Thanks for that ..Too bad the fight was never made ,Did Jones ever agree to fight the winner of Johnson Collins ? And did he Jones ever hire Levin again ?
I'll be honest Roy was and always will be amongst my favorite fighters. I think alot of the hate people have for Roy comes from the feeling of being decieved or let down. As one of the above posters said he was our "Superman". A hero that people believed in. When the truth comes out about steroids suddenly people doubt that those types of accomlishments are possible without PED's. It's like a kid finding out Santa or the tooth fairy isn't real. A total letdown to say the least.
I'd love to sit down with Eubank and have a chat with him ,he's all class but did Bunce just say that Hagler avoided Grahm ? What's the story behind that ??Anyone ??
I'm not naive enough to think that, it couldn't have been a possibility, but I think the whole so called scandal wasn't taken serious by anyone. He gave his account, and it was pretty much accepted. He represented two other Governing Bodies. He represented them. Why weren't they in the slightest bit interested? Surely it would reflect badly on them? He was the biggest star in Boxing, and he represented their Company's. He represented HBO, they weren't bothered, he fought in New York a few times I believe, around that point. The New York State of Athletic are well respected. It took Jacob Hall 5 weeks to ask for another test. There was Jacob Hall, kicking up a fuss, and then a few months later he accepts a donation, and it never gets brought up again. Did he take a bribe? Why would he accept the donation? Why didn't anyone else seem interested? Were the other two Governing Bodies corrupt? Did they sweep it under the carpet? I just think the whole issue, is a stick to beat him with. If wasn't the roy'ds, it would be something else. They wouldn't affect his handspeed, his reflexes, his footwork. I know someone that used to take them. He told me that, he could train harder for longer periods of time, and he could recover quicker. Why would Roy need Roids? People on here are making out he hit twice as hard with them etc. Then there's the whole stamina issue, that I've discussed. If Roy was roiding the whole time, why has he always had stamina issues. He first started backing into the ropes at around 27, in 1996. Larry Merchant and Harold Lederman used to go mad and say, "I think he's given that round away, when he's in the centre of the ring, he's in total control, but when he takes a break on the ropes, he ships a lot of punches"! So, I honestly don't know what happened. But the thing that makes me angry, is people say that he was definately roiding his whole career. He did it until he got caught, and then after he stopped taking them he lost. It's absolute rubbish! Yeah he lost eventually, after 50 fights at nearly 36 after the sudden weight loss. But that was four years after he was supposidly taking them. Then when I ask posters like yourself the following question, "How was it then, that he seemed to cope fine for four years after?" I get the following ridiculous response, "His opposition was that poor, he simply didn't need them!" He didn't need his roids for, Harding, Gonzalez, Woods, Ruiz and Tarver, and then you imply that he lost to Johnson, not because of the sudden weight loss of pure muscle, in just 8 months, but because he was missing his roids. It's ridiculous! When Roy stopped taking his roids that he'd bought from Christopher Reeves, and he stepped up competition, he lost. Glen Johnson is not a step up in competition. Also, I'm not going to argue about the whole weight loss issue again, but just have a look at his physique against Kelly, Woods and Tarver, and then have a look at his physique against Ruiz. Ther's a world of difference. He was absolutely huge against John Ruiz! Roy simply doesn't get enough credit. His opposition isn't half as bad as what people make out. He beat good fighters with ease, because he was so good, but then afterwards, they suddenly turn into binmen etc. Keep up the good debate. Loudon.
On a sidnote. If there were no effective test procedures established when Jones caught, I dont think it is a stretch to assume most boxers in the game were roided up. This does not make it ethical, but it is what is. How much should a fighters resume be judged from it?
But that's all it is, an assumption. We don't know either way do we? It's just our own take on it. How can you judge a fighters resume on an assumption? You can't.
I see what you're saying with the steroids issue, and I'm not assuming that he used them his whole career, there's no proof either way. However, I suspect that he was using them for a time before the Richard Hall fight, when got caught. I don't subscribe to the view that he used them once, as I don't believe Richard Hall was such a good fighter that he would have felt the need to use them. As for the effects of steroids, yes they will increase your handspeed and footwork. If you can train harder and for longer, then it follows that you'll have better footspeed and handwork. Of course they will improve stamina as well, for the aforementioned reasons. Nothing was brought up again, because as has been explained, there were no laws in place with which to prosecute Roy. If there were, I'm sure Jacob Hall and the Indiana commission would have pursued the case. When Roy refused the follow up test, there was nothing they could do, why would they turn down a free donation!? Therefore, as we cannot ascertain how long Roy was using steroids for, all I said was it casts a shadow of doubt over his achievements before the Richard Hall fight. I'm not dismissing his achievements out of hand, however the steroids issue does hang over it. Onto his opposition, as I stated before, too many times Roy made fights against opposition that were vastly overmatched, I don't need to go through names and what they'd accomplished again. Look at the two big names after Toney, Hill and Mccallum, both were well past it when Roy fought them. Tate and Malinga are notable wins, however for a fighter with Roy's ability, it's not good enough. As I pointed out as an example, to earn his shot at Roy, Glen Kelly beat 15-23-0 Jamie Wallace. It really shows, when you want to compare him to the likes of Leonard, Hearns, Spinks and other greats. The criticism is that big fights were there to be made, and 1 or 2 not coming off is understandable, but the fact that Roy didn't fight any of the aforementioned fighters is beyond suspicious. I'm not talking about Lennox Lewis, or Vitali Klitschko either. Roy was past hit athletic best when he fought Tarver and Johnson, however there's no denying that they were a step up from the likes of Kelly and Gonzalez. The next criticism is that Roy was still capable of beating Glen Johnson, he was gunshy and Glen fought the perfect fight. Michael Spinks doesn't get enough credit, Larry Holmes doesn't get enough credit and I could name more fighters. When Roy gets mentioned as one of the greatest ever, when he gets mentioned with the likes of Leonard, Hearns, Hagler then I conclude that Roy gets too much credit. He didn't do enough to prove himself, instead he took the easier route, and avoided many tough challenges, it's frustrating because Roy could well have fought 3-4 of these guys that I've mentioned and beat them all.
Jones relied on speed, explosiveness and power. Steroids improve these. Other fighters have ring smarts and a lot better technique so you could question their need for steroid use, but definitely not Jones. You can see for yourself what happened when the speed went.
Please don't mention Roy Jones's steroid abuse, as an emotional fanboy it makes me very sad and I feel like crying :crybaby:crybaby also while you're at it can you also not mention Jones's complete lack of chin or the fact he has 0 fighting heart.
Splendid post Arcane. Many fan-boys are in denial about Jones and his disgraceful cherry-picking in his "prime." Here we have a guy who fought a string of absolute nobodies on HBO while telling us he was the P4P#1. What's worse is that he juiced up to beat these utter stiffs.:rofl