Jr. vs Jr. Prolly an easy question but....

[Swice]

But consider this. Mayweather accomodating his own needs, may well be the factor that determines his legacy. As he has never been an all action fighter he longevity is less likely to be affected. He can go on another 5 years if he wants as his style allows him too. In fact it is constantly improving as the more expierience he gains the better he becomes. Compare Roy Jones' and Mayweathers careers. As Bilbo stated, they both have the ability to look magnificent when opposed by fighters who appear a class below them. However there is a large difference. Jones worked them over and Knocke them out. Mayweather dominated them for every single second of every round. He boxed their respective ears of....And thats every fight without exception.

In addition, i feel that Mayweather has indeed face the better opposition or at least performed better aginst their parallell opponents.
I mean Roy did some great things to some great fighters....B-Hop and Toney need i say more! But Strangely enough they were two fighters that Took Roy the distance, his greatest feats at middleweight his second weight division (he started at Lm).
And....strangely enough Mayweather stopped one of his best opponents, at his second weight...What he did to Corrales was jaw dropping. (I have rated Corales over Castillo here and im sure il have a knife to my throat later for saying it!)

So don't be so swift to say Roy, he was great no doubt, but i think that Mayweather is building the greater Castle of Memories and will have the larger Jacuzzi in his HoF penthouse.

Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in there first or second fight, in fact some people believe he even lost the first. And he didn't dominate Oscar De La Hoya either.

But Mayweather's best opponents don't come close to matching up with Roy's. Diego Corrales(R.I.P.) doesn't come anywhere near the legacy of a Bernard Hopkins or a James Toney. Toney and Hopkins are boxers who have had great success in multiple weight classes, while Corrales only found success at lightweight. And when he did try to move up he got starched by Joshua Clottey.

True that Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in their first meeting, but everyone has their nightmare nights.
See Roy vs. Montell Griffin 1. Mayweather really did beat Castillo in the rematch.
In reply to your comment on oscar, i feel that Pbf did a good job against the naturally much much bigger Oscar. Asking Mayweather to KO Oscar would have been the equivalent of Asking Roy to Ko John Ruiz, and no way in hell was that happening.

In relation to ur comments on Toney and Hopkins. Yes these two enjoyed great success in multiple weight classes....AFTER they had been beaten by Jones.
SAying the legacy's of these respective fighters was greater than that of Corrales is easy to say but incorrect when taken in context.
Hopkins had nowhere near peaked, he had never been world champion and his legacy will be based on how he changed AFTER the Jones fight. After the jones fight he became greta. Toney was a great Middleweight but again his success was at higher weights after the loss to Jones.
Corrales had already been champ before he met Mayweather.
What use is bringing Clottey into it? Did Corrales not redeem himself enough with the Castillo fight. Would you have preferred he had taken a more elongated beating?

Mayweather beat Castillo in their rematch but he far from dominated. If you want to use Montell Griffin as an example than see Jones Jr. vs. Griffin II. That is what domination looks like. I also disagree that asking a jr. lightweight(Floyd) to knockout a jr. middleweight(Oscar) is the same as asking a middleweight(Roy) to knockout a heavyweight(John).

Toney was a middleweight and super middleweight champ BEFORE he even fought Jones not after. And why hadn't Hopkins peaked? Besides a loss in his pro debut he was perfect until he met Jones. And after his loss to Jones, he didn't lose a fight until he fought Taylor, controversial as it was. So I don't see anything in there to indicate he peaked after he met Roy. He was a good fighter before and he was a good fighter after the Roy Jones Jr. fight. Because he loss to Jones Jr. doesn't mean he hadn't peaked it just means he faced a better fighter on that day. Jones was 21-0 and Hopkins was 22-1 when they fought, it wasn't like Hopkins was facing Jones after 5 fights.

What use is bringing Clottey into it? The Clottey fight lets you know that Corrales was a good lightweight, but that isn't comparable to say a Toney who was a good middleweight, supermiddleweight, cruiserweight, etc. As far as redeeming himself or taking a more elongated beating, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why would Corrales need to redeem himself, he had one of the biggest hearts in boxing? And as far as a more elongated beating, I don't have any idea what fight you are referring to.

[donnydarkoIRL]

But consider this. Mayweather accomodating his own needs, may well be the factor that determines his legacy. As he has never been an all action fighter he longevity is less likely to be affected. He can go on another 5 years if he wants as his style allows him too. In fact it is constantly improving as the more expierience he gains the better he becomes. Compare Roy Jones' and Mayweathers careers. As Bilbo stated, they both have the ability to look magnificent when opposed by fighters who appear a class below them. However there is a large difference. Jones worked them over and Knocke them out. Mayweather dominated them for every single second of every round. He boxed their respective ears of....And thats every fight without exception.

In addition, i feel that Mayweather has indeed face the better opposition or at least performed better aginst their parallell opponents.
I mean Roy did some great things to some great fighters....B-Hop and Toney need i say more! But Strangely enough they were two fighters that Took Roy the distance, his greatest feats at middleweight his second weight division (he started at Lm).
And....strangely enough Mayweather stopped one of his best opponents, at his second weight...What he did to Corrales was jaw dropping. (I have rated Corales over Castillo here and im sure il have a knife to my throat later for saying it!)

So don't be so swift to say Roy, he was great no doubt, but i think that Mayweather is building the greater Castle of Memories and will have the larger Jacuzzi in his HoF penthouse.

Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in there first or second fight, in fact some people believe he even lost the first. And he didn't dominate Oscar De La Hoya either.

But Mayweather's best opponents don't come close to matching up with Roy's. Diego Corrales(R.I.P.) doesn't come anywhere near the legacy of a Bernard Hopkins or a James Toney. Toney and Hopkins are boxers who have had great success in multiple weight classes, while Corrales only found success at lightweight. And when he did try to move up he got starched by Joshua Clottey.

True that Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in their first meeting, but everyone has their nightmare nights.
See Roy vs. Montell Griffin 1. Mayweather really did beat Castillo in the rematch.
In reply to your comment on oscar, i feel that Pbf did a good job against the naturally much much bigger Oscar. Asking Mayweather to KO Oscar would have been the equivalent of Asking Roy to Ko John Ruiz, and no way in hell was that happening.

In relation to ur comments on Toney and Hopkins. Yes these two enjoyed great success in multiple weight classes....AFTER they had been beaten by Jones.
SAying the legacy's of these respective fighters was greater than that of Corrales is easy to say but incorrect when taken in context.
Hopkins had nowhere near peaked, he had never been world champion and his legacy will be based on how he changed AFTER the Jones fight. After the jones fight he became greta. Toney was a great Middleweight but again his success was at higher weights after the loss to Jones.
Corrales had already been champ before he met Mayweather.
What use is bringing Clottey into it? Did Corrales not redeem himself enough with the Castillo fight. Would you have preferred he had taken a more elongated beating?

Mayweather beat Castillo in their rematch but he far from dominated. If you want to use Montell Griffin as an example than see Jones Jr. vs. Griffin II. That is what domination looks like. I also disagree that asking a jr. lightweight(Floyd) to knockout a jr. middleweight(Oscar) is the same as asking a middleweight(Roy) to knockout a heavyweight(John).

Toney was a middleweight and super middleweight champ BEFORE he even fought Jones not after. And why hadn't Hopkins peaked? Besides a loss in his pro debut he was perfect until he met Jones. And after his loss to Jones, he didn't lose a fight until he fought Taylor, controversial as it was. So I don't see anything in there to indicate he peaked after he met Roy. He was a good fighter before and he was a good fighter after the Roy Jones Jr. fight. Because he loss to Jones Jr. doesn't mean he hadn't peaked it just means he faced a better fighter on that day. Jones was 21-0 and Hopkins was 22-1 when they fought, it wasn't like Hopkins was facing Jones after 5 fights.

What use is bringing Clottey into it? The Clottey fight lets you know that Corrales was a good lightweight, but that isn't comparable to say a Toney who was a good middleweight, supermiddleweight, cruiserweight, etc. As far as redeeming himself or taking a more elongated beating, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why would Corrales need to redeem himself, he had one of the biggest hearts in boxing? And as far as a more elongated beating, I don't have any idea what fight you are referring to.

Personally i feel that Mayweather truely did dominate Castillo on theire second meeting. On the first night i had Castillo winning and i felt outraged at what i saw as a robbery. However after the second fight i felt that Mayweather had comprohensively overcame a fighter who styl;istically was formulated to cause him problems.

I realise that Toney was a cahmpion before he met Jones and i admire Toneta s a Middleweight and super Middleweight. However his legacy will be based upon the fact that he climbed to the highest peak of boxing and competing easily at Cruiser and heavy (his calling card up there will be the Tko of Evander i guess.) He will not make Hall of Fame for his achievements in Middle and supermiddle alone. Although Personally if you gave me a choice of watching James at Cruiser or Heavy OR watching him at Middle, its an obvious choice for me.

As for the Ho[pkins Point; Bernard Hopkins although on paper was as expierienced as Jones was actually several years behind. Hopkins due to the styint in jail was less expierienced. When Jones was travelling around getting the best spars, the best training and the best fights he could as an amateur, Hopkins was behind bars attempting to work out in there. Jones had Olympic Expierience and as everybody knows wa robbed in Seoul.
This amateur expierience must not be underestimated and as a result Bernard was below the level of expierience Jones was.
Furthermore one cannot compare the Bernard Hopkins That fought Jones and the Bernard Hopkins that has become a legend. The man once beaten set about revolutionising himself, the aggresive come forward style was abandoned along with many of the body shots. He transformed himself into an extremely intelligent, ruthless and some say dirty fighting Mechanism, far from his natural style which he displayed against Jones. In short Bernard after Roy was twice the fighter that he was before Jones.

As for ur Corrales point, why would you discredit Chico and then saynthat he doesn't need to prove himself anymore

[Swice]

But consider this. Mayweather accomodating his own needs, may well be the factor that determines his legacy. As he has never been an all action fighter he longevity is less likely to be affected. He can go on another 5 years if he wants as his style allows him too. In fact it is constantly improving as the more expierience he gains the better he becomes. Compare Roy Jones' and Mayweathers careers. As Bilbo stated, they both have the ability to look magnificent when opposed by fighters who appear a class below them. However there is a large difference. Jones worked them over and Knocke them out. Mayweather dominated them for every single second of every round. He boxed their respective ears of....And thats every fight without exception.

In addition, i feel that Mayweather has indeed face the better opposition or at least performed better aginst their parallell opponents.
I mean Roy did some great things to some great fighters....B-Hop and Toney need i say more! But Strangely enough they were two fighters that Took Roy the distance, his greatest feats at middleweight his second weight division (he started at Lm).
And....strangely enough Mayweather stopped one of his best opponents, at his second weight...What he did to Corrales was jaw dropping. (I have rated Corales over Castillo here and im sure il have a knife to my throat later for saying it!)

So don't be so swift to say Roy, he was great no doubt, but i think that Mayweather is building the greater Castle of Memories and will have the larger Jacuzzi in his HoF penthouse.

Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in there first or second fight, in fact some people believe he even lost the first. And he didn't dominate Oscar De La Hoya either.

But Mayweather's best opponents don't come close to matching up with Roy's. Diego Corrales(R.I.P.) doesn't come anywhere near the legacy of a Bernard Hopkins or a James Toney. Toney and Hopkins are boxers who have had great success in multiple weight classes, while Corrales only found success at lightweight. And when he did try to move up he got starched by Joshua Clottey.

True that Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in their first meeting, but everyone has their nightmare nights.
See Roy vs. Montell Griffin 1. Mayweather really did beat Castillo in the rematch.
In reply to your comment on oscar, i feel that Pbf did a good job against the naturally much much bigger Oscar. Asking Mayweather to KO Oscar would have been the equivalent of Asking Roy to Ko John Ruiz, and no way in hell was that happening.

In relation to ur comments on Toney and Hopkins. Yes these two enjoyed great success in multiple weight classes....AFTER they had been beaten by Jones.
SAying the legacy's of these respective fighters was greater than that of Corrales is easy to say but incorrect when taken in context.
Hopkins had nowhere near peaked, he had never been world champion and his legacy will be based on how he changed AFTER the Jones fight. After the jones fight he became greta. Toney was a great Middleweight but again his success was at higher weights after the loss to Jones.
Corrales had already been champ before he met Mayweather.
What use is bringing Clottey into it? Did Corrales not redeem himself enough with the Castillo fight. Would you have preferred he had taken a more elongated beating?

Mayweather beat Castillo in their rematch but he far from dominated. If you want to use Montell Griffin as an example than see Jones Jr. vs. Griffin II. That is what domination looks like. I also disagree that asking a jr. lightweight(Floyd) to knockout a jr. middleweight(Oscar) is the same as asking a middleweight(Roy) to knockout a heavyweight(John).

Toney was a middleweight and super middleweight champ BEFORE he even fought Jones not after. And why hadn't Hopkins peaked? Besides a loss in his pro debut he was perfect until he met Jones. And after his loss to Jones, he didn't lose a fight until he fought Taylor, controversial as it was. So I don't see anything in there to indicate he peaked after he met Roy. He was a good fighter before and he was a good fighter after the Roy Jones Jr. fight. Because he loss to Jones Jr. doesn't mean he hadn't peaked it just means he faced a better fighter on that day. Jones was 21-0 and Hopkins was 22-1 when they fought, it wasn't like Hopkins was facing Jones after 5 fights.

What use is bringing Clottey into it? The Clottey fight lets you know that Corrales was a good lightweight, but that isn't comparable to say a Toney who was a good middleweight, supermiddleweight, cruiserweight, etc. As far as redeeming himself or taking a more elongated beating, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why would Corrales need to redeem himself, he had one of the biggest hearts in boxing? And as far as a more elongated beating, I don't have any idea what fight you are referring to.

Personally i feel that Mayweather truely did dominate Castillo on theire second meeting. On the first night i had Castillo winning and i felt outraged at what i saw as a robbery. However after the second fight i felt that Mayweather had comprohensively overcame a fighter who styl;istically was formulated to cause him problems.

I realise that Toney was a cahmpion before he met Jones and i admire Toneta s a Middleweight and super Middleweight. However his legacy will be based upon the fact that he climbed to the highest peak of boxing and competing easily at Cruiser and heavy (his calling card up there will be the Tko of Evander i guess.) He will not make Hall of Fame for his achievements in Middle and supermiddle alone. Although Personally if you gave me a choice of watching James at Cruiser or Heavy OR watching him at Middle, its an obvious choice for me.

As for the Ho[pkins Point; Bernard Hopkins although on paper was as expierienced as Jones was actually several years behind. Hopkins due to the styint in jail was less expierienced. When Jones was travelling around getting the best spars, the best training and the best fights he could as an amateur, Hopkins was behind bars attempting to work out in there. Jones had Olympic Expierience and as everybody knows wa robbed in Seoul.
This amateur expierience must not be underestimated and as a result Bernard was below the level of expierience Jones was.
Furthermore one cannot compare the Bernard Hopkins That fought Jones and the Bernard Hopkins that has become a legend. The man once beaten set about revolutionising himself, the aggresive come forward style was abandoned along with many of the body shots. He transformed himself into an extremely intelligent, ruthless and some say dirty fighting Mechanism, far from his natural style which he displayed against Jones. In short Bernard after Roy was twice the fighter that he was before Jones.

As for ur Corrales point, why would you discredit Chico and then saynthat he doesn't need to prove himself anymore

I still disagree that Mayweather dominated Castillo in their rematch. Although Mayweather clearly won it, it still was a close fight.

Maybe Toney doesn't make it to the HOF on his middleweight and supermiddleweight resume, which is a debatable point, but if you were to take those away he doesn't make it in on the strength of his cruiser and heavyweight career. Toney had career-defining fights at middleweight and supermiddleweight before he even fought Jones. He already had wins over the likes of McCallum, Nunn, and Barkley.

The amateurs, in my opinion, wouldn't have helped Bernard at all. The emphasis on point scoring combined with the limited number of rounds isn't suited for Hopkins style. Amateur and professional boxing is two separate things. Thats why many boxers who have beaten fighters in the amateurs have lost to them in the pros.

And how did I discredit Corrales? I am a huge Corrales fan and I think he was a good lightweight champion, but I don't believe he is on the same level of a Bernard Hopkins or James Toney legacy wise. Thats not discrediting him or what he has accomplished. I like Kelly Pavlik to, but I don't think he has obtained the level of a Marvin Hagler or a Carlos Monzon. Maybe he will but it terms of accomplishments he isn't there yet. Corrales was a good lightweight fighter and when he tried to move up he got starched. Comparing him to a guy who was successful at middleweight, supermiddleweight, and to a lesser extent cruiserweight and heavyweight doesn't make sense to me. Thats not discrediting Corrales its just stating fact.

[donnydarkoIRL]

But consider this. Mayweather accomodating his own needs, may well be the factor that determines his legacy. As he has never been an all action fighter he longevity is less likely to be affected. He can go on another 5 years if he wants as his style allows him too. In fact it is constantly improving as the more expierience he gains the better he becomes. Compare Roy Jones' and Mayweathers careers. As Bilbo stated, they both have the ability to look magnificent when opposed by fighters who appear a class below them. However there is a large difference. Jones worked them over and Knocke them out. Mayweather dominated them for every single second of every round. He boxed their respective ears of....And thats every fight without exception.

In addition, i feel that Mayweather has indeed face the better opposition or at least performed better aginst their parallell opponents.
I mean Roy did some great things to some great fighters....B-Hop and Toney need i say more! But Strangely enough they were two fighters that Took Roy the distance, his greatest feats at middleweight his second weight division (he started at Lm).
And....strangely enough Mayweather stopped one of his best opponents, at his second weight...What he did to Corrales was jaw dropping. (I have rated Corales over Castillo here and im sure il have a knife to my throat later for saying it!)

So don't be so swift to say Roy, he was great no doubt, but i think that Mayweather is building the greater Castle of Memories and will have the larger Jacuzzi in his HoF penthouse.

Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in there first or second fight, in fact some people believe he even lost the first. And he didn't dominate Oscar De La Hoya either.

But Mayweather's best opponents don't come close to matching up with Roy's. Diego Corrales(R.I.P.) doesn't come anywhere near the legacy of a Bernard Hopkins or a James Toney. Toney and Hopkins are boxers who have had great success in multiple weight classes, while Corrales only found success at lightweight. And when he did try to move up he got starched by Joshua Clottey.

True that Mayweather didn't dominate Castillo in their first meeting, but everyone has their nightmare nights.
See Roy vs. Montell Griffin 1. Mayweather really did beat Castillo in the rematch.
In reply to your comment on oscar, i feel that Pbf did a good job against the naturally much much bigger Oscar. Asking Mayweather to KO Oscar would have been the equivalent of Asking Roy to Ko John Ruiz, and no way in hell was that happening.

In relation to ur comments on Toney and Hopkins. Yes these two enjoyed great success in multiple weight classes....AFTER they had been beaten by Jones.
SAying the legacy's of these respective fighters was greater than that of Corrales is easy to say but incorrect when taken in context.
Hopkins had nowhere near peaked, he had never been world champion and his legacy will be based on how he changed AFTER the Jones fight. After the jones fight he became greta. Toney was a great Middleweight but again his success was at higher weights after the loss to Jones.
Corrales had already been champ before he met Mayweather.
What use is bringing Clottey into it? Did Corrales not redeem himself enough with the Castillo fight. Would you have preferred he had taken a more elongated beating?

Mayweather beat Castillo in their rematch but he far from dominated. If you want to use Montell Griffin as an example than see Jones Jr. vs. Griffin II. That is what domination looks like. I also disagree that asking a jr. lightweight(Floyd) to knockout a jr. middleweight(Oscar) is the same as asking a middleweight(Roy) to knockout a heavyweight(John).

Toney was a middleweight and super middleweight champ BEFORE he even fought Jones not after. And why hadn't Hopkins peaked? Besides a loss in his pro debut he was perfect until he met Jones. And after his loss to Jones, he didn't lose a fight until he fought Taylor, controversial as it was. So I don't see anything in there to indicate he peaked after he met Roy. He was a good fighter before and he was a good fighter after the Roy Jones Jr. fight. Because he loss to Jones Jr. doesn't mean he hadn't peaked it just means he faced a better fighter on that day. Jones was 21-0 and Hopkins was 22-1 when they fought, it wasn't like Hopkins was facing Jones after 5 fights.

What use is bringing Clottey into it? The Clottey fight lets you know that Corrales was a good lightweight, but that isn't comparable to say a Toney who was a good middleweight, supermiddleweight, cruiserweight, etc. As far as redeeming himself or taking a more elongated beating, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Why would Corrales need to redeem himself, he had one of the biggest hearts in boxing? And as far as a more elongated beating, I don't have any idea what fight you are referring to.

Personally i feel that Mayweather truely did dominate Castillo on theire second meeting. On the first night i had Castillo winning and i felt outraged at what i saw as a robbery. However after the second fight i felt that Mayweather had comprohensively overcame a fighter who styl;istically was formulated to cause him problems.

I realise that Toney was a cahmpion before he met Jones and i admire Toneta s a Middleweight and super Middleweight. However his legacy will be based upon the fact that he climbed to the highest peak of boxing and competing easily at Cruiser and heavy (his calling card up there will be the Tko of Evander i guess.) He will not make Hall of Fame for his achievements in Middle and supermiddle alone. Although Personally if you gave me a choice of watching James at Cruiser or Heavy OR watching him at Middle, its an obvious choice for me.

As for the Ho[pkins Point; Bernard Hopkins although on paper was as expierienced as Jones was actually several years behind. Hopkins due to the styint in jail was less expierienced. When Jones was travelling around getting the best spars, the best training and the best fights he could as an amateur, Hopkins was behind bars attempting to work out in there. Jones had Olympic Expierience and as everybody knows wa robbed in Seoul.
This amateur expierience must not be underestimated and as a result Bernard was below the level of expierience Jones was.
Furthermore one cannot compare the Bernard Hopkins That fought Jones and the Bernard Hopkins that has become a legend. The man once beaten set about revolutionising himself, the aggresive come forward style was abandoned along with many of the body shots. He transformed himself into an extremely intelligent, ruthless and some say dirty fighting Mechanism, far from his natural style which he displayed against Jones. In short Bernard after Roy was twice the fighter that he was before Jones.

As for ur Corrales point, why would you discredit Chico and then saynthat he doesn't need to prove himself anymore

I still disagree that Mayweather dominated Castillo in their rematch. Although Mayweather clearly won it, it still was a close fight.

Maybe Toney doesn't make it to the HOF on his middleweight and supermiddleweight resume, which is a debatable point, but if you were to take those away he doesn't make it in on the strength of his cruiser and heavyweight career. Toney had career-defining fights at middleweight and supermiddleweight before he even fought Jones. He already had wins over the likes of McCallum, Nunn, and Barkley.

The amateurs, in my opinion, wouldn't have helped Bernard at all. The emphasis on point scoring combined with the limited number of rounds isn't suited for Hopkins style. Amateur and professional boxing is two separate things. Thats why many boxers who have beaten fighters in the amateurs have lost to them in the pros.

And how did I discredit Corrales? I am a huge Corrales fan and I think he was a good lightweight champion, but I don't believe he is on the same level of a Bernard Hopkins or James Toney legacy wise. Thats not discrediting him or what he has accomplished. I like Kelly Pavlik to, but I don't think he has obtained the level of a Marvin Hagler or a Carlos Monzon. Maybe he will but it terms of accomplishments he isn't there yet. Corrales was a good lightweight fighter and when he tried to move up he got starched. Comparing him to a guy who was successful at middleweight, supermiddleweight, and to a lesser extent cruiserweight and heavyweight doesn't make sense to me. Thats not discrediting Corrales its just stating fact.

A fight which was closer than the first but still a certain win for Mayweather.

I agree that Toney's HoF induction will not be based upon his resume at Cruiser or Heavy.
However i persist in my insistance that he will not be inducted as a result of his exploits at middle or supermiddle. James will be inducted as a result of his accumulative successes from middle all the way up to heavyweight, that it what is remarkable about his career, his ability to succesfully compete in weights with such as size disparity.

Your point on Hopkins reinforces my belief. Hopkins as an amateur learned a basic technique, utilised it and then changed and adapted what he had learned in the pro ranks. Although i firmly believe that he learned far more after the jones defeat and became a great fighter after his meeting with Roy.
Roy on the other hand utilised quite a similar style in the amateurs as he did in the pros, which meant virtually all of his amateur glory was trining and preparation for the proffessional game. This is the logic behind my belief that Roys much longer and more illustrious campaign as an amateur was by far more beneficial to him than B-Hops and thus accredited him with far more ring expierience.

At the point that Corrales fought Mayweather he was pretty much the equivalent of the Hopkins that fought Jones.
After Corrales fought Mayweather he continued but with the same bloody minded attackingbstyle. Hopkins after Jones altereed his mindset and style and became a wily-boxer. So i feel that the Corrales that fought Mayweather is comparable to the Hopkins that fought Jones in the sense that both fighters had enjoyed, moderate success, they were not the finished article, they both had aggresive come forward styles and threw a lot and both were in the ring with the belief that they could overvcome.