I did not bother to check boxrec before I typed it. So he fought 2 non title fights @ 154, but his debut was as a middleweight and those 2 fights were a mere publicity act for the record. Murad Muhammad scammed Griffin, but Merkerson and Jones knew about it and exploited it. Quite true, these. Hope it is the last reply from your lying ass.
:good No He tried to make the Woods rematch after the Glen Johnson loss http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4578559.stm Roy Jones was taking as much as 92% of the HBO licensing fees and you want to put the blame on King for the terms of the Holyfield fight? The purse splits for the vast majority of Jones fights were completely one sided. Are you going to blame King for the terms of the Ruiz fight and the Tarver I fight as well? And so would of Jones, but you seem to overlook that point No Jones had to make a mandatory defense by Sept 1, which meant he had no time to be making voluntary defenses before September http://www.news24.com/xArchive/Archive/Jones-talking-with-Tyson-Lewis-20030719 What's that got to do with the purse split? Its the network and boxing fans that determine the money for the fights, not Roy Jones imaginary title.
There is 0 evidence that cutting muscle causes long term problems. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2004-05-18-jones-interview_x.htm How many fights have you watched where a fighter was severely dehydrated? Of course Based on what evidence? Dawson Dawson was weight drained for the Ward fight. He was fighting in a division he had outgrown, but was fine when he moved back to lhw Plenty of fighters have been koed early in fights, who had not recently dropped a weight class like: Kalambay, Khan , Lewis etc Byrd Byrd was weight drained for the George fight but he was fine fighting at cw http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/8793096/what-roy-jones-jr-had-remained-heavyweight-2003 Tarver? Tarver was not weight drained against Hopkins. He has always been a quitter at heart. Its the reason he has had so many dud performances
general zod, That's fair enough. But it's a moot point really. You're questioning why Roy didn't want Toney again, yet he was open to fighting Woods again. But again, the circumstances were completely different. He'd beaten a world class fighter in Toney, who was 26 and undefeated. In 2003, he wasn't interested because he felt he'd got nothing to prove, and he was looking at fighting at HW, with no intentions of fighting at CW. He was still considered the best fighter in the world at that point. He'd also beaten Woods easy in 2002, and also had nothing to prove. But he saw Woods as a tune up fight in 2005, when he was 36, after suffering two crushing knockout defeats. He also saw Woods as an opportunity to win a title in 2008, as previously discussed. So again, it's a moot point. It was Roy's prerogative who he fought, but his circumstances in 2005 and 2008 were completely different to what they'd been in 2003. Holyfield and Thomas put the blame on Murad and King. Of course the vast majority of the purse splits of Roy's were one sided. Of course, but Murad and King weren't getting in the ring were they? Evander and Thomas had no issue with Roy getting the larger purse, as long as Evander got a good guarantee, that included money that King already owed him, as well as a fair deal on the upside of the PPV. I'll try and find you the excerpts if you're interested, and if you like the look of it, you can order the book. I thought of you as soon as I read it. It's very interesting. I've read this a few times, but something was obviously worked out. Because Thomas's book goes into explicit detail, about the title been at stake on numerous occasions, that include comments made by Evander. I've no reason to doubt what was written. The point is, Roy was in a position of power that Toney wasn't in. He was considered the best fighter in the world, the unified LHW champ, and was sat on a great contract with HBO. He could make demands that Toney couldn't.
general zod, I said that Frank said he didn't lose any weight. Why have you posted an interview with Roy, that was AFTER the Tarver loss? We know he felt in great shape for the rematch, when he'd re hired Mackie. Why do we need evidence of long term problems? We've evidence of other fighters struggling after losing muscle. Again, I've seen four fighters struggle after losing muscle. Why of course? Did Dawson, Byrd and Tarver not eat right before their losses after their weight loss? Based on logic. Based on the fact that Roy had burnt muscle quickly, at nearly 35, after 50 fights, and other fighters have also struggled. You're entitled to your opinion. But I don't see how if Roy had've rehydrated properly to 100%, that he suddenly would have looked like the old Roy. So a 29 year old Dawson was drained, but a near 35 year old Roy couldn't have been? And? So Byrd was also drained, yet Roy wasn't? Let's look at what Byrd said in your article. He said that Roy weighed 193 and had to go down to 175. But we know from the Hauser article and the Sweet Science documentary that Roy weighed more. According to Hauser he weighed 196, and according to coach Merk, Roy kept his physique in the hope of fighting at HW again, which is supported by excerpts from Thomas' book, as well as links that Roy met Tyson and considered fighting Sanders. We also know that Mackie built him up, like he'd done with Spinks, and he only had a body fat percentage of around 6%. So Roy had to lose around 20 pounds in weight in a short space of time to fight Tarver. The fight was signed sometime in the late summer of 2003. Byrd has also said that Roy was making excuses, and every fighter has to cut that same weight. What, with a body fat percentage of only 6%? Every fighter burns body fat in camp to make weight. But they don't all burn muscle. So he claims that Roy was making excuses that he lost too much weight, too soon, but then says that the same thing happened to him against George. So Roy was making excuses, yet he wasn't? Ok. I think the weight loss must have been a factor. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. But the thing was, because of his infamous question to Roy 'Have you got any excuses tonight Roy?' there's no way he could have used the weight loss as a factor for his performance against Hopkins. He would never have lived it down. If he'd have mentioned the weight loss, everyone would have reminded of him of what he said to Roy. So he'd backed himself into a corner. Which is why he claimed that it was possible that he could have been poisoned. But he did lose a lot of weight, like Byrd had done, and I think it must have had an effect on him. But if you don't agree, that's cool.
The weight loss for the Tarver I fight is irrelevant. He won that fight and was fine by the time of Tarver II fight. And what about all of the fighters who did not struggle, on what basis are you ignoring them? I said how many fighters have you seen fight while severely dehydrated. Cutting muscle and being dehydrated are not the same thing. What has eating got to do with being severely dehydrated? Logic needs evidence and you have none. How on earth did he burn muscle quickly? His camp for the Tarver I fight would of been 6-8 weeks What medical source are you using here to suggest that cutting muscle was a bad thing at 35? What has the number of fights got to due with anything? Jones up until that point had been in no wars. And other fighters have ALSO not struggled Tell me the number of times Jones had gone into fights severely dehydrated? Dawson had been fighting at lhw for 5 years before dropping down into a division he had outgrown. He cannot healthily make the smw anymore. Jones did not outgrow the lhw limit which is why he stayed there for the next 5 plus years Byrd dropped from around 220 down to lhw. A division he had outgrown. You notice he had no problem making the cw limit On what basis is a unofficial weigh in more reliable than a official weigh in? Mackie Shilstone says he was 192lbs http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/jones-ruiz-and-the-roy-jones-legacy1 Roy Jones before the Calzaghe fight admits he was 193lbs http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/oct/26/boxing-roy-jones-jnr :huh If Jones had rehydrated properly then he would of entered the ring around 190lbs http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/roy-jones-and-rj1 Come fight night he was 185 lbs, if he had rehydrated properly then he would of been around 190 lbs. So how on earth did he cut 20 lbs? They all burn muscle. Cardio burns muscle and fat. It's the reason why a lot of fighters use anabolic steroids to fight in the higher divisions. 1: Byrd cut way more muscle than jones 2: Byrd never claims it caused long terms effects like Jones does. You are deliberately misinterpreting what Byrd is saying Only people not familiar with Tarver's career would say he was weight drained against Hopkins. Every time Tarver had a hard time he behaves the exactly the same as he did against Hopkins For example: The last quarter of the Harding I fight where he basically folded and stopped throwing punches. According to Espn punch stats he threw something like 3 punches during the last round The first three rounds of the Harding II fight. He basically did nothing in that fight until a left hand hurt Harding and then he had the confidence to go in for the kill The second half of the Dawson fights where he realizes he is out of his depth and so his workrate drops and he stops listening to his corner
Toney wasn't undefeated he clearly lost the Tiberi fight Not really. He wanted to become a world champion again, but he did not want to fight Tarver again. It's the reason he pursued title fights against Tiozzi, Johnson and Woods Basically when his career crashed and burned he wanted fighters to give him the chances he had refused to give other fighters. The word hypocrite comes to mind. The promoters work for the fighter, not the other way around. King cannot make a fight if he doesn't even now what terms his fighters want. Meaning that the terms of the Holyfield fight were no different from the terms for other non king promoted Jones fights. You have no idea how much of those one sided terms where down to Jones but you put all of the blame on King and Murad? You know the reason why King won the purse bid for the Tarver II fight was because he offered better terms than Jones did Source? Obviously not. Jones had to make a mandatory defense and the WBA never changed their stance on that. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-09-14/sports/0309140073_1_david-tua-rahman-mandalay-bay-hotel Provide one source from the WBA saying they were on board He was just as greedy as King was, but when his own career crashed and burned he then wanted his name opponents to give him "fair terms"
general zod, I'm sorry for the late reply. I've been so busy at work this last month. How are they relevant to this discussion? We know that other fighters have lost weight with no issue. My argument is, that some fighters have had issues when dropping weight. That's the point I'm making. Roy says he struggled with the weight, and it was clearly visible to me, and again, it's happened to other fighters. That's fine, but I find it amusing that you put Roy's performance in the first Tarver fight, solely down to what was in Hauser's article, and nothing else. There's evidence of two other fighters who have struggled with weight. You've admitted yourself that Byrd and Dawson were drained. You've made allowances for them, but not for Roy. What, and you'd class 6-8 weeks as a long time? To go from the mid 190's, with a body fat percentage of only around 6%? Why do I need a medical source? Roy had been boxing for years at that point. He'd fought 50 times. He had a lot of wear and tear on his body. Cutting muscle quickly at any age would be hard, but logic states that it has to be harder as you age. As above. He'd been training everyday since about 7, with a brutal regime from his father, and he'd been in 50 camps. And other fighters have. Tell me the number of fights Roy had where he'd dropped muscle in a short space of time, with a body fat percentage of 6%? Dan Goosen, John Scully and Chad didn't think he'd outgrown the division, when they signed for the fight. Chad was younger, with less fights, and he had a nightmare. Theoretically, you could say that a guy who was a solid 196, with a body fat percentage of 6%, had outgrown the LHW division at that point. Look, all of those guys had a different set of circumstances surrounding them, but again, you're making concessions for them, but not for Roy. Mackie said that Roy came to him at 192, and he changed his body fat percentage, just like he'd done with Spinks. He cut Roy's body fat, and added more muscle. Go and watch the documentary - The Sweet Science. It shows Roy getting weighed on different scales. Also, you yourself have used the Hauser article in a previous debate with a poster, to prove that Roy's weight was 196. With regards to the build up to the Calzaghe fight, Roy just probably quoted the official weight. Five years had passed after he'd fought Ruiz, so it wasn't really relevant. I was talking about from the start of camp, to the weigh in. But there's a huge difference in between what Roy, Chad and Byrd did, as opposed to what someone like Ricky Hatton did in camp. What am I misinterpreting? Here's what he said: "It's an excuse to say he lost weight too fast. Every light heavyweight in boxing has to lose that same amount of weight" NO! Every light heavyweight does NOT go into camp, weighing a solid 196, with a body fat percentage of only 6%. They might go into camp weighing the same amount of actual weight, but their physiques would be completely different. Go and read what Mackie did with Spinks. He had an 8 week camp for Holmes, and his actual weight after camp, was similar to what it was before camp. But his body was completely different. Byrd was only looking at the actual weights, and nothing more. Again, Byrd has also claimed that he too lost too much weight too fast. Which is correct. But he can't criticise Roy, then say the same thing himself. I respect everything that you've written above. But again, I do think the weight loss played a part. I'm certain that he'd have mentioned the weight loss, had he not previously accused Roy of making excuses.
general zod, We know this. But officially he was undefeated, and I was looking from Roy's perspective. Right. He saw those fights as easier fights, and he didn't want to fight Tarver again straight away. Who could blame him? But we know he did fight Tarver again, after a year out and a crushing defeat to Johnson, without a tune up. Try and put yourself in his shoes, and try and see what he'd have been looking at. Any fighter in that same position of power would probably have done the same. He had a huge ego, he thought he was the best, so he was going to dictate the terms. Look at Mayweather and the stunts that he pulls. It appears that Murad and King would have made more money than Holyfield. How can two promoters make more than the fighter? We know all about Roy's self-worth as above, and we know he wanted huge money to remain at HW. But the fight fell through, mainly due to Evander feeling disrespected by King. Jim Thomas's book. I've made a mistake here. I've got all of the dates mixed up. Had negotiations have been successful, Roy and Evander would have fought before that deadline. Jim Thomas started negotiations in March, 2003, and then met King and Murad, in June. But just a few days after the meeting, the deal was dead. However, Thomas had already discussed a potential fight with Toney at that point, and when no agreement could be made with King, he went back to Goosen and signed the Toney contract for October. So had Roy fought Evander, the title would have been at stake. Again, the title is mentioned all throughout that particular chapter of Thomas's book. Also, if you look at the link that you have posted, it actually mentions the title. News 24 archives - Jones talking with Tyson, Lewis. 'Last month, Jones appeared set for a title defence against fellow American and former heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield.' The article is dated July the 19th, 2003. He wasn't greedier than King. Roy stepped through the ropes, King didn't. Once again, anyone in Roy's position would no doubt have acted in the same manner.
I'll always admire how Roy outclassed Toney,....that was special...but ultimately, Jones was a classic case of flash, not substance.
Notice that I didn't say that Duran would beat him or wouldn't beat him. It's a close fight. Point is there are a number of guys at 135 that could beat Whitaker.