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

Can you show me where someone has taken each point he made and answered with source for each? Its pages on and nobody has done it to my knowledge

 

I agree

 

why u enjoy laughing at your own failures, failey.

 

on the other hand Rico doesn't need to duck, with a head that small who could hit it.


I guess you could make a guesstimate swing at the space where you can hear the intermittent words "glass jaw! brutally KOed!"

 

:rofl

 

The quote is posted on the other RJJ thread ...Cirat couple of pages I can't recall which one ..

 

Tomey was a savage puncher ,Are you saying he want again :think

 

He sure did knock Michael Nunn's block off.:yep

 

He was not a savage puncher. List his top 3 KO's and what round they were in.

 

KillSomething,

I'm delusional? :rofl

You should be on stage.

The list was biased BS.

He had a handful of keep busy fights over 160, and then only 6 official fights at SMW, from when he moved up for Toney.

Toney was considered one of the best fighters in the world.

He then couldn't unify with Liles and Benn, so he moved to LHW which was a STRONGER division.

Now if he'd have stayed at SMW, you'd have trashed him.

So he was in a no win situation to a guy like you.

He didn't think about it. He went to Atlanta to meet Evander and his attorney to discuss the fight.

Don't embarrass yourself any further by trying to argue against what Jim Thomas wrote.

Here you are again, dismissing the Ruiz win.

Just what sort of a lunatic trashes that win, and then whines that he didn't fight Roch and Collins?

Ha!

As though you'd have given Roy credit if he'd have beaten those guys.

Nobody reading this thread would believe that.

I know you wouldn't have given him credit. All you'd have done, is picked two or three other guys from around the time he fought, and then questioned why Roy ducked them. You would never be satisfied because you're not objective.

If you didn't follow him until he got beat, then why are you stubbornly arguing with me? You are arguing about things that you have no real knowledge of. But worse than that, you're not man enough to either admit you didn't know certain things, or that you've been wrong.

How old are you? Because you debate like a teenager who thinks it's not okay to be wrong about things.

Roy didn't duck a lot of guys. Not fighting someone, doesn't equate to ducking someone. I used Collins and Joe C in my previous post as an example for you. Now I know that Collins didn't duck Joe. The reason he didn't fight him, was because Joe was just coming through, and Collins had no motivation. He just wanted to fight Roy. But what I did, was to use the silly logic that you've been applying. I was trying to make you understand how foolish you'd been. Whoever Roy didn't fight, you claim duck.

So I said "fine, we'll play it your way. Collins didn't fight Joe, so he must have ducked him." But then you got all defensive and came back at me with reasons why Collins didn't fight Joe, and why Joe didn't fight Froch. And the reasons that you gave me were correct. The reasons those fights didn't happen, was due to circumstances. But when I try and explain to you why Roy didn't fight certain guys, you simply don't want to listen. You get defensive and say "No, what happened was...." but when I do that, it holds no water. In your opinion, you are giving me reasons, but I'm only giving you excuses. You expect me to take on board what you're saying, yet you'll refuse point blank to read my reasons.

With regards to the Ruiz fight, if you think that win was pointless, then I genuinely feel sorry for you as a fan of boxing. And I'm not joking. Ruiz wasn't Lennox, and his style was awful. He's probably one of the ugliest HW's of all time on the eye. But he was a decent HW, he had some decent wins, and there wasn't a huge queue of other LHW's wanting to fight him, late in 2002. Now if you take all of the above into consideration, and also look where Roy was in his career and the manner of the victory, then it was a great win.

It's just crazy that you trash that win, then get upset that he didn't fight Collins.


1996:

Collins - A tough, but limited SMW.

Weight - 168 pounds.

Title - WBO (a lightly regarded title, that wasn't even ranked by the Ring)

Best wins - Eubank x 2, Benn x 2 (who was completely shot)

Roy's age - 27

No. of fights - 33


2003:

Ruiz - A decent HW, with an ugly style.

Weight - 226 pounds.

Title - WBA

Best wins - Johnson, Holyfield (past his best) Rahman, Golota.

Roy's age - 34

No. of fights - 48

Statistics don't allow for circumstances.

How could he have fought the other champs, if the fights couldn't be made? Liles didn't want the fight. A Benn fight was hard to make. Dariusz wouldn't go the U.S. and Roy didn't want to go to Germany. Which is why he ended up manoeuvring through different divisions, instead of spending his entire career at just one weight class.

Again, it's just circumstances.

He may not have been 'The Man' in any division. And that's a stick that you can beat him with. But he was considered the best fighter in the world for almost ten years, and he won belts in four divisions. He beat top ten ranked guys in four divisions. He fought as a JMW in 1991, and went on to beat a decent top 5 HW. That's better than being 'The Man' in one division.

Let's take Joe Calzaghe as an example, seeing as though you've mentioned him, and he was a great fighter. Joe was 'The Man' at SMW. He's considered the greatest SMW of all time.

But who accomplished more?

Who has the better resume?

Again, statistics don't allow for circumstances.


You've brought up lineal champs before.

But it wasn't Roy's fault that Dariusz was stripped, and if Roy had beaten Zolt Erdei in the early 00's, you'd have trashed him for it.


Now if you think that Roy's ONLY quality wins were Hopkins and Toney, then you are announcing to everyone reading this thread, that you have NO knowledge of the topic that you're stubbornly arguing against.


My advice to you, is to stop posting for a while, and spend some quality time on the classic, reading intellectual debates between gentleman. Gentleman who have copious amounts of knowledge, who are respectful of the fighters being discussed, as well as their fellow members.


:good

 

Rico Sp@ckerfora:

An encyclopaedia of boxing knowledge.

 

I have honestly answered the majority of the points on his other thread. But they're scattered around. I've posted numerous links.

I would honestly be willing to do it here, if I was debating with an intelligent adult.

But he'll dismiss anything that proves him wrong, or what doesn't suit his agenda.

So why should I waste my time?

 

Dam really You have been schooled on all of this over and over again