P4P better

I think Jones had a problem with Don King who was co-promoting with Warren at the time, they also co-promoted the rematch between Tyson and Bruno in 96.

 

This content is protected

 

Michalcewski fought questionable at best contenders in 5 of his first 6 defenses of the lineal belt and 7 of his first 10 defenses of the lineal belt. While RJJs made 9 defenses in that period after Virgil Hill with his only questionable defense being Richard Frazier. Michalczewski did defend against 6 real contenders out of 14 but it was mostly on the backend.

Erdei would take the belt to a lower level of competition still in his 11 defenses with his best opponents being Santiago, Ulrich and Garay with these guys being worse than every single fighter who fought for the lineal or IBF belts during this time. A lineal champ shouldn't be able to win a lineage and take it down to the local level for years and not fight any claimants. That is not the same thing as stripping a lineal champ for not fighting their mandatory or the various reasons ABC organizations strip their champs.

There should be some loose quality and time controls on the lineal belt. IMO 4-5 years without fighting a credible title claimant if one exists is fine and reasonable and would be the sort of limitations the public would put on the lineal champ if the alphabet bodies and the RING didn't exist as arbiters of such things. There should be a "smash glass in case of emergency" button for the lineal belt and RJJ v Michalcewski/Erdei is the classic case of why one is needed.

Also there is another recent example of this with Wladimir getting the lineage over Vitali. Vitali just had a new lineage for 2 fights when he retired and you can say its not the same thing but the main reason Wladimir was universally accepted over Vitali is it was blatantly obvious who the real champ was here. Wlads best opponent over their shared reign was probably better than Vitalis worst one. You could say people accepted this because Wladimir was Vitalis brother and they were never going to fight but why not Vitali over Wladimir then? Vitali was lineal champ who fought well against Lennox Lewis shouldn't he have more credibility? We all know why. The same principle applies to the RJJ situation.


Challengers who beat the champ by decision not getting the belt because of KO only rules has precedent before from the 1910s and 1920s. Jack Dillon, Tommy Gibbons, Harry Greb(x2), Stribling and Mickey Walker all won LHW title fights and did not win the lineal belt after beating the champ by decision. That was done for different reasons but the idea that someone who knocked out the lineal champ getting elevated over the one who beat them before has precedent. Only at LHW not at HW(sorry AJ fans reading this thinking you can pull a fast one).

Its not really fair to call RJJ a belt collector. Yeah he had cameos at MW and HW but at LHW he stayed in the division for 13 years with the exception of 1 fight. In the beginning when fighters are bulking up moving through the divisions is more defendable. If he couldn't make 160 he couldn't make 160 what do you want him to do? RJJ didn't fight Mich but he fought everyone else including Julio Cesar Gonzalez who later beat him. In a situation where 2 champs aren't unifying the one fighting the lesser competition is going to get the blame for not defending.

 

Am I misinterpreting this or are you claiming thar Glenn Kelley, Otis Grant, Derrick Harmon, and Richard Hall were "reasonable defenses?"

 

Yes I am claiming that.

Harmon and Richard Hall are half of Michalczewskis 6 "reasonable defenses" so I don't get the point of disputing them to defend Michalczewskis lineage.

Kelly was a 28-0 undefeated regional champ. Grant had 1 loss and was a WBO champion coming up from MW. Yes they are the weakest of RJJs defenses other than Frazier. They are better opponents than the 8 Michalczewski defenses I flagged as questionable.

 

Richard Hall was regarded as a terrible defense by Roy. He didn't get any respect at all until he gave Dariusz a rough fight later.

Grant, Hall and Kelly never saw it on Ring annuals at 175. Harmon came in at 10 and 11 in the early 2000s.

Kelly was so bad that I'm convinced that you weren't watching boxing back then if you're defending him. I don't care who Dariusz was fighting. They weren't as bad as Kelly.

 

RJ never fought Tiozzo.

 

Hall was ranked 9th by the Ring in 2003. He had been a weak WBA interim champ in 1998 so RJJ was fighting him to keep that belt. Harmon was 10th in both 2000 and 2001 both probably should have made it more. Harmon beat Glen Johnson in 2002 but at the time the importance of that win was not all clear. In 2003 Johnson would be 4th.


The Ring magazine rankings are not infalliable and make some very questionable decisions they are just better than the ABCs. They had Erdei ranked top 2 4 years in a row off the Gonzalez win and Garay took a spot 4 times because he almost beat him. It seems they were trying to respect Erdei and his opponents awhile but none of the 8 Michalczewski opponents I've mentioned ever made it. I'm not a big believer in rankings because they are so arbitrary especially on the lower end of a top 10 and they are more predicting what will happen opposed to commentating on has happened.


I said Kelly was one of RJJs easier opponents. Hes 28-0 had won an IBF eliminator and had been winning 12 rounders for awhile. That was a reasonable title defense.


I wasn't watching boxing in 2002. So? Were you watching during the 1970s?

 

My bad I made a slipup. Could swear he fought Tiozzo in the 90s. Will fix.

 

It’s relevant that you weren’t watching boxing because you’re trying to remake the reputations of Roy’s opponents. Hall and Kelley were rightfully regarded as awful opponents. Hall later had limited success and Kelley did nothing. Harmon was a little known fringe contender who stood no chance of winning. And I still don’t really know who Grant was.

Dariusz’s terrible defenses do not in some way elevate Roy’s. They both wasted their time with inexcusably bad opponents and that’s how it should be remembered.

 

I'm saying Kelly was one of RJJs lesser opponents and when I bring up Michalczewskis opponents you're like "I don't care Kelly sucks more". Theres "levels" to bad opponents. Theres undefeated guys who haven't been tested but have a nice regional resume then theres Muslim Biyarslanov who was 23-4 against sub .500 competition. Just because someone doesn't have a chance of beating the champion doesn't make them unworthy of a shot.

"Dariusz’s terrible defenses do not in some way elevate Roy’s." I mean they quite literally did. Thats why RJJ got the lineal belt because his SOS was so much better.

I don't think RJJs competition was bad btw it just. Frazier, Kelly and Grant are the only RJJ title opponents not to be in the Ring top 10 at LHW and Grant was top 5 at MW twice. Mich had 8 and would be surprised if 1 of those 8 were ever top 20 if they did such a ranking.


I just find it amusing how you can defend Wilders competition while denigrating RJJs.

Not just is RJJs competition not bad hes got one of the best SOS's of any long reigning LHW champ. RJJs got 9 opponents Hill, Tarver, McCallum, Montell Griffin, Del Valle, Gonzalez, Woods, Reggie Johnson and Hall who won some version of a LHW world title not counting Hopkins or Toney who he beat at lower weight classes. RJJs got 5 wins over opponents who won either the NABF/USBA double or Commonwealth/EBU double with Telesco and Harmon also being North American champs. . For a worst 3 title wins Kelly, Otis Grant and Richard Frazier are amazing.


The era right after RJJ was a stronger at the very top but that was a golden age. RJJs era probably had better depth but less worthy challenges. Those are 2 of the best eras in the modern history of the weight class.

 

You can't talk about Hearns without considerin' Leonard II, both were past their best but it's a nice win where he avenged his first loss only for the judges to stole it.
Overall, it's not that close imo

 

A big part of the reason Dariusz couldn't get good opponents to defend against is because he was stripped by the belt organisations right after beating Virgil Hill on preposterous grounds like for holding the WBO belt or not defending against mandatories mandated less than 3 months after his Hill fight. And you can't lose a lineage because you're fighting bums. Droves of the greatest fighters who held lineal titles would regularly fight journeymen, gate-keepers, and abject bums without a title on the line but would still have lost their lineage had they lost. A lineage is not a belt, it's a genealogy of who beat who back to whoever established themselves as the two best fighters of their day.

 

This isn't how lineal titles work and that's not why he was given The Ring belt, which is separate from being a lineal champion. The Ring withheld their title for the Hill-Maske fight out of some bizarre protest they were doing in the 90s against the muddled confusion created by belt organisations by not handing out belts again regularly until 2002. For some unknown reason though, they gave a Roy a belt to designate him the best in the division despite him not being lineal champion. In fact, Henry Maske was supposed to be Jones' opponent for his LHW debut in Germany but Jones turned this offer down and instead fought Merqui Sosa.

 

That fight is EVERYTHING to Tommy. Its his best win. Ray made him wait 8 years for it. It was VERY calculated by Ray to wait until he thought Tommy was shopworn. Little did Ray know he wasn't built for an Active career like Hearns, Duran, and Hagler were. They kept fighting, Leonard didnt. Ray used his popularity to go in and out of Retirement to make fights on his and Mikes terms only. Some worked out Hagler Lalonde, some didnt Hearns and Norris ... Anyway , Ray and Herans were great friends before 81 and still are today. They made each other.