I see Roy Jones hanging past his prime is hurtin his legacy more than Ali hurt his.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by Gesta

RJJ was never the true undisputed champ in any division he was in.

i dont know if he ever picked up all the belts..but at middleweight..with the wins over tony, and hopkins, he was

[Gesta]

Originally Posted by Johnstown

i dont know if he ever picked up all the belts..but at middleweight..with the wins over tony, and hopkins, he was

He won one of the titles , Hopkins at MW and Toney at SMW

[Loudon]

Originally Posted by MMJoe

Roy is one of the greatest ever. Too bad we have this Ray-Robinson-Greatest-pound-4-pound-forever indoctrination so ingrained into our media.
I'd say Middleweight Roy had a very good chance of whipping middleweight Ray Robinson's ass and I mean something like 5 out of 6 times. There I said it.

I've no problem with people saying that Ray was the greatest ever, but Roy is so underrated, it's a joke.

It's more than possible that Roy could have beaten him at 160.

[Loudon]

Rex Tickard,

Part 1.

I don't claim to know Jones' actual motives for declining to fight Tarver during this time - nor is it relevant to my point. The fact remains, Tarver emerged as one of Jones' two most distinguished rivals during his LHW reign (the other being Dariusz), and Jones had at least two opportunities to fight him prior to Ruiz. In the end, the best Jones actually proved he could do against his arch rival was one razor thin decision against one crushing KO loss and an embarrassing boxing lesson. That's the legacy we're left with

Roy's motive was to get under his skin. History shows us that it backfired. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If Roy had've fought him earlier, I'm sure he'd have won. If so, he then wouldn't have been baited into coming back from heavy to fight him in 2003. I agree that Roy missed his chance to fight him earlier, but Tarver also missed his chance by losing to Harding. If Tarver had've beaten Harding, Roy would have fought him in 2000.

Roy showed what a great fighter he was in the first fight. He came from 199 down to 175, at nearly 35, after 50 fights. It took a lot out of him. Tarver didn't turn pro til he was about 28, and he'd only had 20 odd fights. Tarver was pumped to the max. He was hungry, motivated, and he was mentally and physically at 100%. Roy wasn't. He'd burnt muscle away, and he wasn't as mentally up for the fight like Tarver, because he'd lost out on the Tyson fight. That night saw the best of Tarver, against a version of Roy, that wasn't mentally or physically at his best.

Despite Roy's troubles, Tarver could not beat Roy in the first fight, and there wasn't any controversy in my opinion. Roy was spent for the last 3 rounds. Look at what happened with Dawson fighting Ward? Roy lost nearly 25 pounds for the weigh in, and out of all of that weight, around 13 pounds of it was actual muscle. 13 pounds of muscle at 35! What did Tarver say after the Rocky movie, after Hop had embarrassed him? He said it was the weight.

History has shown, that Tarver at his best, couldn't beat Roy in Nov 03.

The rematch was a perfect shot. It happens. Tarver had some skills, and anybody can go when they're caught. If you watch the replay, Tarver had his head down, and his eyes were closed.

After Glen Johnson had dominated and knocked Roy out just three months later, I don't think anyone cared what happened for Tarver III. Roy hadn't fought since the Johnson fight, and he'd been out for 13 months. He was also approaching 36.

Well, it was realistic enough that Jones himself publicly said it was on the table, and that he would consider fighting overseas and coming down to 168 to make it happen.

It was merely an option, until Murad came back with a yes from the Ruiz camp. It wasn't realistic at all. Even if Ruiz had said no, he'd have fought Tarver instead anyway. Roy just gave false hope to the English media, because they'd filmed the fight with Woods on Grandstand. If you watch the post fight interview with Woods, he says it's Tarver or Ruiz next.

I'm not disputing that he didn't say it was a possibility, but it was never realistically going to happen. He was desperate to go to heavy at that point, so he wasn't interested in going down in weight, unless it was for a ridiculous sum. But he wouldn't have got huge money to face Joe, because it wouldn't have been a big money fight.

Sorry, I was actually thinking of the tail end of 2002, before Jones had signed to fight Ruiz.

Fair enough.

Not at all - in fact, I acknowledged that those fighters were difficult to negotiate with.

They were ridiculously hard to negotiate with.

Again, not at all. I'm well aware that Hopkins and Calzaghe were notoriously difficult to negotiate with (as was Jones), and they probably have to share as much of the blame for those fights falling through as anyone.

They obviously didn't want Roy as much as what they both claimed. If Hop had've wanted it bad enough, he'd have accepted the 40%. Roy wasn't bothered, he'd nothing to prove, and he was never going to back down.

If Joe had've been that desperate to get Roy in the ring, he'd have fought in America and moved up to 175, a long time before he eventually did in 2008.

However, in the end:
-Jones conceded to fight Calzaghe for a 50/50 split.
-He traveled overseas to fight Green, Lebedev, and Glazewski.
-He came down to 168 to fight Tito.

In other words, even if you believe Jones was justified in refusing to make certain concessions, he ultimately ended up making those very concessions in other fights.

It's all about the timing of the fights, and his circumstances at the time though.

Roy fought Joe for 50/50, because in 2008, Roy hadn't fought at elite level for three years, and Joe was now the man on top.

In 2002, Roy was the king, and Joe was a nobody. Roy had bigger fish to fry. In 2008, Roy's circumstances were different.

He's now travelling overseas, because again, he's no longer the man. When he was on top, people had to go to him. Now he's travelling everywhere to try and get a Cruiser belt. Most of he best Cruisers in the World are overseas. Again, his circumstances have changed. He's not the best fighter in the world anymore. He's 44 years old.

Regarding Tito, that was a catchweight of 170, and he came in light at 169. In 2008 he was more than willing to come down in weight, because his heavyweight exploits were over. I'm also certain that if you'd had asked him in 2008, if he was interested in the Cruiser division, he probably would have said no. This whole cruiser quest he's now on, is just an excuse to prolong his career. He can no longer make 175, and he never gave the division a seconds thought when he went to heavy.

[Loudon]

Part 2.

He also had a chance to beat a HW long before he eventually did, when he reportedly signed to fight Douglas but later backed out. Had he followed through on that fight at that time, he would've had ample time to either pursue a career at HW or come back down to LHW and fight guys like Tarver, Dariusz, Calzaghe, etc. while he was still under 30.

I discussed this the other week. There were a few reasons it never came off, the biggest one being his Dad stepping in. Roy and Big Roy hadn't spoken for years and it tore his family apart. It really upset Roy's sister who he's extremely close to. Big Roy didn't want him to go through with it. The other factors were, he still had unfinished business at 175, and he was only young back then, and he knew he'd get another shot further down the line. So he agreed with Big Roy and took the olive branch. Just a year after the Douglas fight fell through, he unified against Reggie Johnson. History tells us that he couldn't have come back for Calzaghe and DM.

To put it simply, he shouldn't have waited until he was in his early 30s to start taking the kinds of risks or making the kinds of concessions that he had previously refused to make.

What concessions had he refused though that we haven't already discussed?

I fully understand the reasons he turned down or didn't pursue certain fights, but the thread topic specifically asked to evaluate Jones' legacy, not his pride or business sense. Jones made a conscious decision to give greater priority to issues other than his legacy. He reaped the rewards of that decision, but now he has to suffer the consequences as well.

This is a common misconception though, people saying he was reluctant.

How would his resume have looked with Benn, DM, a Hop rematch, and Tyson and Lewis on it? King blocked the Benn fight by wanting a 3 fight option. Roy was willing to do a deal just for the fight. Jacobs and HBO tried to get the DM one, and Murad tried to get the others. It wasn't a conscious decision.

From purely the standpoint of legacy, it does hurt him that he was ultimately dominated in overdue fights against longtime rivals.

Give me an example. Calzaghe? He fought Roy 4 years after Johnson had knocked him cold, 9 weeks from his 40th birthday, and he'd dismissed him as a challenge twice leading up to the fight. That fight harms Joe's legacy.

And as I've said before, I don't hold Jones solely responsible for the Dariusz fight failing to happen. But at the same time, Jones did have genuine chances to make that fight happen prior to the series of events you described above, and he didn't follow through on them. Once again, even if you believe Jones was justified in declining those opportunities, the fact still remains that he made a conscious choice to leave a gap in his legacy.

He unified in 99. He had a few mandatories, then fought the winner of Harding and Tarver. In 2001, HBO, Jacobs and Murad, went all out to get the fight. It's clear that DM wasn't interested. We know what he did afterwards. How did he make a conscious choice to leave a gap? He sent Jacobs to meet with HBO execs to make the fight. When the fights with Hop and DM couldn't be made, that's when he decided to move to heavy, because there was nothing else to accomplish.

If Jones had simply shown the same readiness to travel overseas to fight Dariusz as he did for Green and Lebedev, then he could've settled matters right there and then.

Once again, his circumstances were different back then. He was the best fighter in the world, the unified champ, and he was 32. The champ doesn't go to you, you go to him. As discussed, he's now in his 40's, and he's now got to go to other people's back yards. Why? Because they've got something that he wants.

Ali solidified his legacy by actively pursuing and making the biggest fights available (i.e: Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Foster, etc.), settling matters with upstart rivals (Terrell), and beating opponents on their home turfs (Cooper, Chuvalo, Mildenberger) and in hellish conditions (Manila). Those are things that Jones largely declined to do until he was over 30, and his legacy correspondingly suffers for it.

They were different era's. The 90's were a lot different to the 60's and 70's. I agree though that Ali would fight anyone. There's no disagreeing with that. But fighters fought each other back then, and there were less belts, and less promoters, and the politics that go with them. Manila was neutral territory, but I get your point. Again, your being a little harsh on Roy. It's not as simple as just saying that he declined. Ali also had great rivals in Frazier and Foreman etc.

Roy's Frazier and Foreman was Toney. Tarver became his rival in the end, but he was in his mid 30's by then. Roy never really had an opportunity to have a Manilla or a Jungle. It's the same with the Fab Four. They all fought each other in great fights. But again, Roy never had those opportunites that they had.

Ali is a hero of mine, but I think that it's very unfair to compare a heavyweight that was born in 1942, to a middleweight that was born in 1969.

Great debate, I'm really enjoying it.


Regards, Loudon.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Loudon

If so, he then wouldn't have been baited into coming back from heavy to fight him in 2003.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

If Tarver had've beaten Harding, Roy would have fought him in 2000.

Not a certainty - we've seen how Jones played around to avoid mandatory challenges from Nunn and Rocchigiani.

Originally Posted by Loudon

He came from 199 down to 175, at nearly 35, after 50 fights. It took a lot out of 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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Tarver didn't turn pro til he was about 28, and he'd only had 20 odd fights.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

That night saw the best of Tarver, ...

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.

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

Originally Posted by Loudon

History has shown, that Tarver at his best, couldn't beat Roy in Nov 03.

But history has also shown that Tarver could one-shot KO a better conditioned and more motivated Jones in the rematch.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

The rematch was a perfect shot. It happens. Tarver had some skills, and anybody can go when they're caught. If you watch the replay, Tarver had his head down, and his eyes were closed.

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.

Also, your argument that "it happens" and "anybody can go" undermines your certainty that Jones would've won if they fought sometime earlier.

Originally Posted by Loudon

After Glen Johnson had dominated and knocked Roy out just three months later, I don't think anyone cared what happened for Tarver III. Roy hadn't fought since the Johnson fight, and he'd been out for 13 months. He was also approaching 36.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

They obviously didn't want Roy as much as what they both claimed.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Roy fought Joe for 50/50, because in 2008, Roy hadn't fought at elite level for three years, and Joe was now the man on top.

In 2002, Roy was the king, and Joe was a nobody. Roy had bigger fish to fry. In 2008, Roy's circumstances were different.

Using this logic, Calzaghe should've never conceded 50-50 to Jones in 2008, but he did.

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.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Loudon

I discussed this the other week. There were a few reasons it never came off, the biggest one being his Dad stepping in. Roy and Big Roy hadn't spoken for years and it tore his family apart. It really upset Roy's sister who he's extremely close to. Big Roy didn't want him to go through with it. The other factors were, he still had unfinished business at 175, and he was only young back then, and he knew he'd get another shot further down the line. So he agreed with Big Roy and took the olive branch. Just a year after the Douglas fight fell through, he unified against Reggie Johnson. History tells us that he couldn't have come back for Calzaghe and DM.

I've heard these excuses, but even if there is a grain of truth to them, they're still weak and inherently inconsistent IMO.

Essentially, the story is that Jones suddenly decided to allow his otherwise estranged father to dictate the course of his career and turn down a chance to make history while he was squarely at his peak - only to wait for years until he was in his mid 30s to attempt the same feat? At the time Jones backed out of Douglas, he had already spoken of retiring well before the time that he would eventually fight Ruiz - not consistent with your claim that he was looking forward to "another shot further down the line." Besides, that was a helluva big opportunity to turn down and expect to get again sometime later.

It also doesn't make sense to claim that he backed out of the fight because he wanted to unify the titles, since he actually gave up a title to make the fight happen. In fact, the whole charade only generated even more "unfinished business" at that weight, i.e: the Nunn/Rocchigiani/WBC scandal.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Give me an example. Calzaghe? He fought Roy 4 years after Johnson had knocked him cold, 9 weeks from his 40th birthday, and he'd dismissed him as a challenge twice leading up to the fight. That fight harms Joe's legacy.

It harms Calzaghe's legacy that he didn't diligently pursue this or other big fights back when he was in his prime, just as the same does for Hopkins and Jones.

However, Jones also suffers the additional harm of having lost the long overdue fight when it finally happened. No matter how you spin it, that's still worse than winning the fight, as Calzaghe did.

Originally Posted by Loudon

He unified in 99. He had a few mandatories, then fought the winner of Harding and Tarver. In 2001, HBO, Jacobs and Murad, went all out to get the fight. It's clear that DM wasn't interested. We know what he did afterwards. How did he make a conscious choice to leave a gap? He sent Jacobs to meet with HBO execs to make the fight.

By his own admission, Jones had the option to go to Germany in '97 or '98 and attempt to eliminate his most distinguished rival in the division right then and there. Instead, he basically circumvented the fight by snatching up the titles that had been stripped from Dariusz while making increasingly larger demands for the fight - ultimately as much as $25 million.

Even the points you highlighted don't entirely substantiate that Jones really wanted the fight. Jones and Murad didn't exactly go "all out" to make the fight - at one point, they insisted that Dariusz come to the US and fight other fights first before they would consider fighting him. That's not going "all out" to make a fight - that's actually placing obstacles in the way of the fight. Jones also stated that the fight he most wanted at this time was Tito, which would've almost certainly been a glorified mismatch.

I don't go so far as to claim that Jones outright "ducked" Dariusz like many people do, nor do I claim that Dariusz's people were themselves all-out to make the fight either. But at best, Jones was indifferent to fighting his most distinguished rival in the division - again, not consistent with a claim that he "solidified" his legacy.

Originally Posted by Loudon

When the fights with Hop and DM couldn't be made, that's when he decided to move to heavy, because there was nothing else to accomplish.

Not true, as Tarver had already emerged as a distinguished rival and even a possible threat following his KO of Harding.

Originally Posted by Loudon

They were different era's.

The main difference is the choices the fighters make. Issues over money, politics, etc. take priority today because fighters give them that priority.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Roy's Frazier and Foreman was Toney. Tarver became his rival in the end, but he was in his mid 30's by then. Roy never really had an opportunity to have a Manilla or a Jungle. It's the same with the Fab Four. They all fought each other in great fights. But again, Roy never had those opportunites that they had.

Dariusz, Calzaghe, Ottke, and Jirov were all longtime unbeaten titleholders in or around Jones' weight class during his LHW reign. Any one of them would've been a viable rival and a distinguished scalp on Jones' resume.

Rematching Hopkins in the early 2000s would've meant continuing a rivalry at the most optimum time that a fight between them could've happened.

[Loudon]

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.

[Loudon]

Part 2,

I've heard these excuses, but even if there is a grain of truth to them, they're still weak and inherently inconsistent IMO.

Why are they weak? It was a culmination of the things I mentioned.

Essentially, the story is that Jones suddenly decided to allow his otherwise estranged father to dictate the course of his career and turn down a chance to make history while he was squarely at his peak - only to wait for years until he was in his mid 30s to attempt the same feat? At the time Jones backed out of Douglas, he had already spoken of retiring well before the time that he would eventually fight Ruiz - not consistent with your claim that he was looking forward to "another shot further down the line." Besides, that was a helluva big opportunity to turn down and expect to get again sometime later.

You make things seem so straightfoward. His Dad had trained him since he was seven years old. They had a huge falling out in 1992, and had hardly spoke since. Big Roy stepped in, and said he wouldn't allow it. They both had discussions about it at length and it brought them close together for the first time in 6 years. All of Roy's family were happy that they were talking again. The fight with Buster wouldn't have made history. He was grossly out of shape at that point. Lou Saverese beat him in one round I believe. Roy always said crazy things in the 90's like he was going to retire next year etc. I've got loads of quotes from 90's boxing magazines. He was always going to fight into his 40's. If he was a billionaire, he'd still be fighting now. At 29 his circumstances were different to when he was 34. There's no way Big Roy could have stopped him fighting Ruiz in 2003. But in 1998, he was only 29, and he'd got other things to achieve.

Why go against his Dad's wishes, and upset the rest of his family, when he was only 29? He knew he'd get another chance, despite him talking of retirement. His Sister urged him to listen to his Dad and everyone was happy. I'm not sure why you're doubting any of this, because we know he went up in 2003. So he obviously wasn't afraid of Buster, otherwise he'd have never have gone up at 34.

It also doesn't make sense to claim that he backed out of the fight because he wanted to unify the titles, since he actually gave up a title to make the fight happen. In fact, the whole charade only generated even more "unfinished business" at that weight, i.e: the Nunn/Rocchigiani/WBC scandal.

It was a culmination of things. He was only 29, so unless he was going to go up and stay at heavy after Buster, there was no point going against his Dad's wishes to come straight back down afterwards. Again, I don't see what difference it makes, because he went up to heavy afterwards. If he'd never have gone back up, then we'd be having a different debate. You would be saying it was nothing to do with Big Roy, it was the fact he was afraid etc. But we know that wasn't the case. Realistically he could never have had a proper heavyweight run before he was 30.

It harms Calzaghe's legacy that he didn't diligently pursue this or other big fights back when he was in his prime, just as the same does for Hopkins and Jones.

Roy dismissed a few fighters, but he also pursued big fights that never came off. Joe wouldn't give up his WBO belt and take a risk to get big fights.

However, Jones also suffers the additional harm of having lost the long overdue fight when it finally happened. No matter how you spin it, that's still worse than winning the fight, as Calzaghe did.

I don't have to put a spin on it. How does Roy suffer additional harm of losing to Joe in 2008?

The facts are these:

1. Roy had been destroyed by Glen Johnson 4 years EARLIER.

2. Roy was 9 weeks from his 40th Birthday.

3. In 2007, Joe said "Roy was a great fighter, but now he's finished. He's not the same anymore, and a fight between us both at this stage, would be POINTLESS."

4. In 2008, he was interviewed on Setanta Sports. He said "Roy's not a great fighter anymore, and I'd be disappointed if he was to be my last fight." I can show you the video if you want?

5. Just 12 months later, Danny Green knocked out Roy in a round.

Roy was finished at elite level. His last fight at elite level was against Tarver in Oct 2005. He hadn't fought at elite level for over 3 years. If someone like Glen had destroyed him in 2004, who had three really tough fights with Clinton Woods, who apart from Joe's biggest fans, cared about the outcome of the fight? There was no relevance to it.

Losing to Joe on points at nearly 40, can't harm Roy's legacy in anyway, after Tarver and Johnson had trashed him in 2004, and Joe had dismissed him on two occasions. It doesn't make sense.

By his own admission, Jones had the option to go to Germany in '97 or '98 and attempt to eliminate his most distinguished rival in the division right then and there. Instead, he basically circumvented the fight by snatching up the titles that had been stripped from Dariusz while making increasingly larger demands for the fight - ultimately as much as $25 million.

We've already discussed this. We both know he didn't seriously expect to be paid that.

Even the points you highlighted don't entirely substantiate that Jones really wanted the fight. Jones and Murad didn't exactly go "all out" to make the fight - at one point, they insisted that Dariusz come to the US and fight other fights first before they would consider fighting him. That's not going "all out" to make a fight - that's actually placing obstacles in the way of the fight. Jones also stated that the fight he most wanted at this time was Tito, which would've almost certainly been a glorified mismatch.

They didn't insist that DM went to America to have other fights. They PROPOSED the idea of a double header to HYPE a fight between the pair of them. The U.S. fans had hardly seen DM fight. That's not placing an obstacle in the way, it was good business sense. Get them both on a double header, everyone watches, then they fight each other after in a huge fight. DM's advisor refused. That was the obstacle. Brad Jacobs and Kerry Davis tried everything they could to negotiate with Peter Kohl, and it was clear he and DM weren't interested. We know from Murad's interview that I posted, what DM was asking for, and what he was getting a fight. He was sat comfortably in Germany, picking up decent pay cheques for fighting non threatening guys. Look at his resume. He turned down a $5M offer from HBO, to instead fight Joey De Grandis for $1-1.5M. He had no interest of leaving Germany for big fights. He was never going to go and fight Roy, or Tarver etc. He was content doing what he was doing.

I don't go so far as to claim that Jones outright "ducked" Dariusz like many people do, nor do I claim that Dariusz's people were themselves all-out to make the fight either. But at best, Jones was indifferent to fighting his most distinguished rival in the division - again, not consistent with a claim that he "solidified" his legacy.

He wasn't indifferent. Everyone at HBO, and all of Roy's team tried to make the fight. It would have been great if the fight had come off, but he still solidified his legacy without fighting him. He's a 4 weight world champ. He embarrassed Toney. He beat Tarver after losing 14 pounds of muscle at nearly 35. He beat Ruiz in an embarrassingly one sided fight, who outweighed him by over 20 pounds, and who was coming off of recent wins against Evander Holyfield.

Not true, as Tarver had already emerged as a distinguished rival and even a possible threat following his KO of Harding.

I meant that he'd already unified at 175.

The main difference is the choices the fighters make. Issues over money, politics, etc. take priority today because fighters give them that priority.

I agree. But how would Ali have done today at heavyweight, with all of the different belts and promoters? Would he have had the opportunity of facing both of the K bros etc?

Dariusz, Calzaghe, Ottke, and Jirov were all longtime unbeaten titleholders in or around Jones' weight class during his LHW reign. Any one of them would've been a viable rival and a distinguished scalp on Jones' resume.

Calzaghe and Ottke were nobodies in the boxing world when Roy was prime. Ottke was huge in Germany, but nowhere else. Joe wasn't a big name outside of Europe either when Roy was peak. They were both unknown Euro fighters who fought in a different weight class. A fight with those two wouldn't have meant anything at the time. Both of those fights were never viable. Once Roy had left the 168 division, there was no going back. He never gave it another thought. Why would he have been bothered about Ottke? Go and look at Ottke's resume.

We've discussed DM to death. Jirov was a possibility, but he was bypassed for a bigger fight against Ruiz at heavy.

Rematching Hopkins in the early 2000s would've meant continuing a rivalry at the most optimum time that a fight between them could've happened.

But we both know why the fight didn't come off. I watched their famous HBO argument again yesterday. The catchweight would have been around 164 pounds. There was no way that Roy was going down to 164, to fight a guy who he'd already beaten for 50/50. It was never going to happen.



Regards, Loudon.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Loudon

It would have been a certainty, because it was Roy who made Harding and Tarver fight in the eliminator.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

DM clearly wasn't interested, as you can see by just having a quick glance at his resume.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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?

By using the improved gameplan that he used to KO Jones in the rematch.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

But how realistic would it have been had they fought earlier?

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Loudon

The fight with Buster wouldn't have made history. He was grossly out of shape at that point. Lou Saverese beat him in one round I believe.

Beating Douglas would've given him a win over a former lineal HW champ - that would've been a huge scalp on his resume regardless of the circumstances.

It's true that Savarese went on to beat Douglas in a round, but that fight only happened because Jones had backed out. The Savarese fight confirmed that Douglas' punch resistance was gone - but that wasn't entirely certain beforehand. Jones blew a potential opportunity to KO a former lineal HW champ and take the credit for himself.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Roy always said crazy things in the 90's like he was going to retire next year etc. I've got loads of quotes from 90's boxing magazines.

If you can question those statements, then what makes anything he's ever said reliable?

Originally Posted by Loudon

Why go against his Dad's wishes, and upset the rest of his family, when he was only 29?

Because he'd already gone against them when there was a lot less on the line, and would go against them again when he was older.

The real question is, why cherrypick this instance to suddenly care what his father thought?

Originally Posted by Loudon

So he obviously wasn't afraid of Buster, otherwise he'd have never have gone up at 34.

Even an old Douglas was still a quicker, sharper puncher than Ruiz, and still had a formidable jab. His loss of punch resistance hadn't yet been clearly exposed by Savarese. Under these circumstances, it's very feasible that Jones might consider Douglas a bigger threat than Ruiz.

Originally Posted by Loudon

I don't have to put a spin on it. How does Roy suffer additional harm of losing to Joe in 2008?

Because Calzaghe was a similarly aged fighter whose prime had overlapped Jones'.

Originally Posted by Loudon

They didn't insist that DM went to America to have other fights. They PROPOSED the idea of a double header to HYPE a fight between the pair of them. The U.S. fans had hardly seen DM fight. That's not placing an obstacle in the way, it was good business sense.

Even better business sense would've been for Jones to accept a fight in Germany in the late '90s, which probably could've filled a stadium without the necessity of other fights to hype it.

Either way, your argument actually reaffirms my point - that Jones' main priority in this situation was making money rather than a making a fight with the best available opponent in his division. As I said, he prioritized business at the cost of legacy.

Originally Posted by Loudon

He wasn't indifferent. Everyone at HBO, and all of Roy's team tried to make the fight.

They "tried" only to a certain degree - after several years had passed, and only if certain stipulations were met. If Jones had genuinely tried to make the fight, he could've simply gone to Germany two or three years earlier. At best, this was only a half-hearted attempt while Jones was eyeing his preferred fight with Tito.

Originally Posted by Loudon

I agree. But how would Ali have done today at heavyweight, with all of the different belts and promoters? Would he have had the opportunity of facing both of the K bros etc?

I would expect so - especially since several other fighters have managed to face both Klitschko brothers as well.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Calzaghe and Ottke were nobodies in the boxing world when Roy was prime. Ottke was huge in Germany, but nowhere else. Joe wasn't a big name outside of Europe either when Roy was peak. They were both unknown Euro fighters who fought in a different weight class. A fight with those two wouldn't have meant anything at the time.

It would've meant wins over the two top-rated fighters in a single weight class. Jones went roughly a decade (from Toney to Tarver) without ever beating the best available opponent in any weight class he was in. Those two would be strong additions to his resume no matter how you dice it.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Once Roy had left the 168 division, there was no going back. He never gave it another thought.

He repeatedly said he would go back for a fight with Tito, and ultimately did (or at least, a pound shy of it).

Originally Posted by Loudon

Why would he have been bothered about Ottke? Go and look at Ottke's resume.

What about it? Ottke's resume is probably better than the vast majority of opponents that Jones fought as champion, even if the nature of several of those wins is dubious. He even has Glen Johnson on his resume.

Originally Posted by Loudon

Jirov was a possibility, but he was bypassed for a bigger fight against Ruiz at heavy.

Actually, he was bypassed for Clinton Woods.

Originally Posted by Loudon

But we both know why the fight didn't come off. I watched their famous HBO argument again yesterday. The catchweight would have been around 164 pounds. There was no way that Roy was going down to 164, to fight a guy who he'd already beaten for 50/50. It was never going to happen.

And yet Jones was perfectly willing to fight Tito at a catchweight, both before and after Hopkins beat him.

[Loudon]

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.

[Loudon]

Part 2.

Beating Douglas would've given him a win over a former lineal HW champ - that would've been a huge scalp on his resume regardless of the circumstances.

It's true that Savarese went on to beat Douglas in a round, but that fight only happened because Jones had backed out. The Savarese fight confirmed that Douglas' punch resistance was gone - but that wasn't entirely certain beforehand. Jones blew a potential opportunity to KO a former lineal HW champ and take the credit for himself.

How much credit do you think Roy had've got if he'd have beaten him back then? It wasn't the Tokyo version that had knocked out Mike. It wouldn't have been a huge scalp. He doesn't get a lot of credit for beating Ruiz, so I don't think he'd have got much for beating Douglas. Why do you say he blew the opportunity? In the end it doesn't make a difference does it? Eventually he went up to heavy and won a version of the title. A lot of people had Ruiz to win, due to his physical advantages, but Roy embarrassed him to win easy on points. So he passed up Buster, but ended up dominating Ruiz. I can't see the problem? It was a legacy fight that made history.

If you can question those statements, then what makes anything he's ever said reliable?

Fighters are always saying things like that. One minute they're on huge highs, then they're low, and they just get caught up in things. Roy talking about when he was going to retire, isn't the same as him commenting on other matters. In the same magazine that I have where Roy says that he may retire soon, there's also a quote from Barrera saying "I'm only going to fight 2 to 3 more times, and then I'm going to pursue other things." That was from 1995-96. Roy always said that he'd never stick around too long, and if he started to lose after his best, then he'd retire. I think he meant it at the time he said it. But life doesn't work out like that. He's now fighting in his 40's, and he's in a different mindset to what he was in when he was in his 20's. He simply can't let go.

Because he'd already gone against them when there was a lot less on the line, and would go against them again when he was older.

The real question is, why cherrypick this instance to suddenly care what his father thought?

Because at the time, he was only 29 and he hadn't spoke to his Dad for 6 years. In 2003, he'd accomplished everything he could have given the circumstances, and he was 34. It was to define his legacy, and to my knowledge, Big Roy didn't try to stop him at that point.

Even an old Douglas was still a quicker, sharper puncher than Ruiz, and still had a formidable jab. His loss of punch resistance hadn't yet been clearly exposed by Savarese. Under these circumstances, it's very feasible that Jones might consider Douglas a bigger threat than Ruiz.

Possibly. But I'm sure Roy thought he was in better shape at 29, than what he was at 34. The two opportunities presented themselves at completely different stages of Roy's career though. Ruiz came after he'd unified at 175, and had won titles in 3 weight classes. Ruiz also had a belt.

Because Calzaghe was a similarly aged fighter whose prime had overlapped Jones'.

It doesn't make any difference. Roy hadn't fought at elite level for 3 years, and he hadn't won at elite level for 5 years going into the fight. It was 4 years after Johnson, and he was nearly 40. How much credit does Danny Green get for knocking Roy out in a round, just a year after Joe had beaten him on points? How much credit does Lebedev get? Roy was clearly passed his best a long time before he fought Joe. Joe himself dismissed Roy twice leading up to the fight. It can't possibly harm Roy's legacy.

Even better business sense would've been for Jones to accept a fight in Germany in the late '90s, which probably could've filled a stadium without the necessity of other fights to hype it.

1. Why should the worlds best fighter have had to go to Germany back then?

2. It doesn't matter if it would have filled a stadium. Most of the revenue comes from PPV. The PPV sales would have been much higher in the U.S. A fight there would have brought the most money in for both fighters. But we know what DM turned down, and we know what he was getting paid for fighting the Hall's of the world.

Either way, your argument actually reaffirms my point - that Jones' main priority in this situation was making money rather than a making a fight with the best available opponent in his division. As I said, he prioritized business at the cost of legacy.

How can you make a fight with someone that doesn't want to fight you? Kohl wouldn't negotiate with HBO. They then turned down $6M, and then went on to fight Joey De Grandis for $1-1.5M. That tells me everything i need to know.

They "tried" only to a certain degree - after several years had passed, and only if certain stipulations were met. If Jones had genuinely tried to make the fight, he could've simply gone to Germany two or three years earlier. At best, this was only a half-hearted attempt while Jones was eyeing his preferred fight with Tito.

Stipulations? The double header was a great idea, and it would have benefited BOTH fighters. HBO tried to make the fight as big as they possibly could. More exposure meant a bigger fight. The bigger the fight, the more money DM would have received. Where does this Tito stuff come from? Tito was a potential opponent for Roy, IF he'd have beaten Hopkins. After Hopkins had beaten him there was no interest until 2008. In 2008, Tito was a named fighter who was a safe fight for Roy at that stage, and one that could put him back in the spotlight, and on course for a fight against the likes of Joe and Hopkins.

I would expect so - especially since several other fighters have managed to face both Klitschko brothers as well.

Possibly, but times have changed. I know that Ali would have loved to have fought them. But what if they demanded the fight had to be in Germany etc and Ali didn't agree? What if they argued about the PPV percentage, and the revenue from the gate? What if both promoters didn't like each other, and neither party would back down etc? What if one promoter demanded options, or the K Bros weren't happy with their purse? There's lots of problems that could have arisen. There were less problems in Ali's era. There was only one belt. So to fight for that one belt, you had to face everyone. In a way, fighters were forced to fight each other.

It would've meant wins over the two top-rated fighters in a single weight class. Jones went roughly a decade (from Toney to Tarver) without ever beating the best available opponent in any weight class he was in. Those two would be strong additions to his resume no matter how you dice it.

No, they wouldn't have both been strong additions to his resume. They were also in different divisions. Why would Roy have given Sven Ottke a seconds thought? Who outside of Germany would have wanted to see that fight? You're also making a huge assumption that Ottke would have wanted to fight Roy. It's laughable! Ottke was a nobody in a different weight class. Roy left the division in 1996. He wasn't going to go back down after he'd moved up, to fight an unknown German fighter, that wasn't a name, and who nobody respected outside of Germany.

He repeatedly said he would go back for a fight with Tito, and ultimately did (or at least, a pound shy of it).

He didn't repeatedly say he'd go back for Tito. Again, it was just a possibility IF Tito had've beaten Hopkins. When he eventually went back for Tito in 2008, it was SEVEN years later, and AFTER his exploits at 175 and at heavyweight. It was a 170 catchweight. Although he made the weight pretty comfortably, he had no interest in returning to the SMW division.

What about it? Ottke's resume is probably better than the vast majority of opponents that Jones fought as champion, even if the nature of several of those wins is dubious. He even has Glen Johnson on his resume.

They were in DIFFERENT weight classes. Why would the best fighter in the world who lives and fights in the U.S. at 175, care about a 168 German fighter? Their paths never crossed. Ottke was a nobody to Roy.

Actually, he was bypassed for Clinton Woods.

Woods was a mandatory, after negotiations had broken down for a Hopkins rematch. Although I wasn't referring to a specific point in time. My point was, that the Cruiser division was bypassed by Roy, to go straight to heavy. Any title fight at Heavy, was bigger than a Jirov fight at Cruiser.

And yet Jones was perfectly willing to fight Tito at a catchweight, both before and after Hopkins beat him.

Roy would have been willing to fight Hopkins for 60/40.

The catchweight didn't kill the Hopkins fight, it was the purse split. If Tito had've beaten Hopkins in 2001, then a fight with Roy was potentially on the table. It would have been interesting to see what the purse split would have been. One of the main reasons that Roy demanded 60% against Hop, was due to the fact that he'd already beaten him.


Regards, Loudon.