Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver and Clinton Woods

which points do you disagree with troll :huh

 

You'll have to ignore that bellend, he actually accused me of hating all American fighters after I made a thread questioning if it was acceptable that Andre Ward was bringing Chad Dawson down to 168lb patsch

 

:rofl LICEMAN is just a ****ing troll, theres more common sense in a tin of spam :roflatsch

 

What points do you disagree with liceman? If you are going to make such strong statements, at least back them up. I suspect you are a troll, there is nothing worse than a troll. :-verysad:dead:barf

 

He´s an idiot HEAD´. Obviously trying to get a rise from us as he thinks it´s funny. Best ignore trolls like him, they are not worth our valuable time. :deal

 

woods did fight anyone. much props to that. but he was never very good. always a fringe b level guy. plus he is nowhere close to tarver or jones.

 

Your avatar is lethal. Troll on bro.

 

if liceman ever types another word on esb again, then i will lodge a tin of chappie dog food firmly up his revolting sludgepipe :deal

This content is protected

 

Agreed.

But Bailey, buried in his anti-American bias, actually has a point here: fighters, for decades have lost to other guys on PEDs, and that is fundamentally, and morally wrong.

 

Bailey,

Welcome back! We've missed you.

Yes I rated Woods for fighting Johnson. Just because Joe beat a guy who beat Johnson, does that mean he didn't have to fight Johnson?

Clinton didn't have any fights in America before Jones. And the point is? What? He flew over and fought Roy who was still at the top of his game.

Yes Pudwell was a late replacement for Tate, who Roy smashed in about 5 mins years before.

Answer me this simple question. Who was going to pay Joe millions of dollars to fight Roy in 2002? If I was a pro fighter, I'd have wanted the crown jewels to fight Roy. But if I'd have been in Joe's shoes, I'd have been realistic, and realised that I was in no position to be asking for them. Roy fought on HBO. The American's had hardly seen Joe fight. Again, how could he have been paid millions to fight Roy? It was totally unrealistic for Joe to be asking for a huge amount.

What difference does it make that Woods lost to David Starie, and hadn't fought in America? He moved to 175 and became Roy's mandatory with the IBF. He also didn't get paid much, but he took the fight.

Why do you keep mentioning Grant? We've discussed this numerous times. What's your point? Otis was Canadian who'd fought in America numerous times. It was an easy to fight to make. Otis was happy to fight at 175, and he was happy with his purse. Joe on the other hand, didn't want to fight in America, or at 175. He also made it clear that he wouldn't have fought for the purse that Woods and Grant fought for. That's how simple it is. Woods was willing to do three things to get the fight with Roy, that Joe wouldn't do.

We know that for whatever reason, Roy wasn't the same fighter post Ruiz. Roy wasn't peak against Woods, but he was still at the top of his game.

Here we go again, with Joe's call outs. So he called him out. So what?

Tell me, what else did he do?

He called Roy out on the Tyson undercard.

What did he do afterwards, to back up his words?

Please tell me. He called him out, and then??? What?? What then???

Who did he fight next? Who did he go on to fight in 2001/2002?

How did he try and get Roy in the ring?

Did he fight in Roy's Country? No.

Did he move up to 175? No.

The fight wasn't viable. We know that even if he had of been willing to do the above, his wage demands would have blocked the fight anyway. FW and HBO wouldn't have been able to give Joe the money that he wanted, because of the reasons we've discussed numerous times. Joe wanted huge money, but at the time, he was in no position to be asking for it. He was an unknown fighter from Britain, that held the lightly regarded WBO belt, that wasn't even recognised by the Ring, who you like to quote.

Woods fighting Johnson wasn't particularly special, but he was a better fighter at 175 than 168, and he'd have given anyone a tough nights work. Do you honestly believe that Joe was injured on three occasions against Glen?

Joe vs Tarver would have been a great fight too. But Joe said he didn't want to fight him, because he didn't rate him. How convenient. He said all he ever did was beat a shot Roy jones. That quote is interesting for a few reasons.

1. You normally agree with everything Joe says. Joe admits that Roy was shot against Tarver, but you don't seem to think so. You believe that Roy lost when his competition stepped up.

2. Joe ended up fighting Roy (who in his own opinion was shot in 2004) in Nov 2008.

Also according to you, it didn't matter that Joe never fought Tarver in around 2004, because four years later, he ended up beating Hopkins who beat Tarver. Ha! Maybe in 2004 Joe could see into the future?

You've got to love Joe really.

If ever a challenge came up, that he didn't want to face, he'd simply dismiss them as not being worthy, and that was that.

Tarver would have been a great fight, but Joe didn't rate him, so no fight.

Pavlik would have been a good fight, but Joe didn't rate him, so no fight.

Dawson would have been a good fight, but Joe didn't rate him, so again no fight.

Froch would have been a great fight, but once again, Joe didn't rate him, so no fight.

Isn't it funny then, that Pavlik, Dawson and Froch weren't worthy, yet a near 40 year old Roy Jones (who according to Joe himself, was shot 4 years earlier) WAS!?

I can't stop laughing!

You and Joe could and should be best mates, with your crazy twisted logic.

Bye bye then, I eagerly await your response.

Loudon.

 

[delete]