Criticizing Jones' resume

KillSomething,


Part 1:

I've told you that I'll happily debate this topic with you for as long as you wish.

But all I'm looking for is some objectivity.

Now you are not looking for an objective debate. Look at the thread title?

Now being a huge fan of Roy's, I can tell you that I wish he'd have fought other great fighters. I'm upset and as frustrated as everyone else, that certain fights didn't get made.

But the reason I've joined this thread, is to prove to you and everyone else, that Roy did not duck and dodge, and he wasn't just content to fight B and C class opposition. He did not choose the path of least resistance.

That is a common misconception.

Fights aren't always easy to make, and boxing is a business.


Now the facts that I've put forward, are new to you.

Otherwise:

You wouldn't have asked why he didn't unify other divisions.

You wouldn't have asked why he didn't fight Eubank etc, and why he ducked other fighters.

You wouldn't have asked about his weights before and after Ruiz.

You wouldn't have asked why he didn't fight other fights at HW.


You clearly have an agenda.

You are happy to put forward details of when HBO were unhappy and frustrated with him, yet you are not prepared to look at the details where they actually supported the fact that certain guys wouldn't fight him.

You can't have it both ways.


You're happy to detail facts such as he never beat a lineal champ, yet if he'd have beaten a guy like Erdei, you no doubt would have ridiculed him for doing so.


Now I shall answer all of your points.

I've never said he was in his prime. I said that he was 28, and Roy was 24, and had an injured hand. I also pointed out that after he'd lost to Roy, he didn't lose for a further 12 years.

Many fighters would have have struggled with a peak Nunn, and Mike McCallum, because they were top drawer, elite fighters.

Toney didn't have any good wins after?

I know that Toney was weight drained. But IMHO, it wouldn't have made any difference if he'd have been fighting to his full capabilities. Stylistically, it was always going to be one of his toughest fights.

Montell was a good fighter. A small, defensive counter puncher, who worked with Eddie Futch. The manner in which Roy beat him, was spectacular. He knocked him out in the first round with a lead uppercut. Not just an uppercut, but a lead uppercut, and Griffin weighed 180 plus pounds.

Roy did fight some terrible opposition, as does every fighter. When he was the unified champ, he was obligated to fight mandatories from three organisations.

I never said belts don't matter. I was saying that statistics don't always allow for circumstances.

I've proven to you that Roy wanted better opponents. I've proven to you that he went up to HBO, and he said "Right, you find me who you think is a suitable opponent, and I'll fight them."

Roy heavily relied on his athleticism. But to say he lacked boxing skills, is a joke. There's many great athletes in boxing, but they couldn't put together the things that Roy could.

Roy did make good fighters look ordinary.

The trouble with you, is that you only think that Roy has two good wins on his resume.

You try and kid people into believing that all Roy did was fight nobodies, and he lost as soon as he stepped up and fought Johnson and Tarver.

Which is absolutely laughable.

You don't even rate the Ruiz win, on the grounds of:

Ruiz had a horrible style.

Roy didn't beat Lennox Lewis.

The achievement wasn't as great as it had been when other fighters had accomplished the same feat.

Which is fair enough.

But you won't allow for ANY other circumstances.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Many people think that he ducked Nunn.

But I don't.

My opinions are based on facts and logic.

Roy tried to fight Liles the year before.

The Nunn fight was going to bring $1.8m to the table.

At the time, Roy approached Evander Holyfield and enquired about a potential fight.

A fight with James Douglas was then signed for around $6m.

Roy's father then talked him out of it at the last moment.

So in the end, instead of him fighting Douglas, or Nunn for $1.8m, he then fought Hill for $3m, and was given a Rolls Royce Corniche as a gift.

Again, if you think it was a duck, that's fine.

But I like to look at things based on logic.

If Roy at 28 years old, feared a 35 year old Michael Nunn, why did he try to fight Frankie Liles the previous year, (who'd beaten a better version of Nunn in 94) who IMHO, would have been a much tougher task for him?

Why would he have fought Reggie Johnson?

Why would he have fought Tarver three times in his mid to late 30's?

Why would he have fought Joe Calzaghe just weeks from his 40th birthday?

Roy has a huge ego.

He'd never have purposely put himself out there to get beat, just to earn a decent payday.

A guy at 28, who feared Nunn, would not have gone up to HW at 34, and then fought the likes of Joe at almost 40.

It would have been illogical.

 

KillSomething,

Part 2:

I have never said that Roch ducked Roy. Far from it. I've actually read an interview where Roy said that he wouldn't have been that keen on fighting him, and he'd have much rather have preferred to fight Dariusz instead.

I've said that they were conflicting accounts of why the fight didn't happen.

But yes, IMHO, it's not a glaring omission from Roy's resume. Roy did beat better guys, and he did take on bigger challenges, such as fighting Ruiz, and burning muscle at almost 35, to drop back down for Tarver etc.

I also stand by my opinion, that if Roy had've beaten him, you wouldn't have given him any credit for doing so.

Because a guy like you will never be satisfied. You wouldn't have been satisfied if Roy had've beaten Lennox Lewis.

The whole purpose of this thread, was so you could hate on him.

More nonsense.

Dariusz had nothing to do with the WBC belt.

They weren't handed to Roy. atsch

I never said belts don't matter. I said that Dariusz was left with the lightly regarded WBO belt.

Roy would not go to Germany.

Dariusz would not go to the U.S.

Each fighter had huge egos, and neither guy would back down.

But you hold Roy solely responsible for the fight not having taken place.

I've never said that Collins ducked Roy.

When Collins got into the ring with Roy, he hadn't fought for two years, and he'd never fought at LHW. HBO did not want to show that fight. They instead wanted Roy to unify against Reggie Johnson, which is what Roy did in his very next fight.

Collins was a good fighter, but I personally think that he was living off of his two wins against Eubank, and his two wins over Benn, who was shot at that point.

Roy did fight better fighters, and if I look logically, I find it hard to believe that a guy who ducked Collins between the ages of 27-30, would then go on to fight at HW in his mid 30's.

I've shown you a link, and everyone has seen the video of their famous HBO argument.

Roy held a win over him.

He was looking to go up to HW soon.

He would had to have dropped weight for a catchweight.

Therefore, 50/50 was never a fair split.

It was Bernard who had to make concessions to make the fight.

You are completely ignorant with regards to this fight.

Roy NEVER classed himself as the man at HW.

You completely ignore the fact, that in 1991, Roy fought at JMW.

You completely ignore the fact that Roy was a 34 year old LHW at the time, who'd fought 50 times, and what he did, was NOT a common thing to do.

Only a hater like you would completely dismiss the win.

There wasn't a queue of other LHW's smashing down Ruiz's door in 2002, all trying to get a fight.

I never said it didn't matter, and I don't value Roy's win over Ruiz, as much as I value some of the previous wins by those other fighters.

But you don't value Roy's win at all, which is just pure ignorance on your part.

Yet more nonsense.

Don't quote me on things that I haven't said.

I didn't say he was shot.

I said that Buddy McGirt said that he thought Roy was on the slide, and that Mackie Shilstone who is highly respected, advised Roy to stay at HW, because losing muscle can effect the immune system.

It was two points for you to consider.

Roy had already beaten Tarver, while he was absolutely exhausted in their first fight.

IMHO, he would always have caused Roy problems, but I think Roy would have beaten him when he was younger, fighting to his full capabilities.

IMHO, Glen caught Roy at the right time. He was not a step up. He fought Roy just a few months after Tarver had brought his world crashing down.

Go and find one person (not a troll) who thinks that Glen Johnson would have beaten Roy at his peak.

Your opinion is:

Roy fought NOBODY, but when he finally stepped up to fight Glen, he lost.

Which is embarrassing BS.

I never said that the lineal title wasn't important.

What I said is, it all depends on the circumstances.

It's not that important to me that Roy didn't win it, because I know what he achieved throughout his career.

Any title wins, as well as any other wins for a fighter, always have to be put into context.

You saying that Roy didn't win one, is just your way of beating him with a stick.

Did he have the opportunity to win one?

If he'd have beaten Zolt Erdei in the early 00's, would you have given him credit?

I'm of the opinion that if Roy had beaten him, and I'd have mentioned it to you on this thread, you would have laughed off the victory.

Why do I think that?

Because of all the nonsense you've typed within the last few days.

You will never be satisfied.

HBO were always hard on Roy.

They ripped him at certain parts of his career.

Larry Merchant and Ron Borges were his harshest critics.

They weren't softb*ll questions in that interview, and they would NEVER have aired Roy saying those things, if they WEREN'T true. The panel was independent.

You have been shown a link with Jack 'O Halloran, who was Frankie Liles's manager, speak about the period of time that was referred to in the Brannon interview.

He was well respected.

He genuinely thought that Frankie would have knocked Roy out.

He said that Frankie had a GREAT fight lined up against Roy, but BLEW it by asking for more money.

We don't need to know the specifics, because this was Frankie's manager talking.

He was so upset with him, he called him foolish, and then walked away due to frustration.

So what more do you want here?

You've got to be an idiot, if you think that HBO would have aired an interview where Roy was free to say to millions of people, that certain fights couldn't be made, if it hadn't have been true.

HBO gave Roy full backing in that interview.

Again, what more do you want?

You've watched that interview, and you've read multiple other links that I've put forward, yet you'll still dismiss them and pull Roy's career to pieces, claiming that he wouldn't fight anyone.

Now stop embarrassing yourself and admit that things weren't as clear cut as what you originally thought.

Again, the word irony doesn't even scratch the surface here.

You have misquoted me, and you have dismissed all of the evidence that I've put forward.

The title of this thread tells every single person who's either read it, or who's read it and posted on it, that you have an agenda, and are not willing to have an objective debate.


If you want to have an objective debate with me, I'll gladly give you one.


:good

 

Other than Toney and Hopkins, who are these great fighters that Roy made look ordinary?

 

You just answered your own question name someone else who could have made fighters of that caliber look ordinary ?

But he did knock out Virgil Hill with a body shot

Also took Reggie Johnson to school also put on a clinic against the first man to beat Darius M.

 

HBO had the worlds best fighter on their network.

They wanted him to fight big fights.

Why wouldn't they have?

But again, it wasn't always possible.

Roy had three belts.

Which meant he had mandatory obligations from three different organisations.

Woods was a mandatory challenger.

Now go and look at any other fighters resume.

They all have Woods type fights on their resume.

What happened after this article had been published?

Roy fought Ruiz, and then Antonio Tarver.

HBO were more than happy with those fights.

Also, if Bernard had been willing to take a lesser cut for the rematch, we could have seen Roy fight Hopkins II, Ruiz and Tarver.

In the article, it says that Roy tried to make the fight.

 

Look at the thread title.

He has listed some facts, but he'll refuse point blank, to objectively look why Roy's career turned out the way it did.

He won't allow for ANY circumstances, and he's now stubbornly arguing against actual evidence.

atsch

 

Op is bias ass Calzaghe fan boy he can't be taken seriously !

The **** he blames Roy for doing countless of fighters have done the same but if their either European or British they get a pass from him..

 

Roy Jones Jnr is one of the greats of boxing, anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about in the boxing game.

His record speaks for itself Ruiz, Woods, Hopkins to name a few, also to go the distance with Calzaghe another great In boxing, deserves the credit he's due.

 

Ruiz and Woods were awful. The article linked earlier on ESPN by Steve Kim exposed his opposition. He was ****. Ruiz doesn't even need explaining.

 

:good

 

becoming only the second man in 100 years to hold world level belts at mw and hw,

two of the most thorough and uncompetitive decisions over not shot atg's ever filmed

i wouldn't be too embarrassed.

 

OP only embarrassed himself

 

general zod,

Read carefully.

If I have given the impression that I have slandered Roch, then I apologise.

That was not my intention.

Ok?

I said that after doing some digging last year, I found a number of contradicting accounts.

Yesterday afternoon, I read some old threads on this forum, where Power Puncher had put forward some interesting links, and I also found a thread where me and you had debated.

On that thread, you typed 'people talk about his drinking, but....'

So you mentioned the rumours.

Now I'll have to go and reread what I typed yesterday, because I didn't mean that I could produce a link where it was discussed.

To be brutally honest with you, I may have gotten the info from yourself, or from other members on here.

I honestly can't remember.

But you must have gotten the info or heard the rumour yourself, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

I haven't gotten the link to hand.

We know this.

Kohl reportedly made two offers to Roy, for him to go to Germany.

We all know the saga.

It's been done to death.

He didn't want to go to Germany.

Roy, 2001 - "To be honest, I don't think a knockout would be enough over there."

Which is why he quoted ridiculous money.

But he was prepared to fight Dariusz in the U.S.

Kohl said 'If you don't want to come to Germany, you better make us a damn good offer for us to come to you.'

So Brad Jacobs and Kerry Davis got together, but Kohl wouldn't take their phone calls.

He even admitted that he was purposely avoiding their calls, because he was upset that Roy had turned him down twice.

In the past, you put forward links from 2001, where Davis couldn't get a meeting, so he came up with a proposal to stage a double header in the U.S. which had to be faxed over.


Now do you really want to drag it all back up again?

 

general zod,

He was in a position of power, and he landed himself a heck of a contract.

Did he abuse it?

No.

Because if he'd have abused it, he'd have had no intentions of fighting Liles, Dariusz, and a Hopkins rematch, and he'd never have fought Toney, Ruiz and Tarver etc.

If he'd have abused it, he would only have fought the Halls and Harmon's of the world, and nobody else.

If it hadn't have been possible, Davis never would have pursued it.

Hopkins and Calzaghe.

I would say that Griffin and Reggie were on a similar level.

Fights against Ruiz and Tarver were bigger challenges.


Roch was a MUCH better fighter than Liles?

In the past, you have stated two things.

1. That Roch was a 'Woods' level fighter. (and you weren't joking)

2. That Liles could have beaten Roy.


Roch was a good fighter.

But MUCH better than Liles?

He lost to Eubank, Maske x2, and Dariusz. Although they were obviously very good fighters, and the first Dariusz fight was a joke.

He also beat a faded Nunn, Malinga, and he had a draw against Seillier

Obviously, he was a southpaw, and I believe that he would have caused Roy problems.


Liles was bigger than Roch, and he'd beaten Roy in the amateurs.

He beat a better version of Nunn, he had decent wins over the likes of Sosa, and he knocked out Tim Littles in their rematch.

He lost towards the end of his career to Byron Mitchell.

But I think he would have given Roy a tougher test than Roch.


So I've no idea why you think that Roch was MUCH better than Liles?

I respect your opinion.

But I don't think not fighting him left a glaring hole in his resume, all things considered.

Not to the jokers like KillSomething.

If he doesn't rate the Ruiz win at all, then why would he have given him credit for beating Roch?

I can.

I know they wouldn't have given him any credit.