Why is Roid Jones Junior Loved and Revered Considering He's Been Clipped For PEDs (?)

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Pinkman, Feb 12, 2016.



  1. RememberingC.S.

    RememberingC.S. Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,493
    87
    Oct 9, 2012
    Pantani got his career absolutely wrecked by the cheating accusation (and it's recent news it may all have been made up by the mafia for the bettings)

    RJJ didn't give the slightest ****

    Nor his fans
     
  2. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    general zod,

    Yes, we've already established that.

    Again, I can understand their frustration, but I think what Abraham said in your links were harsh.

    Basically, Abraham and DiBella were happy to have the best P4P fighter on their network, they were happy that he was a champion, they were happy to show his title fights, but they didn't want to air any of those horrible mandatories.

    You may agree with that. But unless they'd have had a specific contract where they only showed his title fights and his voluntaries, then it was something that they just had to accept.

    It's as simple as this:

    If you have a champion and you sign him to say a 4 fight contract, you know that at least one of those fights is going to be a mandatory defence.

    The bigger the contract, the more mandatories there's going to be. The same applies to a fighter with more than one belt. The more belts he has, the more obligations he has from the organisations.

    It's so easy to criticise Roy for not ditching the belts and fighting the Hall's of the world.


    Let's look at what happened when Roy fought Mike McCallum:

    You originally posted the following link:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...lum-wbc-president-jose-sulaiman-wbc-appointed

    HBO wanted that to be a title fight to drum up more interest.

    Now I can appreciate that Abraham and DiBella must have been under an enormous amount of pressure. But simply put: They couldn't have their cake and eat it. Again, not unless they'd have had a specific contract with Roy that stated they wouldn't air any of his mandatory defences. Again, if you're happy for your fighter to fight for a title, and you've got a multi fight contract with him, then you have to realise that a mandatory defence/mandatory defences are going to be a part of that deal.


    What about his unification fight with Reggie Johnson? HBO wanted him to fight Reggie to unify the LHW belts. We know that from having read DiBella's comments, and from the graphic that Merchant showed live on air in Roy's post fight interview after he'd fought Ricky Frazier. They were more than happy with that fight. But when he became the unified champ, he then obviously had obligations from all three of the main organisations. Again, if you're happy for your fighter to win three belts, you have to realise that he's going to have to defend all of them at some point.


    So:

    HBO were happy that he beat McCallum for the interim WBC belt, (that was later upgraded) but they weren't happy when he had to defend it against the likes of Woods.

    They were happy when he beat Del Valle for the WBA belt, but they weren't happy when he had to defend it against Hall.

    They were happy when he beat Reggie for the IBF belt, but they weren't happy when he had to defend it against Kelly.


    So what was Roy supposed to do?

    Was he supposed to grab all the titles that he could, and then just relinquish them all?

    It's ridiculous.

    Read through your links. When did Naz, Oscar or Lewis ever give up all of their titles?

    It's unheard of. (Not that Naz and Oscar ever had 3 belts)


    The only two things Roy could have done to prevent him from fighting Hall, is:

    1. Ask for Hall to be put into an eliminator against Del Valle, like how he did with Tarver and Harding.

    2. Relinquish the belt.


    Considering that Roy had beaten Del Valle just a few years earlier, there was no point going with option 1.

    If he'd have gone with option 2, who would he have fought?


    In your link, it also states that Roy's final fight of his contract was to be against either Tarver or Hall in an IBF mandatory.

    Again, HBO were more than happy when Roy won that title from Reggie Johnson.

    If Roy had've relinquished the belt, what would have happened? Because if Roy hadn't have been able to have fought a big name fighter instead, and he'd have ended up fighting a lesser fighter than either of those two, then DiBella, Abraham and yourself, would have no doubt criticised him for it.

    You'd probably now be saying in this debate that he ducked the tough prospect of fighting either of those guys, to instead fight.....

    Roy couldn't win whatever he'd have done. He was in a no-win situation.


    Now please feel free to tell me if there's anything I've wrote above that you disagree with.

    Again, a multi champ has to fight mandatories. Also, it wasn't Roy's fault that his mandatories were guys like: Frazier, Kelly and Hall etc.

    No, Roy hadn't fallen out with HBO at that point. They were just frustrated because they were desperate for him to fight a big fight.

    Go and reread Paul Upham's other article with HBO's Mark Taffat that I posted.

    There was no falling out.

    Kerry Davis had done all he could to make a Dariusz M fight, and Taffet explains that they'd tried to make a Hopkins fight and they'd spoke to Don King etc.

    In the end, they were more than happy when Roy signed to fight Ruiz late in 2002, and when he signed to fight Tarver in 2003.

    You make me laugh.

    I was originally responding to your comments made to Young Terror. He said Roy was happy to fight Frazier etc, but not Tarver, to which you replied: "which is why his relationship with HBO would deteriorate to the point of no return"

    The above is nonsense.

    If you want to include the years up until 2006, that's fine. It doesn't make any difference.

    Did they cancel his contract in 2005, or was it not renewed? Hardly surprising considering that he'd lost 3 consecutive fights and was just a shell of what he'd once been.

    Yes, they fired him as an an*lyst in 2006. Ross Greenburg wasn't happy that he couldn't commit himself 100% because he was still an active fighter. Roy was happy to commentate, but he didn't want to attend the various pre-fight meetings etc.


    Now let's take a look at what happened after 2005 and 2006:

    2008: They aired his fight with Felix Trinidad.

    2008: They aired his fight with Joe Calzaghe.

    2011: They brought him back as an an*lyst to replace Lennox Lewis.


    So no, his relationship obviously hadn't deteriorated to the point of no return.


    To this day, he's still an an*lyst. He worked for them just last night on the Manny-Bradley fight.

    He's worked for them on and off for the last 24 years since 1992.

    He fought on their network over 30 times.

    Sure, they've had their ups and downs, but overall, he's had a very good relationship with them over the years.


    I'll leave you with a quote from Ross Greenburg from 2009:

    http://www.boxinginsider.com/headlines/talkin-boxing-with-hbos-ross-greenburg/


    :good
     
  3. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    I've covered most of the above in my previous post to you.

    Once again, I can sympathise with Seth Abraham's frustrations. But I don't know how he can say that Roy was satisfied to fight lesser fighters, when he authorised the Brannon pre-fight interview, and he spoke of Roy looking to fight Douglas and Evander in some of your earlier links.

    At the end of the day, you can quote him as many times as you want. He was only one man, who again left HBO in September, 2000.

    I know for a fact that Kerry Davis, Ross Greenburg, Rick Bernstein, and Mark Taffet, don't share Abraham's opinion of Roy.
     
  4. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    general zod,

    I'm confused.

    In the link that I uploaded, DiBella referred to Roy's pre-fight Brannon interview, where he listed all of the fighters who'd turned down big money offers to fight Roy in November. So why would DiBella have mentioned Nunn's name?

    Roy didn't offer Nunn big money, Nunn didn't turn Roy down, and he'd got a fight with Ruddy Nix lined up 2 months later, in January, 1997.

    Why couldn't talks have been going on?

    To be fair, if Roy had offered Collins big money mid to late 96 for a fight in November, Collins would still have had unfinished business with Nigel Benn at that point.

    How would I know that?

    What do you mean?

    You've just listed a number of Abraham's quotes from over the years. So why on earth would he have authorised the pre-fight interview where Roy was free to list all of the fighters who'd turned him down, had it not have been true??

    I think I can safely say from reading all of Abraham's quotes, that again, he was harsh on Roy.
     
  5. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    I've already covered the above.

    We know that HBO didn't want to air mandatories against the likes of Woods.

    Once again, you have quoted DiBella as saying such things as:

    When were those comments made?

    As we know, Roy went on to fight John Ruiz and Antonio Tarver etc. We also know from comments made by Kerry Davis and Mark Taffet, that efforts were made to try and secure fights against Dariusz Michalczewski and Bernard Hopkins.

    In the ESPN link that you've uploaded, you've quoted Xavier James stating that he wanted Roy to fight a better opponent than Woods. Which was fair enough. But in that same article he also goes on to state the following:

    So the question is this:

    Are you going to ignore comments made by Ross Greenburg, Xavier James, Mark Taffet, Kerry Davis and Rick Bernstein, to instead focus all of your attention solely on the comments made by Seth Abraham?

    Regarding my previous comments stating that Ross Greenburg tied Roy up to a new deal, if that was incorrect, then that's fair enough. Although there does appear to be some confusion. Abraham left HBO in September, 2000. But from the information I've read, Roy didn't sign until December. Also, it appears that he may have wanted improved terms at the last moment. But either way, it doesn't change what I said originally, which was: you only want to show links where Roy was criticised, and Roy continued to fight on HBO long after Abraham and DiBella had left.
     
  6. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    general zod,

    I said that OVERALL, Roy has had a good relationship with HBO since 1992.

    I've also said that Roy's relationship with HBO did not deteriorate to the point of no return.

    Why don't you take a closer look at the above links you've uploaded.

    You've shot yourself in the foot without even realising it.

    You've concentrated so much on finding some information where Greenburg criticised Roy, that you've failed to notice that in both of those articles he also gave praise to Roy, which were looking ahead to his fight against Calzaghe that HBO aired. So your comments that his relationship with them deteriorated to the point of no return are laughable. If that had been the case, they wouldn't have aired the Trinidad fight, they wouldn't have aired the Calzaghe fight, they wouldn't have brought him back as an an*lyst in 2011, and they wouldn't still be employing him to this very day.

    We both know that things with HBO didn't always run smoothly. Roy has a huge ego and he was/is very arrogant. But that didn't stop Greenburg dealing with his contracts after Abraham had left and it didn't stop him from saying in 2009 that he felt blessed to have been a part of Roy's career.

    In my honest opinion, had Roy not have suffered consecutive losses from 2004-2005, Greenburg would have given him a new contract.

    Again, Abraham was extremely frustrated. But he can't speak on behalf of everyone else who worked at HBO.

    If you want to agree with everything he said, that's fine. But if you want an objective debate, you have to be prepared to read the opinions of the rest of the HBO team that also played a part in Roy's career.

    You love uploading links where HBO criticised Roy. You've been doing it a long time.

    You love to portray to the other members on here that HBO were pi$$ed with Roy because he didn't want the biggest fights and that he was only content to fight easy mandatories because he had no ambition. Yet I know that you're not telling the whole story.

    Fair enough. That's up to you. But again, if you want me to take on board what Abraham said, you have to be prepared to take on board what a guy like Mark Taffet said.

    My point is:

    Again, despite a few ups and downs, overall, Roy has had a very good relationship with HBO over the last 24 years.

    If anyone should be making sarcastic comments here, it should be me towards you.

    Again, your comments that his relationship with HBO deteriorated to the point of no return are absolutely laughable.

    Do you know what the point of no return means?

    Again, if that had been true, they wouldn't have aired future fights and also rehired him as an an*lyist.

    Seeing as though what's written above is factual and not merely an opinion, you have to accept that you are wrong in what you have stated.
     
  7. Super Hans

    Super Hans The Super One™ banned

    48,580
    81
    Apr 18, 2013
    He has no right to be considered in Calzaghe's league.
     
  8. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    general zod,

    How does any of the above alter what I originally typed?

    Fine.

    It was hardly an in-depth interview with him that focused solely on his relationship with Liles.

    I'm assuming he'd have opened up more had the interviewer have asked more questions on the topic.

    No disrespect, but I'm sorry to say that what's written above appears to be pure desperation on your part. And the funny thing is, it was you who originally uploaded this link a few years ago, to prove to people that Roy tried to fight Frankie Liles.

    Roy's pre-fight Brannon interview would have been aired to millions of people. So if what was said wasn't true:

    1. Why did Abraham and DiBella authorise it?

    2. Why didn't Liles refute it?

    3. Why would O'Halloran have lied?


    Now it's perfectly plausible that O'Halloran may have exaggerated his input in Liles' preparation. But exaggerating his input and saying that Frankie blew a great fight by asking for more money are worlds apart.

    Why do you think he was lying, when he was convinced that Liles would have beaten Roy?

    It doesn't make sense.

    Again, he may have exaggerated. But that's not to say that he didn't give Liles some advice what he took on board and executed in his fight with Littles.

    Ha!

    Maybe she does.

    Now enough of all the what ifs, give me something that refutes his claim that Liles blew a great money offer.

    Again, as well as O'Halloran's comments, we've also got comments from DiBella and Abraham. Or would you like me to ignore them and just concentrate on the comments where they criticised Roy instead?

    How on earth do you know how long he stayed with him? That's just a complete guess on your part.

    Again, tell me why you think O'Halloran would have outright lied with his comments regarding Liles blowing a big fight opportunity against Roy.

    You said that Roy was blatantly lying about King being a potential hold up because King didn't promote Liles at that point.

    You were wrong.

    King did promote Liles at that point in 1996.

    Did you not watch the YouTube video? It was Showtime's version of the fight.

    In his post fight interview, Liles was asked what his future held. To which he replied: "I'll have to talk with my promoter Don King."

    Regarding the link that you've provided, it hardly says anything. It's just one line that says Liles is to be managed by Frank. To my knowledge, that never even happened.

    Liles went on to sign another 4 fight contract with King in 1997. Either way, you were wrong in what you said.

    Roy was not blatantly lying.


    Great debate.

    :good
     
  9. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    Quite right.

    :good

    :lol:
     
  10. Super Hans

    Super Hans The Super One™ banned

    48,580
    81
    Apr 18, 2013

    :good

    Especially after shot Calzaghe took the drug cheat to school. :deal
     
  11. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    :deal
     
  12. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
  13. DM was the man at 175. Roy held paper titles wrongfully stripped from the champ.
     
  14. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    Boxing politics hurt that era. But Roy proved he was a better LHW to me.
     
  15. Joe.Boxer

    Joe.Boxer Chinchecker Full Member

    7,471
    933
    Jan 8, 2011
    Roid Jones, Jr isn't "loved and revered" :lol: He's the laughing stock of boxing after being exposed as the biggest cherrypicking ducker of his generation, a PED cheat, compulsive liar, and of course a glass-jawed disgrace who's too damn dumb to even know when to stop getting KTFO :patsch