View Single Post
Old 02-06-2013, 06:04 PM   #101
East Side Guru
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 9,702
vCash: 500
Default Re: I see Roy Jones hanging past his prime is hurtin his legacy more than Ali hurt hi

Rex Tickard,

It's not a certainty, because of the lengths Jones went through to avoid the Nunn and Rocchigiani mandatories, which ultimately cost the WBC millions of dollars.
I get your point, but Roy put them both in an eliminator and then fought the winner. We know Harding won, and we know that Roy fought Harding. You're implying that if Tarver had've won, he wouldn't have fought him. But seen as though he fought Harding, I have to disagree.

It makes less sense that he would wait until he was at the tail end of his prime to attempt a lengthy run at HW. It also makes less sense that he would be leery of dropping down in weight in his late 20s when he would readily do the same in his mid 30s.
Why does it make less sense? He's 5ft 10, and his peak weight was at 168, when he was in his mid 20's. He didn't arrive at at 175 til he was nearly 28, so how could he have had a run at heavy in his 20's? The Douglas fight was just one fight. If he'd have gone up, he'd have had to have come back afterwards, which is always a bad idea. Although he did that very thing at 34-35, it wasn't planned as discussed. He thought he'd have a few fights up there against the likes of Tyson. In the end the fights didn't come off, and Tarver baited him into coming back down.

You don't seem to realise that he was at different stages of his career.

In 1998, there were factors involved and other things to accomplish.

In 2003, there was nothing left to accomplish other than to fight at Cruiser, which he wasn't bothered about at the time.

Andre Ward has recently mentioned that we could see him at heavy before he retires. If that happens, it's going to be one of the last things he ever does. He's not going to go up now is he? He's in his 20's and he fights at 168. Before he goes up to heavy, he'll probably end up at 175, and then possibly Cruiser. He's not going to pack on a load of weight now, to come back, when he's got other things to achieve, and he's got time on his side.

Simply glancing at someone's resume won't tell you who he was interesting in fighting. Besides which, Dariusz fought many of the same opponents as Jones did - including Hill, who was probably the best LHW Jones beat prior to fighting Tarver. You could just as well look at Jones' resume and claim he wasn't interested in fighting someone like Dariusz either.
It can tell you a great deal. He was happy defending his WBO belt in Germany. How can you look at Roy's resume and say he wasn't bothered about Dariusz, when you've been shown a video, and links to 5 separate articles, with quotes from Brad Jacobs, Kerry Davis and Murad Muhammad? We know what DM turned down, and we know roughly what he was gettimg paid for each defence in Germany.

It's clear looking at Dariusz's resume, that he wasn't too bothered about being stripped. He wasn't interested in unifying, and having big fights. He wasn't interested in going to America. He'd never have fought guys like Tarver. They did fight a lot of the same guys, but apart from Hill, Roy dominated all of the other fighters that they both fought, before Dariusz fought them. Dariusz even fought Hall twice.

By using the improved gameplan that he used to KO Jones in the rematch.
Yes, but he wouldn't have been facing a 35 year old version of Roy who'd come back from heavy, and who'd had over 50 fights. If you think he would have beaten a younger, more motivated, healthier version of Roy, then fair enough. I respect your opinion. But I don't think he could have pulled it off. I think he got Roy at the right time, like Glen did.

To suggest a mere year or so would cause such an extreme turnaround is a bold claim. Besides which, Johnson gave many world class opponents tough, hard fights, win or lose. His resume shows that he was actually one of the better opponents Jones fought at LHW, even if that wasn't yet apparent heading into the fight. He went on to beat Tarver in his next fight, which temporarily placed him atop the division's ratings, and was proclaimed The Ring's FOTY for 2004.
I'm a huge fan of Glen's like I mentioned in my previous post, but whatever the reason was, Roy was never the the same post Ruiz. He was like a zombie against Johnson, and the ringside doctor said that Roy was dehydrated, and that's why the knockout was as bad as it was. It wasn't a hard shot. What worried me, is that he couldn't even win a round against him. Now you're not telling me, that Roy wasn't good enough to win a single round against Glen Johnson? I don't believe that. Glen absolutely dominated Roy, but then struggled with Woods twice, and three times altogether. There was something not right with Roy that night.

I love Glen, but he couldn't have beaten Roy, if Roy had boxed to his full capabilities. Roy embarrassed Toney. He dominated a 220 pound heavyweight in Ruiz, who was coming off of recent wins against Holyfield. Roy went through fights without barely losing a round, but when he faced Glen, he got dominated and couldn't win one. He toyed with Woods, Gonzalez and Reggie Johnson, but couldn't win a round against Glen? It's ridiculous! It's quite clear that there was something wrong. I read a quote just yesterday, where Stan Levin said "50% of the old Roy would have been enough to beat a guy like Glen Johnson." I have to agree with that statement.

How "realistic" did it seem heading into the fight in which it actually happened, though?

If Tarver uses the same gameplan that he used in the rematch, there is sufficient reason to believe he would have a good shot at KOing any "version" of Jones.
I agree that at the time, it didn't seem realistic. But the first fight showed everyone that Roy was clearly not the great fighter that he once was.

As mentioned earlier, Tarver would have been facing a much better version of Roy, had they fought in 2000.

The 3rd fight was actually the biggest PPV seller of the series, and was also held before a sold-out crowd of about 20,000.

Although Tarver was the favorite, Jones was still considered a live underdog by many, for precisely the reasons I stated. Given that Johnson had gone on to beat Tarver in his next fight, even Jones' own loss to Johnson meant that he still had a claim to being rated as high as #3 at the weight.
I agree that the fight was big, and obviously it was the decider. But it was clear to the the whole world at that point, that Roy was no longer what he once was. He'd been destroyed by Glen, and hadn't fought since. Nobody could have been surprised if Tarver had have knocked him out again at that point.

As far as a fighter enhancing his legacy is concerned, the onus is on that fighter to do it. Missed opportunities will still leave gaps in his legacy irrespective of whether there was justification for not pursuing the fight.

Like I said, I don't disagree that Jones may have had justifiable reasons for turning down or ignoring certain fights, but legacies are made precisely by accepting those sort of inconveniences - and that's the topic of this thread.
I understand where you're coming from. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. He'd already beaten Hopkins, so in his own mind, there was nothing left to prove. He wasn't going to bend over backwards, to fight someone he'd already beaten. Bernard himself said "I feel that the only fighter to ever beat me clean, was Roy Jones."

We've discussed Calzaghe. Again, we can look back now and say it would have been good had they fought. But at the time, it wasn't a legacy fight. Joe was a nobody to Roy, HBO, and American fight fans. Why in 2002, would Roy have gone out of his way to make that fight? The onus was on Joe. Roy wasn't going to chase an unknown guy around that didn't even fight in his own weight class. That fight not coming off doesn't harm Roy's legacy, it harms Joe's. Joe should have chased him hard, but he didn't. Ruiz was a much bigger fight than Calzaghe. It made history.

Calzaghe was an unbeaten, multi-defense titleholder and rated as the probable #1 in a neighboring weight class (rivaled only by Ottke), and had already been showcased numerous times on Showtime. That's a strong addition to a resume no matter how you dice it.
What difference does it make if he was in a neighboring weight class? He wasn't in the SAME weight class. The American fans had only seen Joe a handful of times, and on two occasions he hadn't impressed. His big chance to shine, was against David Starie on the Tyson vs Francis undercard from Manchester. He didn't. He also looked poor against Rick Thornberry the previous year. Ottke and Calzaghe weren't named fighters back then, and a fight against either of them wouldn't have meant much at the time.

Last edited by Loudon; 02-07-2013 at 07:27 AM.
Loudon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote