Roy Jones.

Hopkins. I know at one point Hopkins talked to Bernard Fernandez explaining why he turned down a fight with Jones at that time. Going off memory, so I have no link to it.

Edit - two links that talk about Hopkins. First one is before the Brannon fight, and then after. Can see why Jones said a fight with Hopkins may or may not happen.

articles.philly.com/1996-10-04/sports/25664294_1_roy-jones-eric-lucas-bryant-brannon
articles.philly.com/1996-10-05/sports/25665769_1_roy-jones-bryant-brannon-ibf

 

Seriously??


The link that I sent you, was to show you that Bernard had said that Roy was through, only to fight him 16 months later.

It had nothing to do with Calzaghe.

At the time, we'd not mentioned Calzaghe's name.

We were talking about Roy and Hopkins and their rematch which should have happened in 2002.

The link was to gauge your opinion on Bernard's actions.

Do you understand??

This is hard work.


For the final time, just forget about Calzaghe and Roy.

It's now in the past, and I won't mention it again.

We'll move on.


Now kindly tell me what your original point regarding Roy's career was.

:good

 

Mongoose,

Do you blame Roy for the Hopkins rematch not happening earlier?

 

Foxy 01,

We're just going around in circles.

Not at all.

You're just looking at it from a statistical point of view.

Joe won 11 rounds to one.

On paper, that may look like a humiliating defeat.

But it's clear that you aren't taking a number of factors into consideration.

Again, Roy hadn't won at the top level for five years.

Joe was still on top with back to back wins at the top level.

Joe was a heavy favourite going into the fight, which would never have happened, had they fought earlier.

Roy was almost 40, and had been destroyed four years earlier.

Joe said on three occasions that Roy was washed up.


So all things considered, how was it humiliating?

Joe was expected to beat Roy via decision.

The cut made things seem worse.

Roy was thoroughly outboxed, but he didn't take a beating.

At no point was the ref looking to stop it.

Joe didn't have Roy's head bouncing all over the place.

He simply outboxed him to a decision win, which was expected.


Let me ask you this:

If Chelsea beat Man City 8-0, would that be humiliating to City?

The answer is obviously yes.


Now let me ask you this:

If Chelsea beat a league 1 team 8-0, would that be humiliating to them?

The answer is NO.

Because of the huge gulf in class.


In 2008, Joe was an elite fighter.

Whereas Roy could no longer compete at that level.

At that point, Roy was only capable of beating B-C class opposition.


Antonio Tarver and Glen Johnson gave Roy humiliating defeats four years before Joe fought him.


A shot 40 year old fighter, who'd already been destroyed, can't suffer a humiliating defeat, if he loses to an elite fighter, via a decision.

It's not possible.

Nobody was surprised at the outcome of that fight.

Nobody was buying that BS.

You'll give Joe a pass for anything.

Nobody can defend that Setanta Sports interview.

If you'd viewed that interview objectively, then you'd know that what Joe did was cringeworthy.

Is this you being objective?

I mention that Joe was elite, and was coming off of two great wins at the top, whilst Roy hadn't won at the top level for five years, and your response is - Nonsense?

Why is it nonsense?

They're facts.

He was fighting and winning at the top level.

His recent form going into the fight, was two of his biggest wins against Kessler and Hopkins.

Roy went into the fight at 3-3.

His last top level win was against Tarver in November 2003, which was five years earlier.

Ha!

No it didn't.

It's not just me that shares that opinion.

How could it have looked bad on Roy?

A near 40 year old fighter was beat on points by an elite fighter.

He'd been destroyed four years earlier.

So what?

It was expected.

Roy got took out by Danny Green in a round, just 12 months later.

It's just not sinking in.

Showboating can be highly entertaining depending on the circumstances.

But showboating against a shot fighter who he wouldn't have fought while prime, was a joke. Especially has he'd repeatedly spoke of not wanting to fight Roy because it would be pointless.

I'm not just looking at why he took it, I'm questioning his pointless antics that were cringeworthy.

If Larry Holmes had've done the Ali shuffle in 1980, against a shot Ali, then nobody would have appreciated it.

Not every fighter in Joe's position would have acted in the same manner.

 

Someone ought to warn Alistair Campbell about you. He is not even in your league for spin, and he worked for Blair, and helped him get away with the weapons of mass destruction s**t, at the time of the invasion.

No one other than you could possibly try to spin a total humiliation of a fighter the way Joe Cal embarrassed Jones in front of the boxing world.

As you say we are going round in circles, and you see nothing other than Jones reigns supreme over anyone and everyone.

By your logic Jones was just terribly unlucky to lose every time he lost due to circumstances beyond his control, like weight making and age.

You are embarrassing yourself due to a couple of simple facts. He chose to try to make weights, he chose to keep fighting when his biggest assets deserted him. Then he was shown up to be ordinary, beaten, humiliated, and KTFO.

Did Ali scream and cry when his reflexes and speed deserted him? Or did he just adapt and still win fights against great opposition?

I'm afraid you are going to have to deal with your irrational love of Jones before you can have reasonable debates with folks.

The enlarged part is what your brain simply will not allow you to accept.

 

Ali didn't really adapt he just had a legendary chin, sadly Jones didn't.

 

This has quite a bit to do with it...

I think Jones could still be a force if he had an iron chin, and could take hard shots to dish out his.

 

Foxy,

In no way was that humiliating... And I am one of Roy's biggest fans..

He fought through the last few rounds of that fight with pure heart, while his face was a bloody mess.

It was clear early in that fight, Roy was fighting a fighter on a different level at the time... It would have been a much different fight had Roy still been elite, as Joe still was.

Roy had not won at the elite level since Tarver, 5 years earlier, and went life and death with C level Anthony Hanshaw..

Joe on the other hand was riding arguably his best two wins of his career..

 

Not another one ffs.

Calzaghe was NOT elite at the time of the Jones fight. He was 4 months short of 37. Winning 11 out of 12 rounds is humiliating to the other guy, no matter what that fighters name is, or what his fan boys think.

I'll give you that Kessler was a great win as was Lacy in 2006, but for the previous 5 years before Jones Calzaghe had fought mostly C level fighters at best.

However the funniest thing with you Jones fans is you somehow want to give Joe credit for beating the 43 year old Hopkins, but the same credit would turn to scorn in a Calzaghe titled thread.

That is why I take Jones fans about as seriously as I take his steroid cheating career.

Edit.

Oh and it is debatable whether or not Jones ever beat Tarver. He got the decision for sure but the immediate rematch tells us more about the common consensus of the first fights result.

 

I suggest you watch a minimum 10 hours of Ali pre exile, then watch ALL of Ali's fights up until Spinks post exile. Then come back and tell us he didn't adapt his style.

 

Foxy 01,

Ha!

That made made me laugh!

Merry Christmas!

I hope you had a good day yesterday.

I'm going to try one more time.


Would Joe have been a heavy betting favourite if the fight had occurred much earlier?

No.

Why was Joe in 2008 the betting favourite?


Below are actual facts. Not my opinions, but facts.

Roy Jones was destroyed and humiliated in 2004, when he was 35 years old.

After Roy had beaten Tarver in 2003, he NEVER had another top level win in his career.

Yes, Joe was also getting on. But he was an elite level fighter.

He'd had back to back top level wins.

Whereas Roy could only beat C level guys.


Now I'll answer every one of your points.

So I'd appreciate it very much, if you could reply to this specific point I'm going to make.

This is my criteria for rating guys:

Elite level - Guys like Joe, Floyd, Andre Ward, Hopkins etc.

World level - Guys like Froch, Kessler etc.

Do you agree with the above?


In 2008, Roy was not capable of even beating world level guys.

Do you honestly think that Roy could have beaten a Kessler or Froch level opponent in 2008?


My football ana*ogy was accurate.

Joe - A top Premiership side. (elite in boxing terms)

A championship side. (world class in boxing terms)

Roy - A league 1 side in 2008. (Below elite and world class)


If in the F.A. cup, a top premiership side pummelled a league one side, then the league one side would NOT have been humiliated.

Because nobody would be shocked.

The gulf in class is huge!


An elite boxer, can not humiliate a washed up 40 year old fighter via a decision, when that 40 year old fighter, had already been destroyed twice at 35.

Joe out boxing Roy to win a decision was predicted beforehand.

If it'd have been in the late 90's or early 00's, then it would have been extremely humiliating for Roy.

But in 2008, it wasn't.

What on earth is so great, about an elite guy easily defeating a C class fighter via a decision?

Nothing.

When Roy lost, he lost fair and square, by fighters who were better than him at the time.

How am I embarrassing myself?

Nobody made Roy want to fight Joe or to try and win a CW title in his 40's.

That's of his own doing.

But a little perspective is needed.

For example, go and find me just one guy, who thinks that Dennis Lebedev would have beaten Roy in his prime.

Go and find me someone who thinks Danny Green could have knocked him out in a round.

Let me ask you this.

Do you think it was humiliating that Green knocked him out in one round?

Every fighter is different.

Ray Leonard lost when his speed and skills deserted him.

It happens.

It's you who's irrational, trying to celebrate a points win over a shot 40 year old fighter, after Joe had previously said that a fight against Roy would be pointless.

That's how much Joe valued Roy at the time.

When a fighter at 35 is destroyed by a guy who goes on to lose to Clinton Woods, then what happens four years later, is of no relevance at all.

 

Are you seriously going to tell us that in 2008, Joe wasn't elite?

He might have been getting on in age, but he was still classed as an elite fighter.

Bernard Hopkins was still classed as an elite fighter, after he'd destroyed Pavlik.

Joe was one of the best fighters in the world in 2008.

He was elite.

Roy couldn't even beat Glen Johnson four years earlier, who wasn't elite.

Roy was a third division fighter when he fought Joe.

 

Foxy is probably one of the few that thinks prime Calzaghe could beat prime Jones. It was obvious Jones was grossly faded when he fought Calzaghe and Calzaghe may have been slightly past his best, was by no means a faded fighter.

 

:good

 

He was a LHW world champion, coming off of his 2 best wins in Hopkins and Kessler... He could also still fight at a 1000 punch a fight pace... He was elite for sure. The humiliating thing is your opinion, I honestly just think Roy was happy to be back in a big fight. When I think of humiliating, I think of Tarver II and Johnson fights.

I don't know what fighting C level fighters has to do with Joe being elite or not?:huh He proved he was still top level by beating Kessler and moving up to beat Hopkins who would later unify two belts at LHW.

You must be thinking of someone else... I have never discredited Joe's win over the still elite level Hopkins, and I don't care about how old the fighter is, it is their ability to perform at a high level that matters.

Its too bad you have to lump all Jones fans into a group.. You really can't be that simple minded.:roll:

There is no debate for me... Jones actually out landed Tarver in power punches by a good margin... That was a body assault for the ages, that had Tarver even hesitant to follow Jones to the ropes where he was having all of his success.. That was a close but clear decision for Jones, where the rounds were easy to score, they were either clear for Tarver or Jones.

And what common consensus are you talking about? That Tarver was robbed?? There have been plenty of polls done here, and the large majority think Tarver lost.