Explain the Ducking History of Great Fighters Part I: Roy Jones

Oh, so what I just posted is False? :rofl

Jones was a businessman not a prizefighter. He is an insult to those before him like Billy Conn who didn't whine and complain about the ring size, gloves that were to be used, where the fight was going to be etc. and fought THE champion not some trinket beltholder in what amounted to a sparring session. Jones took the easy way out like he always did then tried to call himself a 'champion' :roflatsch

 

This is just one big contradiction you tell us Holyfield turned Jones down but leave out that Holyfield has a 25 mil unification fight with Lennox on the table. Then you tell us Jones wanted big money fights and he turned down 10 mil PLUS PPV upside to fight Tarver for peanuts compared to that. See, you don't even realize you are doing this. Holyfield was glad to fight Jones AFTER the big fights with Lennox which were being planned/discussed as early as March 1998

Seriously just stop with the BS. It is pathetic. None of the stuff you posted above makes any sense it is one big contradiction of what actually happened.

 

:good

 

If you look at the whole picture, allowing for all circumstances, then it was a great win for Roy.

But KillSomething is completely dismissing the win, whilst criticising Roy for not fighting Roch.

So how does that make sense?

Would beating Roch in his late 20's/early30's at LHW, have been a better win than beating Ruiz at HW, at 34?

 

If the WBA, HW title held no value whatsoever, then what did that say for the rest of the belts in boxing?

 

ruiz was a paper champ for sure, but he was still a top five HW.

 

Nobody has said that what Roy did eclipsed what those other guys did. atsch

But it doesn't mean it wasn't a great win.

How was it meaningless you fool?

Unless the whole boxing landscape is going to be re shaped, then it can't have been meaningless.

Otherwise Ruiz fighting Holyfield was completely meaningless.

Except it wasn't, because it was a HW title fight.

Where do you draw the line?

Because what you're basically saying, is that any HW fight back then that didn't involve Lennox, was meaningless.


Now let me embarrass you, for the absolute fool that you are.

You say that Roy beating Ruiz for the WBA, was meaningless.

So kindly explain to everyone on here, WHY YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY CRITICISED ROY FOR NOT FIGHTING CORRIE SANDERS????




You are so dumb!!

You give Roy zero credit for winning the WBA, and for not fighting the real champion in Lennox, yet you question why Roy didn't fight Sanders for the WBO. atsch

 

atsch

 

Ok, lets go.
The only things that you post are in this order: glass chin, trinket belts,no heart, no chin, disgrace, ducker.
If those are the thing that constitute a boxing fan, im glad that im not one.atsch

 

rico. since its so easy why don't you win a HW title?

that is all.

 

Wow! atsch

Seriously, we're on two completely different levels here.

I'd have a better chance of learning Arabic, than trying to get through to you.

What is it that you can't comprehend?


Jim Thomas who was Evander's attorney for 13 years, has given specific reasons as to why Evander didn't want to fight Roy back then. For what feels like the hundredth time, it had nothing to do with Lennox Lewis. Go and read the link. How can you be stupid enough to argue against what Jim Thomas has wrote?


Read carefully.

I said that Roy wanted huge money to remain at HW. We know that Roy's purse for Tarver was considerably less than what a Sanders fight would have brought.


Evander wanted to fight Roy in 2003, because everyone's circumstances had changed at that point. Roy had proven himself at HW, by beating the guy who'd beaten Evander.

In 1998, Evander was in a no win situation. He had everything to lose, and nothing to gain. But in 2003, he'd lost twice to Lennox and once to Ruiz.

Roy was walking around with Evander's old belt around his waist. So Evander would have had the opportunity to have fought for his old belt.

Is any of this sinking in?

In 1998, Evander would have gotten no credit for beating Roy, and Roy had no title.

But in 2003, Evander would have gotten credit for beating Roy, and he could have gotten the belt back.

Get it?

A lot happened in those 5 years.

Five years is a long time in boxing, especially when you'd got two fighters in their 30's.

Please tell me I've gotten through.

I can't explain it any better than that.

In those five years, both of their circumstances had changed.

There was no contradiction.


:good

 

Finally, you're talking sense.

Now you'll gain much more respect.

So cross Toney and Eubank off.

You can also add Frankie Liles to the list, with no excuses.


:good

 

was eubank ever considserd a number 1 or 2 guy in his division?