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

They don't like my links, because it destroys their biased agendas.

Funny how Rico keeps constantly bringing up the time when HBO publicly ripped him, yet then ignores the times that they publicly backed him.

 

Selective criticsm at its finest

 

Right, so the Ruiz win was pointless, but a win over Roch would have been sensational?




Everybody was frustrated with Roy's opponents. Because he was beating them easy. But when bigger fights couldn't be made, what could he have done?

Now this is about the 5th time that you've mentioned that HBO was pi$$ed with the situation.

You love that they were pi$$ed with him, because highlighting it, is great for you to include in your posts.

But answer me this:

If you supported them when they publicly criticised him, HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THE TIMES WHEN THEY BACKED HIM??


You're in the middle of a debate, you can't just pick and choose the negative bits out.

You love this:

http://youtu.be/Nf5i3YDDXw4

Which is cool.


But you can't get hard by watching that clip, whilst pretending that this one doesn't also exist:

http://youtu.be/4TPjvtASn0c


You can't pick and choose.

You have to objectively look at both of those interviews.


Gonzalez was a mandatory. They weren't pi$$ed with that. They knew that Kerry Davis had been trying to make a Dariusz M fight.

Also, HBO had a pre approved list, and they knew full well when he extended his contract in 1998, that if at any point he'd have unified the division, he would have had mandatory obligations from three organisations.

Your posts read as though HBO were shocked that he fought easy mandatories. But they weren't. They knew they were going to be screening his mandatories. And if the WBA and the WBC made guys like Frazier and Woods mandatories, what could have been done about that? HBO knew those type of fights were going to happen, but like the rest of us, they also thought that other BIG fights were going to happen in between.

But again, you've seen the Dariusz M links, as well as this one:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/stories/2002-07-10-jones-hopkins.htm


Big fights are hard to make.

 

You seem to not be able to understand what we are telling you. Yes a win over Roch would have been light years better than wins over Grant, Hall, Frazier, Kelly, and Gonzalez. What does that have to do with Ruiz? It isn't mutually exclusive. Ruiz was a one time deal where Roy systematically handpicked the least threating Heavyweight who has no skill, power, or ring savy for a trinket belt.

What I and others have been telling you and proving with what actually happened (not what you think would happen, should happen or coulda happened you are NOT psychic) is that Jones had an intent pattern of taking the easy way out throughout his whole damn career with the LONE exception being James Toney in 1994. If this were a court of law the judge would slap the gavel and say case over. Jones clearly had intent on his actions. You can't blame Don King, Seth Abraham, Kerry Davis, Larry Merchant, or anyone else. The blame for what happens falls on Glass Jaw Roy Jones.

 

That is an abysmal Glass Jaw especially the Glen Johnson KO from a nothing punch. :roflatsch

 

:rofl:good

 

Yeah, I can tell you are doing a little bit of both at times... It can be hard to pin point though, you are pretty good at it.:good

 

Just out of curiosity what round did that happen in ?

 

The Road Warrior would without a doubt shatter Rico's fragile glass jaw.:yep

 

What part of " credibility and Roy Jones, or anyone to do with him " is a contradiction in terms are you having trouble understanding?

It all stems from the drugs cheating and the lies that accompanied it.

Jones claimed to have taken a drink that was bought over the counter in a drug store. This was palpable lies, as the test showed he actually had 5 times the acceptable level of said drug in his system. Furthermore the last statement in the saga was from the Indiana commission which said.

" Our findings do NOT concur with the recent statement from Mr Jones. "

( That was the drink from over the counter garbage excuse )

This proves without fear of contradiction that Jones is both a liar, and a cheat.

Now for my money here is the interesting part.

The Indiana results were swept under the carpet / kept under wraps call it what you will for a good number of months, and the testing actually occurred in May 2000. Given the facts that

(a) he cheated

(b) he lied about it

(c) it was covered up for a considerable time

Who is to say he wasn't given a more sympathetic outlook towards his drug use by friendlier ( southern ) states?
Fact: at the time of the Hall fight he'd had 42 fights.
Fact: 25 of them were in Florida, and other southern states.
Fact: After winning the 160 title in Washington his next 3 fights were in Mississippi, and Florida.
Fact: After winning his 168 title in Nevada he defended it 5 times, 3 of which were in his home state of Florida.
Fact: He wins the interim 175 title in Florida, the full title in Connecticut, then has 6 fight prior to Hall 3 of which again are either in Mississippi, or Florida.

I'll say again.

We KNOW Jones is both a LIAR, and a CHEAT, we also KNOW that the Indiana testing was kept quiet for a long time.

Therefore it is far from unreasonable ( particularly if the evidence was presented in a court of law ) to suspect Jones of cheating during his career at least up until the Hall fight. Also given that he is a PROVEN liar and a cheat is quit reasonable to presume he has zero credibility, and by extension his excuses for not fighting certain guys can easily be seen as ducking.

So I'm afraid the words credibility and Jones Jr simply do not belong in the same book, never mind the same sentence.

Nice try though.