Jones or Hopkins?

If we asked this very question 10 years ago when Jones was annexing a part of the heavyweight title from John Ruiz the answer would be a simple one. Four division world champion with one contentious disqualification loss which he avenged in one easy round, numerous defences of the light heavyweight title with wins over Hopkins, Toney and Hill to his name across 3 divisions. Fast forward ten years and it becomes a far harder question to answer, the enduring master or the majestic fallen hero?

Jones quickly ascended the ranks beating the very credible Jorge Fernando Castro before facing Bernard Hopkins for the vacant IBF middleweight title, a comfortable 12 decision in Jones' favour ensured the first of four divisional world titles. A move up to 168lbs was soon to follow with the quintessential Jones performance where he dominated James Toney from start to finish to secure his second title, after a few defences including a 6 round stoppage of Pazienza in which he became the first and to this date only man to go a whole round without being hit. Another move up to light heavyweight saw him facing another great in Mike McCallum, the ageing jamaican was no match for Jones speed and reflexes and was easily outpointed, the most comprehensive loss of his 55 fight career. A routine defence against Griffin was expected next and going into the 9th round he was being given his sternest test so far before he was inexplicably disqualified for hitting his man while down, the ruling was correct but appeared harsh on Jones. An immediate rematch was secured and he made no mistakes second time round, starting fast and knocking Griffin out in the first round, it was the most aggressive fight of Jones career with the previous fight clearly on his mind. 12 defences of his title were to follow with a much anticipated fight with dariusz michalczewski never materializing. He then became only the second man in history to win both a middleweight title and heavyweight title when he outpointed John Ruiz. His fall from grace thereafter was unexpected and very swift with knockout losses to Tarver and Johnson, he was to win no major fights again becoming a shell of the once great champion he was.

Almost the polar opposite to Jones, Bernard Hopkins was a late starter in boxing having served 5 years in prison. He finally won a world title at the third time of asking have been defeated by Jones and drawing with Mercado at altitude in colombia. Once he got his hands on the title it would be 11 years until he relinquished it racking up a record 20 defences picking up all four major titles as well as the ring magazines belt. He partook in a middleweight tournament set up by the legendary Don King with the sole aim of granting Felix Trinidad supremacy over the division but the executioner had other plans outclassing his puerto rican counterpart before stopping him in the 12th round. It would be the highlight of his middleweight reign which included wins over former and future world champions; Oscar De La Hoya, Keith Holmes, Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Robert Allen, William Joppy and Simon Brown as well as the highly regarded Howard Eastman. It is after losing his title to Jermaine Taylor that his career took a strange turn, now into his 40's he would win three titles at light heavyweight beating Tarver first time around before losing a close contested decision to Joe Calzaghe. While in his mid 40's he would beat 3 current world champions in Kelly Pavlik, Jean Pascal and Tavoris Cloud, showing all the mastery that his years of experience had accumulated, his destruction of Pavlik being the highlight.

So simple question after two paragraphs of waffle who now rates higher?

Nothing contentious about the dq loss. He punched Montell when he was on his knee. But he avenged it and set the record straight.

He beat Hopkins. Won a hw strap. Equalled history. RJJ should rank higher.

What Hopkins has done is nothing short of miraculous given his age. But we should discount thst and look ag it in purely boxing terms. He's not the best lhw now. Not the best smw either. Had RJJ stopped after ruiz there wouldn't be a debate.

RJJ all the way.

Great article Ghosty, hats off.

Hopkins truly is one of the most remarkable characters and stories of boxing history, but I can't put him ahead of Jones, personally. There was a time when I might have leaned to Hopkins, but I tend to think that the past few years have made it difficult to judge them directly because it's been the worst few years of Jones' career while Hopkins has come up with at least two or three really 'enhancing' wins since Jones' downfall.

Longevity goes with Hopkins but everything else goes to Jones, for me; level of opposition beaten, level of dominance against his peers in his prime years, talent etc. What Jones had in his pomp was complete and utter dominance against his biggest rivals, the sort of dominance only reserved for the truly astonishing talents. Hopkins put on a string of exemplary showings but seldom really left a viewer stunned and in awe the way Jones did against Toney, Johnson, Griffin (II) etc.

I know it seems harsh to effectively mark Hopkins down for that, but hey ho, when you're being directly compared to another great from your own era these little things are always going to be magnified a little more.

It's a shame we didn't get a second fight between them at a time when it would have still mattered (two egos which were both a bit too big for their own good, really), but no matter where, when or at what weight I see them rematching at between 1993 and 2003 I just can't see Bernard beating Roy. Hopkins was a great fighter and you could argue that he still is in a way, but Jones was an absolutely exceptional one, pretty much a one off to a large degree.

I'm not yet entirely convinced that I've ever seen a fighter who had as much pure, God-given talent (when all aspects are considered) as Jones had.

Both of them greats of a high rank, but Jones just that little bit greater for me.

Jones all the way as he has done it in multiple weight classes!

It was defiantly contentious the DQ tho! Pacquiao Marquez 1 (I think) pacquiao hit Marquez when he was down for the 3rd time! If that was ruled as a DQ it would've been a disgrace aswell

Suppose I prefer the sheer mastery of Hopkins who leaves me in awe in a different way to Jones, he wasn't and isn't an exciting fighter to watch but much in the same way as Mayweather his understanding and technical ability leaves me bewildered. When all is said and done there is very little to seperate their respective reigns at middleweight and light heavyweight, i'd give the slight edge to Hopkins who for intents and purposes beat everyone there was to beat. I don't hold DM against Jones as much as I did but it's still a factor, he would have won but the fact is he doesn't have that defining win at 175lbs which it would have been.

The different ways in which they have aged leads me to think that Hopkins was the better boxer of the pair but had less physical gifts than Jones, he wasn't lightning quick or a concussive puncher but has time and time again shown up younger fighters.

I'd have Hopkins top 20 with Jones top 25.

I'm really peed off Jones fought on for too long.

It's really annoying that when i talk to my grand kids in years to come I'll be making excuses for him. I'd have loved to have spoken about him as the unblemished diamond of my era.

Still have to go with Jones ghosty but I've got to admire what Hopkins has done. I think Hopkins makes up for a lot of physical shortcomings with his awesome brain and had he one physical attribute that was exceptional he might have overtaken Jones. That said, Jones absolutely destroyed his rivals including hoppo himself so might not have even then. The hw title doesn't really do much for the legacy of Roy jones in my eyes (just marks the last we saw of his best) - but his clear and emphatic victories over two of the most awkward and skilled fighters of modern times along with his blitzing of his nearest rivals puts him considerably ahead

I'd agree that Hopkins' Middleweight reign trumps Jones' at Light-Heavy, Ghosty. I'd probably have Hopkins at # 4 in my all-time Middleweight list with Jones something like # 7 at Light-Heavyweight.

You've touched upon my point about Jones being the most talented fighter I can think of, albeit in a wider sense than just boxing. Hopkins boxes out of a textbook whereas Jones had a style all of his own, hence Jones was the more talented 'fighter' so to speak, with Hopkins being the better 'boxer.' As you allude to it's down to personal opinion which one you prefer, but I just tend to think that Jones brought something different to the sport the way only a very small few can.

I just think that Jones holds all the cards aside from longevity, and I don't want to make the mistake of confusing Jones having less longevity than Hopkins with Jones having little longevity in his own right. Roy spent eleven years virtually unbroken as a reigning world champion and spent ten of those between 1994 and 2004 universally ranked as one of the top two (at least) pound for pound fighters in the sport in virtually everybody's eyes. That's outstanding longevity - it's just that Hopkins is a complete freak of nature in that department.

Not a great deal in it and it's hard to give them precise numbers off the top of your head as we all know, but maybe Jones somewhere between 18 and 20 for me, pound for pound, with Hopkins something like 25 or 26.

I appear to be fighting a losing battle here.

I'm not really one for the fancy, more a fan of the effective and feel that Hopkins has the more effective style, Jones fall from grace the degree to which he relied on his speed and reflexes, Hopkins has always relied on his brain and his brain only for the most part.

Imperial Ghosty wrote: Jones fall from grace [was due to] the degree to which he relied on his speed and reflexes, Hopkins has always relied on his brain and his brain only for the most part.

100% correct.

So how does everyone else see that mooted 2002 fight between the pair going, after Hopkins had just finished stamping his authority over the Middleweights and Jones was starting to run a little thin on options at Light-Heavyweight?

For me, Jones does pretty much the same as he did in their 1993 meeting, only slightly more emphatically this time. I don't think Hopkins had the right weapons to beat Jones in any case, but when you factor in that he'd be going up in weight to at least a 168 lb catchweight (Hopkins is very much a natural Middleweight) against a fella in Jones who carried all of that speed and almost all of that punching power right up to Light-Heavy, I just think Roy held too many advantages.

It certainly wouldn't have been a mere procession for Jones like so many of his Super-Middleweight or Light-Heavyweight fights were, and I think it'd be a relatively cagey fight, but just like their first meeting Jones would be too slippery on the outside and Hopkins would never really get in to the fight from an attacking point of view, for me. Jones by four or five points.

Judging by Roys commentary he probably is intelligent enough to figure out Hopkins and use those physical gifts to accentuate it. Hopkins might be more intelligent in the ring but more experience for rjj + his still superior gifts = a humiliation. A green hoppo also got a lesser rjj who hassince shown analysis skills he doesn't quite get credit for, I reckon he might do over Hopkins worse than the first time

Safely say, two greats.

But if you put both of the guys in a fight at LHW say in 2002, when Hopkins would of been 36 and Jones 33, that Roy Jones would of won.

So for me, at the supposed twilight stage of a boxers careers, (e.g mid 30s) RJJ would of still beaten Hopkins, but by no means a shut out. Therefore, I believe you can discount B-Hops longevity, and place RJJ above Hopkins purely on the basis that I think RJJ would of defeated him before his decline.

Nevertheless, what Hopkins has gone onto do,( eg losing a close decision to Calzaghe, defeating the likes of Pavlik, Tarver, Pascal and Cloud) has elevated himself as not only a legend in boxing, but a legend in sport. I can't think of any sportsman (where strenuous physical activity is involved) being able to perform to that level whilst being close to 50. Outstanding achievement.

Ghosty's asked the most difficult question I've seen on 606V2. Jones was a supreme athlete who relied on immense physical attributes and reflexes, whereas, Hopkins used a immense boxing brain to exploit his body, and his opponents'.

Jones may have won a 2002 fight. But a hypothetical 2002 match up won't separate these two.

Historians will look like back and judge with bias (as they do now). They will either add weight to Hopkins' immense title reign and longevity, or Jones' dominance and Heavyweight Title.

When judging athletes in history a "unique selling point" helps them to rate higher, and as far as I'm aware (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), Jones' only unique selling point is that he went a round without being hit, whereas Hopkins is the oldest ever champion (I know which will be looked on more favourably by historians).

If Jones had won the Heavyweight Title from Lewis, Holyfield or Bowe this would be a one horse race. However he didn't, he beat Ruiz. The same kind of argument could be directed toward Hopkins "look who he beat for the title". Afterall, he didn't beat a modern day Bob Foster when winning the title at 46/48. However, Big George, in beating Moorer, didn't beat a prime Tyson for his title either.....and it didn't do him any harm!

The facts seem to be.... if you were the first to do something then you rate higher (and if that "unique thing" is age related then all the better).

In all honesty, I think they will be rated according to personal preference and I wouldn't be surprised to see one rated above the other and vice versa. When I'm dead and gone I think most historians will talking about Hopkins while most fans will be talking about Jones and watching his re-runs.

I don't put much stock in Jones beating John Ruiz. Title belts can be picked up wily nily these days. Lewis was the heavyweight champ.

Jones was the better fighter, was the more dynamic performer and scored the biggest win of the two in beating the best man in around hs weight in James Toney, when James was the best fighter in the world. He towered over three divisions in his pomp, threatening to go down to middle or up to light heavyweight as required. He was miles ahead of everyone else around him.

Hopkins has been more consistent and his post 35-year old career is one of the finest in history but his wins were hardly the stuff of legend (in the manner he performed). He spoils, fiddles and outmaneuvers opponents. His record looks better than his highlight reel.

Jones would place higher for me -- although his positive test result at light heavyweight leaves one wondering about him.

Fans of Hopkins' ring-craft might enjoy this (written by a Geordie no less):

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles/16259-write-him-off-at-your-peril

Great post, Mackem.

I'd slightly argue against your statement that a second fight between them wouldn't have done much to separate them (I think that's what you were saying anyway, correct me if I'm wrong!). As it stands, while I would disagree, there is a reasonable enough argument to be made that Hopkins could conceivably rank higher, in part based on the idea that he wasn't at his best when Jones beat him in 1993 and, as such, the resulkt of that fight shouldn't mean all that much when trying to rank them.

However, had Jones beaten Hopkins again in 2002, then all the longevity in the world wouldn't have been enough to make anyone rank Hopkins higher; Jones would have beaten him at 160 lb when he was 'green' so to speak, beaten him at 168 / 175 lb when he was smack bang in the middle of his best career years and absolutely nobody would be able to deny that Jones was simply the better figher with the better victories, really.

Hopkins hasn't quite finished yet, of course, and if he could somehow avenge that Dawson loss and become the top dog at 175 again, then that really would be something and people would maybe be forced to reconsider. But my feeling is that Jones will end up being rated higher by consensus of fans and historians (not by a landslide by any means, though).

After he'd reigned so supreme for so long, I guess it's only natural that his shocking decline from 2004 onwards was always going to be over-emphasised and sensationalised as it represented such a stark and sudden contrast to what had gone before, but he's not alone in falling apart suddenly in his mid-thirties, ala Ezzard Charles. His decline has generally come to be forgiven, and I reckon Jones' will as well eventually.

Got me scratching my head about where I'd rank each man exactly now, Ghosty.....

I'm not sure I'd place as much on the head to head as that Chris, it reminds me Pep and Saddler to an extent. Hopkins has as much ability as jones but was always a lot more subtle compared to jones flamboyance. How a boxer performs past his peak is also a factor for me and its one that Hopkins had the clear edge in. His performance over Trinidad is every bit as good as any of jones', rewatched the Pavlik fight last night and it was sheer domination, a fabulous performance in every way, he also doesn't have the big question mark over his durability.

I'm again in the minority who thinks he'd be too clever for jones around 2000-2003.

Jones Jr for me...............Beat Hoppo back in his prime.........beat a prime Toney....

and went all the way to to Heavy............

not interested in all this longevity garbage...........

For me, RJJ has the highest highs but also the lowest lows. Hopkins is all about middle ground, he's the most consistent of the two, has the most longevity of the two, stayed in 1 division and dominated it in his prime rather that challenging himself up through the weights.

Hoppo doesn't have 1 win on his CV as good RJJ's Toney, his exceptional statistic is winning a world strap at his age which to me balances Roy's of the MW-HW double, Roy also has the win over Hoppo (which I think is more relevant than Hoppo's failure to ko a totally shot RJJ). Hoppo has the nice long list of good wins, but also losses against the best few fighters he fought IMO (Calzaghe, RJJ, Taylor, Dawson). Whereas RJJ in his pomp was nigh on untouchable.

And then you have styles. Which is entirely a matter of personal opinion, but whilst Jones was exceptional and extraordinary in terms of natural ability and excitement Hoppo was all about aquired craft and wiles and, I can never shrug the feeling, he benefits from slightly generous refereeing with all his spoiling. His performance in Dawson I is as embarassing as RJJ's against Danny Green.

So, in short, it's RJJ for me.

Great article btw.

Agree.......

Jones for me, i hope the late stages of his career are forgotten about when history is written about Roy, one of the greats for me and the best fighter i have seen since Ray Leonard, at his peak reached heights well beyond even Hopkins.

No one will hold it against Holy and I'm sure no one will hold it against Jones Jr.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Agree.......

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote: Jones fall from grace [was due to] the degree to which he relied on his speed and reflexes, Hopkins has always relied on his brain and his brain only for the most part.

100% correct.

Guys ,you're making him sound like Stephen Hawkins!, and yes whilst he's obviously a wiley old campaigner, he's still a good athelete to boot. Likewise Jones still had ring smarts- he wasn't just a grest athelete.
I have Jones ahead-I know this may sound silly, givens Jones recent record, but there's no loses like Hoppo losing twice to Taylor, when in hindsight, he was still not feeling the effects of ageing that much, likewise with Calzaghe. The reducing down from HW did for Jones, he was never the same after that, but when he was near his best, there's no way that Taylor, or Calzaghe, or any of his contemporaries would have beaten him twice in row. Better fighter, beat better opponents, won their head to head in the one that mattered. Yes it's amazing that Hoppo is still fighting at the level that he is but he still lost to Calzaghe, still lost to Dawson and hasn't been the main man in any div. for a long while. Hard to make a case for him being higher rated, esp. as like haglar, his best wins were against smaller men in ODLH and Tito. ATG for sure, but Jones was phenominal.

88Chris05 wrote: I'd slightly argue against your statement that a second fight between them wouldn't have done much to separate them (I think that's what you were saying anyway, correct me if I'm wrong!)

Crossed wires Chris.

My point was a hypothetical fight adds nothing to the debate, while an actual fight would have most certainly separated them.

Ah right, ignore that bit then!

horizontalhero wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote: Jones fall from grace [was due to] the degree to which he relied on his speed and reflexes, Hopkins has always relied on his brain and his brain only for the most part.

100% correct.

Guys ,you're making him sound like Stephen Hawkins!, and yes whilst he's obviously a wiley old campaigner, he's still a good athelete to boot. Likewise Jones still had ring smarts- he wasn't just a grest athelete.

Agreed. However....

Jones was blessed with phenomenal speed, power and reflex. The point being as his physical attributes began to fade - so did his success. It's fair to say, without his physical advantages he wasn't able to win so often.

Hopkins was blessed with a solid athletic base. No single attribute was off the scale, so he meshed sound athleticism with a boxing brain. The point being when his physical attributes began to fade he had a contingency.....his experience and smarts.

Good points again, Mackem.

I think in some ways, Jones was almost too good for his own good when he was in his pomp. As he said in his musical yarn (if we can look past the double negative and also the fact that it was rubbish!), "They've got the nerve to say I don't fight nobody - I just make them look like nobody."

He managed to breeze past so many good fighters with such minimal fuss that it probably left him ill-prepared for when his sheer speed began to wear away. If he'd actually had a tough, hard encounter now and then in his peak, then it might have convinced him to make some provisions and actually work on a plan B, or try to adjust his style to a more measured one, for when Father Time eventually did come to visit. Instead, he was totally unprepared for it, hence how he went from looking like Superman to an old knacker from 'Fathers for Justice' all of a sudden.

The way Whitaker, despite his skills having clearly eroded (mainly for his extra-curricular activities, in fairness!) and getting on slightly in years, was able to compete with young, big, undefeated monsters like De la Hoya and Trinidad at their peaks was a marvel, but I'm pretty sure that the fact that he had the odd tough fight where he had to think and dig really deep (Uncle Roger, McGirt I etc) even in his prime made him better equipped to do so. Even the greatest fighters have tended to have it tough now and then when at or near their best - Jones just didn't, really, and it showed once he couldn't just rely on those outrageous natural gifts.

He did show heart and some resolve to pull the first Tarver fight out of the bag after struggling for much of it, in fairness, but Tarver's own performance in that fight wasn't that good in its own right (without wishing to take anything away from Antonio, who gave Roy his closest argument ever up until that stage).

Jones was outclassed by tarver, who pretty much beat him up 3 times. jones was no old man at the time. nobody has ever beat hopkins up. its a shame they didnt rematch sooner.

Lance wrote:Jones was outclassed by tarver, who pretty much beat him up 3 times. jones was no old man at the time. nobody has ever beat hopkins up. its a shame they didnt rematch sooner.

Outclassed? Knocked senseless second time out, for sure, but beat Tarver fair and square in their first fight for me and Tarver only just got past a clearly past it Jones in their final installment. Jones was thirty-five when Tarver stopped him, Lance. Not a relic, but not a young pup either and even Jones' biggest critics would have to concede that there was clearly something amiss with him by the time that trilogy came about.

Jones has been beaten up in his declining years, Hopkins outboxed in his peak ones, albeit by good opposition.

why was the rematch? i watched the first tarver fight in germany and everyone was celebrating jones defeat and in total shock when they heard the scorecards.

watch the fight without the pro jones commentary. tarver won it easily. a lot of boxing fans were outraged, thats why jones was backed into a rematch. the second was the KO and the third was jones boxing to survive everytime he got caught.

i find you the most knowledgeable poster on here chris. but im wondering if you have seen the tarver fights in a while?

As it goes, Lance, whenever I watch old fights from yesteryear back I almost always do watch them without the commentary, and that was the case when I last had a look at Jones-Tarver I (which was only about last summer if I recall, so not too long ago). So I think I can plead not guilty there!

I'm not denying that it was a close fight and close enough to warrant a rematch - it was the nearest brush with a 'legitimate' defeat that Jones had experienced ever up until then. But Tarver just didn't do enough late on for me; he only looked to attack when Jones was pinned to the ropes. For the rest of the late stages Jones just did enough picking him off at range and keeping Tarver subdued on the outside.

I can't remember exactly who I gave each round to, but I do remember that I had the last four rounds all to Jones and that I had him up by two at the end. I wouldn't particularly argue against a draw too much had they scored it so, but I genuinely don't think Tarver can claim he won it outright.

If literally "everyone" around you thought that Jones lost, then I honestly think that some (not all) must have fallen in to the trap of thinking that, just because a fight turns out to be much closer than many expected and because the favourite underperformed and the underdog 'overperformed', that it means the underdog automatically won.

I'm not sure what the consensus on here is over Jones-Tarver I is, but I'd be surprised if it was a landslide in Tarver's favour. From my memory, just as many ringsiders saw Jones doing enough to nick it; Lederman even had it 116-112 in Roy's favour, though I think that was being generous.

Will admit that I've never watched the second fight properly since seeing it way back in 2004 as it's pretty self-explanatory! As for the third, I don't at all dispute that Tarver won it beyond any doubt, but I wouldn't call it a dominant performace and was merely stating that Jones was clearly a lesser animal by late 2005.

the first tarver fight was 10 years ago. i think its fair to say hopkins could have dealt with tarver and johnson pretty comfortably by this stage and had surpassed roy by this period. 34 is not particularly old for a boxer and many people seem to have written a line under a large part of jones career and forgiven him for poor defeats simply because they think he was passed it. nobody thought he was past it going into the tarver fight.

it had also been another ten years since hopkins lost to jones, and for my money hopkins had beaten the better opposition over those ten years. certainly from 95 onwards. moving up in weights is often considered a great achievement but in reality it gives you more room to manipulate your reord with a larger pool of opposition to pick from. hopkins beat everyone at mw and has since fought every top name at Lh. jones record is very padded in what were supposedly his greatest years.

if people want to answer the question of who was the better talent and come to the conclusion it was jones then thats their perogative, but i find it hard to accept jones has had anywhere near as good of a career in the overall standing of things. how can you write off ten years plus of a career, especially when he fought better opposition in those years.

Wonder how people would score Hopkins-Taylor One with the sound down.

Lance wrote:the first tarver fight was 10 years ago. i think its fair to say hopkins could have dealt with tarver and johnson pretty comfortably by this stage and had surpassed roy by this period. 34 is not particularly old for a boxer and many people seem to have written a line under a large part of jones career and forgiven him for poor defeats simply because they think he was passed it. nobody thought he was past it going into the tarver fight.

it had also been another ten years since hopkins lost to jones, and for my money hopkins had beaten the better opposition over those ten years. certainly from 95 onwards. moving up in weights is often considered a great achievement but in reality it gives you more room to manipulate your reord with a larger pool of opposition to pick from. hopkins beat everyone at mw and has since fought every top name at Lh. jones record is very padded in what were supposedly his greatest years.

if people want to answer the question of who was the better talent and come to the conclusion it was jones then thats their perogative, but i find it hard to accept jones has had anywhere near as good of a career in the overall standing of things. how can you write off ten years plus of a career, especially when he fought better opposition in those years.

Name someone on Hoppo's CV better than Toney on RJJ's?

You're also finding a way to highlight Jones' only legitimate loss(es) (Tarver) but glossing over Hopkins losing the biggest fights in his career in RJJ, Calzaghe and Taylor (twice) and arguably Dawson (twice). Of his MW career you're giving him so much credit for he only has the Tito win which is close to comparable to RJJ's best wins, the rest of his defences include good (Eastman & Johnson) and very good (Joppy and ODLH) and a whole lot of padding in between - which is the same thing you criticise Roy for.

So wait you watched a Jones fight in germany and everyone thought he lost, I wonder why that is, wouldn't happen to have something to do with his little known polish rival would it?

Aye, reminds me of how half of the Philippines apparently were celebrating Floyd's 'defeat' against Cotto last year and were left incredulous when he had his hand raised, Ghosty.

I do wish that a way to make Jones-Michalczewski had been found, mind you, because I believe that the so-called demand for the fight has been massively overblown in the years of Jones' downfall, as has the degree in which he apprently 'ducked' the fight.

That said, if Jones had beaten Dariusz all ends up (which I think he would have, though Dariusz would still have given a good account of himself in defeat), I imagine Jones' critics would then just be stating that Michalczewski was another average, protected fighter from Europe and the focus on who he apparently avoided would just be shifted on to the next man in line, probably McClellan for example.

If they had fought in Germany and the fight went the distance, do you think that RJJ would have gotten the decision even if he floored DM every other round?

Well it's unfair to automatically assume that Jones would have been ripped off had they fought in Germany, Az, but there's no doubt that Jones would have had similar thoughts in his head, particularly after the way the disgrace of Seoul '88 had shaped his mentality.

Assuming everything was on the level, then Jones beats Michalczewski just as soundly in a German ring as he does in an American one. But I can understand Jones' reluctance to travel for the fight in light of some of the shameless cheating which was going on in Germany throughout the nineties and early part of this century (no country is completely immune from this charge, of course, but there was a glut of these incidents there at the time).

Michalczewski was a much, much better fighter than the likes of Ottke and Beyer, who benefitted from some absolutely disgraceful refereeing / judging work, and generally won and won well. But he too was on the right end of a terrible and blatantly cynical disqualification verdict against Rocchigiani having been in all sorts of trouble beforehand, a much-maligned stoppage against Griffin in the fourth having been clearly outboxed in the first three (although in fairness to Dariusz, he was showing signs of warming to the task in that round and the stoppage, while a shade premature, wasn't exactly a shocker) and, on top of that, a slightly suspicious knockout win towards the end of his 175 lb title reign in which he was outboxed round after round before his opponent (can't remember who it was, sorry) flopped unconvincingly, prompting rumours of a fix.

After all that and the stench of his Olympic silver there was no way Jones was going to risk being stitched up in Germany, and meanwhile Dariusz had no network deal in America, I believe - certainly not with Jones' pay masters HBO - and so it more or less suited both men to just let the other do their own thing.

Likewise, my memory of the times (a bit hazy now, I'll admit!) was that most observers had that same kind of 'take it or leave it' attitude to a proposed fight between the pair. Although I rate Michalczewski, I do think that the fight never happening has, ironically, helped to increase his legend and allowed some half-truths about his abilities to spread.