boxing than Roy fought every Tom, Dick, and Harry out there. Yes, Oscar lost a few big fights, but he still made them happened, took the challenges, and gave the fans what they wanted.
If Roy and Hop were to fight in their primes Roy would beat him again...
Really?!? Because u say so? It would be a close fight, and Roy may win it, but prime vs prime it isn't a guarantee. Hop learned a lot from losing to Roy the first time and adapted his style and learned tricks to deal with faster, unorthodox, more athletically gifted fighters. It would've been ugly and a foul fear from Hop, but I give him a good chance to beat Roy prime vs prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
I just don't know how its close as far as overall comp and fundamentals between a Roy and Hopkins. I can't even say it with a straight face given the fact that one is fighting a Courtney Fry in what amounts to a traveling carnival side show and one is fighting top undefeated young champions and breaking his own records. I wasn't keen on the Oscar match and never bought Oscar a Middleweight after he was boxed silly by Sturm. That always struck me as a business arrangement and money event. Equally hated the Simon Brown fight. Can agree on Monzon, possibly Hagler but Marvin excelled in a top era surrounded by some greats. I think Hopkins has done far more than enough to eclipse a Roy shadow now.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodExactly right. Good post. I made some similar points above but you nailed it with the amount of #1 ranked challengers he beat. Not to mention anyone else who held a belt at his weight (Oscar/WBO, Holmes, Joppy...etc.). I have Hop above Hagler and Monzon historically, which I know is blasphemy, but I just think he had the better career with bigger/more impressive wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpicoliDunno man, I give Hopkins the nod big time as far as fighting more dangerous guys collectively and if we're talking prime I don't even know if that's ended yet for Hopkins??? It wasn't Hopkins need to chase Jones and by the time Hopkins fought Taylor Jones was already getting all he could handle from Tarver. Hopkins run at Middle is lined with knocking about five #1 ranked challengers, a unification tournament win and indeed a fight with Jones. Not too shabby.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongThat's not a fair assessment of Roy. Roy fought everyone he could fight and in his prime he fought more dangerous opponents than Hopkins did. Hopkins' run at middleweight lasted up until he faced a real middleweight in Jermain Taylor. Until that point Hopkins refused to move up in weight and fight RJJ or Toney.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1FightFan
Roy fought some good fighters, Roy even went to heavyweight and showed off his skills there....should have retired after that but hindsight is 20/20
to be fair to Roy the thread should read what does Hopkins have that no other fighter that ever lived has had
roy was unbelievable at his best, but if you look at his recent record it isn't actually that bad for a man of his age
obviously not as good as hopkins
Hold on a bit lets not get carried away here! Hopkins is great and is adding to his legacy with each fight but Roy was a better fighter at his peak than B Hop.
What if Jones fought Benn, Michalczewski, Eubank, Collins, and Rocchigiani?
Dariuz is the biggest omission.Quote:
Originally Posted by VG_Addict
Boxing would have been SOOOOO much different had RJJ never been robbed in the Seoul Olympics. He wouldn't have had the fear of travelling and worries of having to have a KO to win outside the US.
RJJ had the talent to KO or shut out ANYONE over 12 rounds in his prime. He was just an amazing talent, head and shoulders over everyone else.
Every fighter has a coulda, would a, should a, but Roy was the man to beat and it was the other top fighters that did not fight him.
hopkins is always in shape. He never gets out of shape. He also eats much better than jones and just takes care of his body. Diet is key
Well let's be fair to Roy, the question should be what did Hopkins and Archie Moore have that no one else did? It's pretty standard practice for guys to be washed up in their mid 30s.
SRR in his mid 30s was losing to guys that wouldn't have been able to hold his jockstrap in his prime. By 35, Ray Leonard looked like an old man getting battered around by Terry Norris. Pernell was washed up by that age (also due to the coke I'm sure). Ali looked like a shell of himself and was losing to Leon Spinks.
Bhop is just a freak of nature.
Hopkins had a style built for the long run....Roy Jones Jr.'s style was built on reflexes, speed, timing, things that fade with time. Hopkins ALWAYS fought in an ugly manner more difficult to hit clean than most but he was always consistent with his attack and he's a strong guy. Holyfield had a similar way about him. Andre Ward has a similar way about him. Wladimir Klitschko could even be mentioned in this group (though he knocks out many more guys than the others) as it looks as his style could have him sticking around for as long as he likes.
RJJ never adapted his style to his age...not even sure if that would have been possible with the way he fought. Too herky, jerky, too much energy consumption, too much reliance on speed and reflexes.
I don't think there was a fighter in his era that could have really pushed him to the brink from 160-175....maybe cruiserweight, but you just don't know. There were certainly heavyweights that could have hurt him just due to their pure size advantages. Benn, Eubank, Collins, Michalczewski, Jirov....they couldn't have taken him and in his pomp Joe Calzaghe would have been 0 match for him. The guys that would have had chances would likely have been very small heavyweights, the super tough cruiserweights, or the extremely talented all-time greats.
I disagree with that statement. You can't force a guy to get in the ring with you. If he had missed a few guys only throughout his career, then I would agree with you. Great fighters test themselves and prove themselves against other great fighters. Just look at the competition that Whitaker, Tito, Oscar, Shane, Hopkins, Holyfield, Lewis...etc. took on throughout their career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Roy isn't a bum and I don't think that he was scared of anyone. I do think that he is a smart man and was more interested in making the most money for the least amount of risk and not with securing his legacy. While I agree that the guy was a supreme talent and could have beaten or at least given trouble to any fighter in history, he was at fault for not making some of those big fights happen and his legacy will suffer because of it.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you. We don't know how some of those other guys would have done vs. Roy. Everyone was sure G-Man would blow out Benn. Tyson was unbeatable and had zero chance to lose to Douglas. Donald Curry was the next Ray Robinson and unbeatable. Shane Mosely was on his way to being an ATG and Vernon Forrest was just going to be a speed bump on his way to greatness.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Styles make fights, and if you notice, Roy often avoided long, lanky, slick, elite boxers like Nunn and Frankie Liles, and very durable, rough, aggressive fighters like G-Man, Darius...etc. Glenn Johnson said something interesting when he beat Roy (who was past his prime at the time), and that was that most guys were intimidated by Roy throwing back and were afraid to jab, especially when close, to negate Roy's speed advantages and keep him pinned to the ropes. Benn was a HUGE puncher and actually a clever fighter later in his career and while I would DEFINITELY favor Roy in that fight, you are kidding yourself if you think he stood no chance to win.
I think that Roy was a great talent and great fighter. I also think that Roy was made to look more dominant and his fans exaggerate his greatness and invincibility because of the weak level of competition he faced between the Toney and Tarver fights (sorry, Virgil Hill was washed up, Mcallum was washed up, Montell was not an elite fighter, and Ruiz was a joke).
Roy beat B Hop and Toney who are great fighters, he unified all the belts at light heavy and the top fighters should come to him. I do not even consider Roy to be a great light heavy but would at super middle if he stayed long enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodI disagree with that statement. You can't force a guy to get in the ring with you. If he had missed a few guys only throughout his career, then I would agree with you. Great fighters test themselves and prove themselves against other great fighters. Just look at the competition that Whitaker, Tito, Oscar, Shane, Hopkins, Holyfield, Lewis...etc. took on throughout their career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Roy isn't a bum and I don't think that he was scared of anyone. I do think that he is a smart man and was more interested in making the most money for the least amount of risk and not with securing his legacy. While I agree that the guy was a supreme talent and could have beaten or at least given trouble to any fighter in history, he was at fault for not making some of those big fights happen and his legacy will suffer because of it.