How Can Anyone Now Rank Hopkins Lower than Roy Jones?

[smashcrusher]

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 . 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.