View Single Post
Old 01-30-2013, 04:29 PM   #98
East Side Guru
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,147
vCash: 500
Default Re: I see Roy Jones hanging past his prime is hurtin his legacy more than Ali hurt hi

Rex Tickard,

Hi mate, thanks for the reply.

He would've always been baited by the fact that Tarver had snatched up several of his titles that he had vacated when moving up to fight Ruiz.
I meant, if they'd have fought earlier and Roy had have beaten him, Roy wouldn't have been baited to go back down in 2003.

Not a certainty - we've seen how Jones played around to avoid mandatory challenges from Nunn and Rocchigiani.
It would have been a certainty, because it was Roy who made Harding and Tarver fight in the eliminator. Harding won, and then Roy fought him.

Maybe so, but all the more reason he shouldn't have waited until he was in his mid 30s to either fight a HW and/or eliminate his chief rivals at 175.
Things are never that simple though are they? He unified at 175 when he was 30, and that was his 3rd weight class. Fighting at heavy was always going to be last on his agenda, unless it was for just a one off fight that was huge. No fighter would want to pack on loads of muscle, to then come back down. We know that's what ended up happening with Roy, but it wasn't planned. He planned to stay up at heavy for a while. So realistically, he could never have had a run at heavy in his 20's. He didn't leave SMW til he was nearly 28. We know he couldn't eliminate DM before he went up. DM clearly wasn't interested, as you can see by just having a quick glance at his resume.

On the flipside, he'd also had a history of drug problems, and there was also criticism (mainly in the wake of the Harding loss) that he'd spent too long as an amateur and expended his prime years there.
Fair point, but he was clearly a lot fresher than Roy. Roy started boxing at 7, and turned pro in 1989. He'd got a lot more miles on the clock.

That's debatable - Tarver, with only about 20 pro fights (as you noted), was taking a big step up in his first true megafight and looked correspondingly tentative.
True, but he was never as motivated or fired up, as what he was in 2003. He crashed the Ruiz press conference, and baited Roy all through the year at every opportunity. He'd lived in Roy's shadow for years. They first fought each other as 13 year olds at the Sunshine State Games, and they'd never liked each other.

He looked more motivated in the rematch, and walked through more fire and took a bigger risk to KO Jones.
He went in with a different game plan.

But history has also shown that Tarver could one-shot KO a better conditioned and more motivated Jones in the rematch.
I wouldn't say Roy was more motivated, but he was definitely better conditioned.

Jones' win in the 1st match only proves that he can beat Tarver, not that he always would beat him every time. Tarver's win in the rematch proves that he can also beat Jones and with a lot less effort, which leaves open the possibility that he could win a series with any "version" of Jones.
I respect your opinion, but Roy was never the same after Ruiz. This is how I see it. If a fired up, hungry, motivated Tarver couldn't beat a version of Roy, who'd lost 14 pounds of muscle at nearly 35, after 50 fights, then how does he beat a motivated, healthier, younger version? Roy in 2000, would have been a much tougher proposition. But if we're talking about Roy at his absolute peak, which I think was in 1995, I'd only give Tarver a punchers chance if Roy made a mistake. I don't see how Tarver could beat Roy, if Roy was physically and mentally at 100% and he fought to his full capabilities.

It's the same with Glen Johnson in my opinion, and I love Glen. Glen dominated Roy for 9 rounds and then knocked him cold after two hard fights with Clinton Woods. In my honest opinion, Glen wouldn't have had a chance of beating Roy pre Ruiz. Tarver and Glen are/were good fighters, but I think they both got Roy at the right time.

It was also the result of Tarver taking a risk and loading up on a big shot in the center of the ring, rather than simply waiting for Jones' back to touch the ropes before unloading big punches on him, as he had in the 1st fight.
That's right. As I say, he went in with a different gameplan, and I give him credit.

Also, your argument that "it happens" and "anybody can go" undermines your certainty that Jones would've won if they fought sometime earlier.
Well that's right, anybody can go. But how realistic would it have been had they fought earlier? Pretty much any fighter at 175 could have knocked out Roy had they had the opportunity. Like I say, Tarver struggled with Roy when he wasn't at his best, so I think Roy at his best would have had too much for him.

On the flipside, while Jones was resting during that 13 months, Tarver was in two punishing wars with Johnson - and he was likewise approaching 36. Tarver also looked weak and weight-drained in the rubber match much like Jones did in the 1st fight, but still managed to outbox and outgut Jones down the stretch. This fight was essentially the reverse of the 1st fight, with Tarver looking noticeably subpar but Jones failing to fully capitalize.
He wasn't just resting though, he was hurting. That knockout to Glen was devastating. He wanted a tune up beforehand, to give him a confidence boost and to get him sharp. Roy has always claimed that he wanted one, but he was told no. Like you say Tarver was also approaching 36, but again, he'd aged a lot better then Roy. I don't think anyone was really bothered about the outcome of this fight, since Roy had been knocked out by Glen. It didn't really matter who won at that stage. Obviously both fighters wanted to win desperately, because their pride was at stake, but it wasn't considered a huge fight like the first two.

I don't claim that they did. In fact, I don't believe either Calzaghe, Hopkins, or Jones went all-out to fight any of each other when they were still in their primes. However, every one of those fights were still makeable if one fighter simply made certain concessions to the other.
Yes but Roy was in a different position to what Hopkins and Calzaghe were in at that point. Roy didn't have to make concessions. He'd already beaten Hop, and Joe fought in Europe in a weight division below. Roy wasn't going to go Joe. Why would he have? Nobody can deny that Joe wasn't great, but 10-11 years ago, he wasn't well known on a global scale. Hop didn't make the concession of taking Roy's split, and Joe wouldn't give up his WBO belt and go to 175, or America. So I agree that they were possible, but the onus was on Hop and Joe. Roy was the man back then. You had to go to him.

Jones even admits that the main reason the Calzaghe fight didn't happen sooner was because he himself simply wasn't interested enough in it - not because Calzaghe outright avoided or sabotaged the fight.
That's right, and let's be honest, why would he have been back then? Like I say, Joe was unknown outside of Europe, and they didn't even fight in the same weight class. Joe brought nothing to the table. He wasn't a mandatory at 175, he didn't have a belt (apart from his 168 WBO belt) and the American fans had only seen him a handful of times, and he hadn't impressed. So there was no interest from Roy, HBO or the American fans. Joe didn't outright avoid the fight, but the reality is, he didn't do a lot to get it either. He mentioned Roy's name in 2001 after McIntyre, and then did nothing. He continued to fight at 168 in Europe, and that was never going to be enough to get Roy in the ring.

Using this logic, Calzaghe should've never conceded 50-50 to Jones in 2008, but he did.
He was heavily criticised by Frank W at the time, but Joe wasn't bothered. He was desperate for Roy's name on his record before he retired. Really Joe should have been asking for 60% of the purse. But they agreed 50/50 and originally they were going to stage two fights. One in New York, and one in Wales.

Jones could've chosen to make the same sort of concession for the sake of enhancing his legacy as Calzaghe did here, but he elected not to.
Why on earth would Roy have given Joe 50/50 in 2002? You have to see things as though you're looking from 2002. In 2002, Roy was the best fighter in the World, and the unified champ at 175. Joe was a minor belt holder at 168, he was relatively unknown, and his best wins were probably against Eubank and Reid. As mentioned, Roy had no desire to fight Joe back then, let alone even consider giving him 50/50 for a fight. You're way of the mark. You have to remember that he hadn't fought Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins at that point. He wasn't a big name back then.

Roy would never have thought that a fight with Joe in 2002, would have enhanced his legacy. I don't think anyone else would have thought that either back then. We can look back now, and say that it would have been great if they'd have fought, because we know what Joe went on to achieve. But at the time it was no great loss. There was no real demand for the fight. He saw John Ruiz as a fight that would enhance his legacy. It was a chance to become the first fighter in 106 years, to go up to win a heavyweight belt after winning one at middleweight.

Last edited by Loudon; 01-31-2013 at 05:48 AM.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote