My Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins conundrum

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon lads, hope the Monday return to work hasn’t hit anyone too hard. There’s little doubt that both Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr have been two of the premier fighters of the last twenty-five years. The two turned professional at roughly the same time, won their first world titles a couple of years apart and, at different times, have topped many people’s pound for pound lists. Right now, however, their careers couldn’t be at any more of an opposite. Hopkins, a phenomenon at forty-six, has recently become the oldest challenger to win a world title fight in history, whereas Jones has just suffered another clinical knockout loss against a fighter who we can safely assume he would have outclassed in his pomp.

And so on to the question, who ranks higher in the all-time stakes? Ask that question a few years ago, and I imagine the response would have been unanimous; Jones all day and every day. Ask the question in the last two or three years, and most – me included, I’ll quickly add – would have gone with Hopkins. A perfectly understandable view which I’ve had for a while now. But just recently, at the back of my mind, I’ve been wondering; is that really the case? The more I think about it, the more I believe that Jones may still have a claim to be ahead of ‘B-Hop.’

Let’s take care of the simplest of business first. Did either of them score a win over the other while they were in their absolute primes and at the summit of their careers? No. But it’s undeniable that Jones’ 1993 win over Hopkins is a damn sight more significant that Hopkins’ 2010 win over Jones is. One nil to the man from Pensacola, though it’s hardly a sledge hammer blow.

There seems to be a myth growing that Jones’ record is a totally padded one. Now I’ll agree that he does have the odd name missing from his ledger – a win against Michalczewski would have put the icing on his Light-Heavyweight cake, while his subsequent knockout defeats in recent years have resulted in us wondering how he’d have fared between 1993 and 1996 had he found the time to accommodate a murderous puncher such as Nigel Benn, Julian Jackson or Gerald McClellan. Now obviously, considering how McClellan’s career was cut short, it’s a bit of tenuous link, but the point stands all the same.

No such accusations can be aimed towards Hopkins. The Middleweight era which he dominated perhaps wasn’t the strongest, but there was not a single worthwhile contender – and crucially, not a single respected version of the title – that he failed to take care of at some stage. There’s little doubt in my mind that Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight are the two strongest divisions of them all, historically speaking. I have Jones as a borderline top ten man at 175 lb, however I have Hopkins as an absolutely nailed-on top ten man at 160 lb. So Hopkins just about balances the debate.

And now we get to the hardest bit of all – evaluating their respective wins and losses, and trying to find a happy medium in the ratio of ‘great’ to merely ‘good’ wins. Both scored surprise (at the time) wins – and dominant ones at that – against men who were at that time ranked within the top three pound for pound in the world, and were also undefeated; Jones when he dazzled James Toney to a wide, wide points defeat in 1994, and Hopkins when he systematically out-boxed and eventually stopped Felix Trinidad in 2001. Personally, in terms of these singular wins (which I regard as their best respectively, though some I’m sure will disagree) I have to give the edge to Jones’ win over Toney. Was Trinidad a natural Middleweight? No, in all probability. Did he do anything even hinting at greatness after Hopkins beat him? Again, no. On the other hand, while Toney never recaptured his full magic after that 1994 bout, he still picked up world titles at Cruiserweight and (briefly) Heavyweight, scoring wins over sound fighters such as Jirov and, save for an absolutely awful decision in their first bout, Montell Griffin.

Factor in, too, that Jones has that 1993 win over him (the only result of their two fights which matters, realistically speaking) and Hopkins is going to have to go some to get back on an equal footing here. He does a good job, mind you; Antonio Tarver and Kelly Pavlik (though nobody would care to admit it now) were at the low end of quite a few people’s top ten pound for pound lists when Hopkins gave them both bad points beatings. Tarver was certainly ‘the man’ at 175 lb before that 2006 bout, and Pavlik was 34-0 (30) and being touted as an opponent for Joe Calzaghe in 2008 when Hopkins got to him. Throw in the perennially well-ranked William Joppy and Glen Johnson, and his ‘second tier’ of wins are looking every bit as good as Jones’, which read as a forty-year-old Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson and Virgill Hill, who had perhaps seen better days, too.

However, I just can’t blank out this idea that many of Hopkins other ‘marquee’ opponents were simply over-matched when they faced him. Let’s be frank – Oscar De la Hoya and Winky Wright, wonderful fighters though they were, had absolutely no business at all campaigning at Middleweight and Light-Heavyweight respectively, even if they were bouts which took place at slightly lower catchweights. If we’re going to degrade some of Jones’ wins on the basis that his opponents were a little aged and therefore at a disadvantage (reasonable, of course) then we have to conclude that Hopkins held considerable aces in these fights, too.

Hopkins, of course, has the honour of being the oldest man to be crowned world champion, a wonderful achievement. Of course, Jones made his own little piece of history in 2003 when he became the first man in 106 years to win a Heavyweight title having previously reigned at Middleweight (Toney briefly emulated, mind you, before being stripped for doping). Now I can hear you all scream – “He wasn’t THE Heavyweight champion, though”, and you’re absolutely right. However, I’m still of the opinion that it will be a long, long time before another Middleweight belt holder finds himself taking straps from men weighing more than 220 lb a few years down the line. Yes, Jones’ Middleweight-Heavyweight feat may have been over-played by his most diehard fans, but at the same time some have acted as if it’s nothing to take note of at all – which, if we’re being honest, is absolute nonsense.

Moreover, I can’t ignore the fact that, for a decade between 1993 and 2003, Jones was an utterly, totally and completely dominant pound for pound fighter in a way which Hopkins, quite simply, never has been. Even at his best, Hopkins could be guilty of doing only just enough to win. Jones, on the other hand, seldom lost a round – never mind a fight – when in his prime years. There’s little doubt in my mind that Jones was the more dominant champion of the two, given Hopkins’ woes against Mercado (he may not have been at his best, but was thirty and had big-fight experience with Jones, so no real excuses there) and his inability to get past Taylor on two occasions. Yes, he was forty by then – but his subsequent results since then show that he was nowhere near a ‘shot’ fighter, and as such we can’t ignore those black marks on his record.

I suppose a lot of it depends on how much you stock you put in Jones’ defeats this side of 2004. Personally, given that it’s become apparent that he had next to nothing left after returning from Heavyweight, I’m reluctant to hold them against him (at least anything after Johnson knocked him out), just as I don’t hold Tyson’s losses to Williams or McBride against him, and likewise Whitaker’s defeats to Trinidad and Bojourquez.

After being happy to rank Hopkins ahead of his great rival for quite a while now, I suddenly find myself wondering if that should be the case – what do you make of it? Sorry for the length of the article, lads, but thanks a lot for sticking with me and, if you fancy it, let me know your thoughts.

Cheers, fellas.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Excuses excuses, all you ever hear with Jones, DM wasn't in the chasing pack at all like you put it, he was the established number one in the division before he was stripped of his titles and then won immediately by Jones, nothing strange about that.

Jones' opposition wasn't that much better than DM's either, they were a clear one and two who never fought, mark against him without any doubt

There is a significant difference in the standard of opposition they faced, and in their performances. Jones beat nearly every other light heavy there was to beat during his title reign, Michaelswecki largely did not and either waited until they were on the way out or else feasted on mandatories. Being stripped was the best thing that ever happened to him as he could sit in Germany and live off that.

I dont understand how you can view the pair of them as anything close to equals. Jones did more than enough to seperate him from the pack by some distance. Pretty much everything he could in the abscence of the fight happening. Cleaned out the division. Unified the other titles. Became rated as the best light heavy and pound for pound fighter on the planet. Meanwhile Darius Michalswecki was left behind. This isnt excuses, this is actually what happened. I just dont see how this can fail to recognised or written off because Michalswecki rarely showed any ambition in his life.

You must think Michalswecki ws some legend killer because I cant understand otherwise why you would attach so much relevance and importance to not beating him.

This is the problem I have, people attribute the blame on DM when Jones was more at fault for the fight not happening, at no point would he even consider entering negotiations into the fight and went as far as trying to ban HBO from mentioning it, doesn't sound like the actions of someone too interest in the fight. Pound for pound there is a huge gulf between the two but at 175lbs it's not nearly as big as you would like to make out and unifying titles that were stripped from the legitimate champion is a slightly tainted achievement. In no shape or form did Jones cement himself as the premier light heavyweight of his era, it's like suggesting Ward or Bradley are without question the best in their divisions which is a fanciful suggestion. Would Froch fully establish himself as the top 168lber by just beating Ward? The answer is no he would have to take care of Bute and/or Kessler too who both have claims to being top dog.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:This is the problem I have, people attribute the blame on DM when Jones was more at fault for the fight not happening, at no point would he even consider entering negotiations into the fight and went as far as trying to ban HBO from mentioning it, doesn't sound like the actions of someone too interest in the fight. Pound for pound there is a huge gulf between the two but at 175lbs it's not nearly as big as you would like to make out and unifying titles that were stripped from the legitimate champion is a slightly tainted achievement. In no shape or form did Jones cement himself as the premier light heavyweight of his era, it's like suggesting Ward or Bradley are without question the best in their divisions which is a fanciful suggestion. Would Froch fully establish himself as the top 168lber by just beating Ward? The answer is no he would have to take care of Bute and/or Kessler too who both have claims to being top dog.

So if Froch beat Ward and Kessler but Bute decided stay in Canada you wouldnt consider Froch as having established himself as the premier lightheavy?

There is literally nothing in anything Michalswecki did to suggest he was anything other than happy to stay at home fighting second rate fights.

The gulf between the two was enormous in every way possible in my view. At his best, Jones was one of the best fighters in the world. Michelswecki was never even close.

You could have had the pair level pegging for a while. But Jones left him way behind. The Ring saw fit to give him the belt and rate him a top pound for pound fighter.

Jones had the status, the draw and the ability so I see all the emphasis on Michaelswecki to prove otherwise. I would have more sympathy if Michalswecki had done more to re-establish himself. But he was fighting mediocrity and just defending his belt rather than actually trying to establish himself as the man. Much of his ranking is owed to just lasting away and making defences rather than actually facing the best guys who were largely being dealt with by Jones. Occasionally he would dig out a name like Griffen who would be in need of an opportunity after being beaten down by Jones or Harding but it was miles off challenging Jones superiority at the time when he was systematically cleaning out the division and barely losing a round.

The genius of PBF wrote:Lets laud Calzaghe's win over Lacy in the same way as I recall most people apart from the ones who know about boxing picked Lacy.

Classic old BBC link on what the experts predicted would happen in the fight...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4716294.stm

With redard RJJ / Hoppy, i have Hopkins above him. (not by much) Problem for me is the top names on RJJ's CV. To my knowledge RJJ has fought two top 10 p4p fighters in his career. Thats Toney (WIN), and Calzaghe (LOSS).

Kev have said it before but secondsout.com did a poll of their writers before Calzaghe Lacy and something like 23 out of 24 picked Jeff, always remember because they did a piece after explaining how they all got it so wrong

To quote James Toney from that Beeb article:

I wouldn't be surprised if he (Calzaghe) pulled out of this one. Everybody in the UK is over-protected, but Lacy will be OK, because he's a fighter.

I know he was probably just backing the American but seriously...could he have been more wrong?!? Froch had Calzaghe to lose too, but we all know why he'd say that.

Have just finished Carl's book Balti, he really isn't too postive about Joe, still maintains Reid beat him!

rowley wrote:Have just finished Carl's book Balti, he really isn't too postive about Joe, still maintains Reid beat him!

Not surpised... always felt they have a similar love/hate (or hate/hate) relationship as Hatton/Witter.

Where you have Hatton/Calzaghe doing well financially and having good TV/Media exposure which got them all the limelight and on the other side of the fence you have Witter/Froch who struggled most of their career's to sell out their backyard.

BALTIMORA wrote:To quote James Toney from that Beeb article:

I wouldn't be surprised if he (Calzaghe) pulled out of this one. Everybody in the UK is over-protected, but Lacy will be OK, because he's a fighter.

I know he was probably just backing the American but seriously...could he have been more wrong?!? Froch had Calzaghe to lose too, but we all know why he'd say that.

Back then there was only a handful of experts (UK based) who gave Calzaghe a good chance of winning. Everyone else in the UK and abroad gave him little hope. America thought it was just a simple case of Lacy turning up for an easy nights work.

kevchadders wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:To quote James Toney from that Beeb article:

I wouldn't be surprised if he (Calzaghe) pulled out of this one. Everybody in the UK is over-protected, but Lacy will be OK, because he's a fighter.

I know he was probably just backing the American but seriously...could he have been more wrong?!? Froch had Calzaghe to lose too, but we all know why he'd say that.

Back then there was only a handful of experts (UK based) who gave Calzaghe a good chance of winning. Everyone else in the UK and abroad gave him little hope. America thought it was just a simple case of Lacy turning up for an easy nights work.

Incredible that Steve Bunce sounds like an oracle in that link, also a nice reminder of why I disliked Toney so much.