Roy Jones' Legacy...

No, a consensus means minority views have been taken into consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion."

Congratulations on completely ****ing yourself once again.

80% of the people who voted in your thread didn't even agree with you yet, and that's nowhere near everyone in this forum. atsch

What about the roughly 80% of people who posted top tens in the thread I already linked to that agreed with me? I like how you ran like a petrified ***** from that one, only to start your own thread asking for the same damn thing. atsch

Then you shouldn't have run away and gone looking for it.

Not unless you can prove that all those posters who share the exact same opinion as me are "morons" as well. Unless you can somehow pull that off, you're basically ****ed.

But great job opening that can of worms for yourself.. :good

No it's not, it was a common criticism during his reign.

Yes we could. What's your point?

And YOU said that your Holmes comparison would prove my point wrong. So far, it's only supported it.

Now you're trying to distance yourself from it as much as you can.

But WHY ??

Which makes them completely incomparable.

So do you actually have something to defend your Holmes comparison, or not?

You mean the way Hill was also beaten by ex-middleweight Hearns, or Tarver also lost to ex-middles like Glen Johnson and Hopkins? What's your point here?

The best fighters a guy faces in his weight class IS real criteria. In fact, it's probably the best criteria a fighter could have. That's where a fighter proves his actual effectiveness and the extent of his quality and substance. Some of the best quality fighters at this weight (and in all weight classes period) never even had title reigns to begin with.

If a fighter's legacy doesn't rest on the quality of his opponents and his success against them, that in itself is a mar against that legacy.

And in Roy's case, if he never proved himself better than Tarver-level at that weight, then that's an even bigger mar against his legacy, no matter how long he managed to stretch out his title reign.

It does if you're putting so much emphasis on stats and numbers like you are.

You can't give Roy credit for being unbeaten for so long, and not do the same for Dariusz.

You can't give Roy credit for winning certain titles and then not Dariusz for winning the same titles.

You can't say "Look at the numbers/stats" one minute and then say "Yeah, but look beyond the numbers here..." instead.

You want to have it both ways, but you can't.

No, you said it was DEFINITE that he lost his motivation, and that because of that, that he was "done" (your exact words).

Now you're saying your argument there rested largely on a "possibility". That completely diminishes the validity of your argument.

Then you're making a conscious choice not to assess them fully, and shouldn't be expecting other people to go along.

I do, I take points away for any embarrassing career loss, late or otherwise.

Yes, but even so, I've been playing your game anyway - and so far winning it.

No, a real argument doesn't hinge on "possibilities" and assumptions - ie: "He had lost his motivation, and therefore was done and can be excused for getting KO'd."

Which "simple question" was that? The one about Holmes? The one about my top 10? The one about the definition of consensus? :rofl

In the end, I've answered each one of those, and each time you've responded by floundering aimlessly, and now your most pathetic venture yet, running around starting "polls."

You don't have a "victory" to cherish yet, because any "victory" over me hinges on you solidifying your position in those other top 10 threads that you've suddenly made the crux of your argument. :nono

That, and finding a way to rewrite the definition of "consensus."

You might wanna get cracking...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Wikipedia? Is that the best you can do?!?!? Oh boy,this just keeps getting better.
Here, try using a real source. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
When I want to look up a definition, I prefer webster.

con·sen·sus
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports&#8230;from the border &#8212; John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

You say I'm ****ing myself and you comeback with Wiki-definitions. Hilarious.

The current numbers of the poll I established are roughly 72% yes to 28% No, but why let fact prevent you from dancing around the issue the way that you've been doing for two days now?

It was more for my own amusement to see how you'd react to the numbers, which I was confident would come back in my favor. Naturally, you responded in the exact mannner that I predicted by refusing to admit the very nature of your douchebaggery.

Well, now that depends. Some of them actually have the balls to justify many of their picks - something that would have helped avoided this terrible loss of time on both of our parts had you only shown the guts to do so in the first place. No, you preferred to have me stand alone in the open with my ass hanging out in the wind while you threw rocks, but when asked to discuss those who you rated higher you only accused me of attempting to do the same thing that you were already doing.....Nice

What can of worms? I am very satisified with the results of the poll and as for those who disagree, I am actually having some interesting and civil conversations with them. What I find most refreshing is that there are still some personalities on this forum who are creative enough to come up with more than just empty nonsense.

If avoiding a single challenger prevents him from reaching greatness in your eyes, then I'm guessing that there are a lot of great fighters who don't make your list. Dempsey only defended his title 6 times in 7 years and avoided Wills longer than Jones and DM avoided each other. Yet, he makes a lot of people's top 10 heavyweights. For me personally, failing to meet one challenger in a near 7 year reign doesn't quite exclude the guy as a great fighter.

My point is that its a weak criteria and while it shouldn't be ignored all together, you're probably feeding too much into it where Jones is concerned.

Actually I stand by it rather steadfastly. Holmes is a top 10 all time great heavyweight who occasionally even makes some people's top 5. Holmes suffered a past prime defeat at age 35 the same way that Jones did, only 1) he was facing a man moving up in weight as opposed to Jones fighting an established member of his division, and 2) he can't claim to having at least beaten that opponent once the way that Jones can against Tarver. In addition, Holmes also happens to be a fighter who avoided not one but a few top raters in his day. Additionally, he never unified the title ( wheras Jones did ), and was even stripped of the one belt that he had. Yet, none of these things prevent him from reaching top 10 status.. Now, THE POINT of the comparison was to show you how contradictory your rating standards were, because these are the EXACT perameters that you've set for Jones. Am I wrong? The only way that I can see you getting out of this is to either:



A. Change your criteria for rating Jones.

or

B. Claim that Holmes isn't a top 10 heavyweight, which I think would plunge you even further into the depths of the minority.

First of all you cut off my sentence and only responded to HALF of what I said. If you're going to quote me then do it fully or you're going to get called on it everytime. Secondly, We were talking EFFORTS here, and Jones was in the ring with an all time great whom he gave a great effort against despite losing. Ray Mercer was not an all time great, though I do credit him for the win. Incidently, if you're going to credit Holmes with beating a prospect, then consider that Jones defeated a pretty good unbeaten fighter in Anthony Hanshaw who was coming off a fairly respectable streak..

You missed my point. The reason I don't view Hill's loss to Jones and Jones' loss to tarver as being an identical comparison is that while both Hill and Jones were past their primes, Hill was not facing a fully established member of the division the way that Jones was when he suffered HIS past prime loss... Hence, I do not believe to be arguing on a double standard. Additionally, I give credit to both Jones and Tarver for beating great opponents, but don't necessarily hold it terribly over Jones and Hill's heads given the stage of their careers. Clear?

Were Hill and Tarver the " best " fighters Jones faced in your opinion and does his win over Hill and losses to Tarver define his whole lightheavyweight career in your eyes?

Precisely why you should look elsewhere other than just Tarver and Hill when looking at Jones.

While the man never defeated anyone like Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Bob Foster or Michael Spinks, he defeated plenty of guys who were at least on Tarver's level or even slightly above. What's more, he dominated many of them in more than convincing fashion which I think counts for something.

But it can't really be applied to DM though by virtue of the fact that he wasn't the lineal champion. In the 1990's the WBO was hardly recognized as a title at all let alone a true world faction. That's my problem with your whole attempt at trying to derail Jones claim to a long reign and doing so by claiming that there was another REAL champ running parallel with him when there clearly wasn't.

I give Dariusz full credit for his impressive run, but can't call him the lineal champ of his era, and while I think not fighting Daruisz hurts Roy, I don't think that it condemns what is otherwise an admirable career.

I believe I touched upon some of this above.

Let me make it clear that I am not scrutinizing the career of Dariusz Micalzcewski. I am merely focussing on the career of Roy Jones. I don't have a problem with DM, but I don't think that it would be accurate if either of us called him the lightheavyweight champion of the 90's.

Before you make this accusation why don't you revisit my comment about the Holmes comparison above and your rating criteria.

Fine, If you say that i used the word DEFINITE, then DEFINITE is what we'll work with. My point is that Tarver was not in there with the best version of Jones.

 

There was more that you said, but I'm at work and don't have time to respond to it. Besides, I think I've basically touched upon the core focus of our disagreement. I will duck out of this duscussion by saying that I stand by my ascertion that I feel Roy Jones Jr. Was a true all time great who's case can be made for being one of the lightheavyweight division's top 10 fighters. I acknowledge the fact however that an equally strong case can be made for him not being there as well, but I do NOT agree that such a case can be made soley on the basis of the standards that you have set such as:



1. A loss that came past prime.



2. The avoidence of only one challenger within a near 7 year reign.



From this point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Um, you might wanna use your buddy Webster to look up the words UNANIMITY and SOLIDARITY that are in the your definition. They mean that EVERYONE's opinion is taken into consideration, not just whatever the majority happens to be.

Since when were the results of whatever polls you might throw together "the issue" here? :huh

Eh? At what point did being in the minority of some poll you started constitute "douchebaggery"?? :huh

Like what??

You're getting hit with the EXACT same points I already made in this thread.

When I made these points, you claimed I was just "making them up" or whatever. But all of a sudden now, you're claiming these are "creative" points??

There's your mistake right there, Dariusz was not "a single challenger," he was his co-champion and rival for the claim to the #1 spot in the division. On top of that, he was considered the best and most distinguished opponent available for all of Roy's reign, by far.

In actuality, I felt there was probably more than just one fighter Roy probably could've/should've fought but didn't (ie: Rocchigiani) but this was a fight he NEEDED to make for his legacy.

I don't know how you can claim that, Willard was the undisputed champion when Dempsey beat him, Miske was considered just as qualified a challenger as Wills, and Carpentier was the biggest fight in history up to that time.

Yet despite all this, neither one of those losses were as embarrassing as Roy's two losses to Tarver.

None of whom ever had any lineal recognition or posed any challenge to his #1 status, and moreover, none of them actually distinguished themselves from those top raters that Holmes actually did fight.

But they DID prevent him from reaching top 10 status in many people's minds, as I already pointed out. He was never given any kind of "free pass" for these things, which is what essentially you're asking me to give Roy.

Yes, you are.

I also clearly referred to Roy's failure to avenge the Tarver loss or redeem himself in any way afterward, as one of the biggest marks against him.

You asked me when you first made this comparison, what did Holmes do to overcome those marks that Roy didn't, and I already pointed that out.

ONLY if you could first make a case that Roy somehow redeemed himself in the way Holmes did.

No, "we" were not talking about "efforts." I was talking about WINNING. I pointed to the fact that Holmes UPSET Mercer, not merely made an "effort" against him.

I don't, I give him credit for beating a clear cut top contender with at least two big wins over other top contenders, and who was a huge favorite to win.

What's the basis for calling Hanshaw "pretty good"?

At LHW, yes, along with Calzaghe perhaps.

A large bulk of it, yes.

Whatever legacy I can come up with by looking elsewhere is not going to be nearly as good as a legacy gained from looking at the quality of opponents/wins.

I find that to be an extremely questionable statement. What light-heavy that Jones beat can claim to be better than Tarver, or even as good? Griffin? Woods? Reggie Johnson? If their fights against each other are any indication, they weren't.

Tarver is one of the very few contenders/titleholders in the division to distinguish himself from the rest of the muddle of contenders, and generally have a winning record against common opponents with Roy at that weight. And in fact, he's the only one of his opponents that can seriously claim to have been the best opponent available in the division at the time Roy fought him.

It counts for something perhaps, but for exactly how much does it "count"?

Moore, Charles, etc. dominated the same kinds of opponents just as easily and perhaps sometimes moreso.

Whoa, hold it here!! Your logic here is all wrong. Being the lineal champion has absolutely NOTHING to do with what other title(s) you happen to be holding. It's a whole other matter unto itself. In fact, some fighters recently (ie: Barrera, Casamayor, Marquez) have been recognized as being the lineal champ despite having no title whatsoever at the time.

Hill was the recognized lineal champion when Dariusz beat him, and that passed on to Dariusz when he beat him (along with unifying the IBF, WBA, and WBO titles). Simple as that. No matter what else happens, Dariusz will always be able to claim the lineal title until someone actually beats him at that weight. You can't just "take away" lineal recognition from someone and give it to someone else - it pretty much goes against the whole concept of being lineal.

 

On its own you could possibly excuse Roy, but combined with the 3 or 4 other big mars Roy has against him, it becomes exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.

I'm really not looking to call him "the" champion of the '90s, only to point out that Roy's own claim to being "the champion" was majorly disputed - which is particularly significant in this case, as you had pointed to Roy's title reign as being what most of his legacy hinged on.

There's no contradiction about my views on Holmes/Jones. Holmes took steps to redeem the holes in his legacy, Jones didn't - and that's with Holmes having a lot less in need of redeeming anyway. There would only be a contradiction if:
1) Roy had redeemed himself following the loss to Tarver, or
2) Holmes had never done anything of note after losing to Spinks.

Maybe he wasn't, but it's not at all uncommon that fighters have to fight while not being at their absolute best. Hopkins was farther removed from his best when he fought Tarver than Roy had been, and didn't just fold from the first clean shot Tarver landed on him. Merqui Sosa and Omar Sheika weren't at their best when they fought Glen Johnson, and neither of them were shut down and outclassed, then KO'd. To the contrary, they all found ways to win. Tarver didn't look at his best in the third fight with Roy, and still outboxed him clearly. You can't just say we should turn a blind eye to a guy getting losing simply because you can make a case that he wasn't at his absolute best. You could do that for just about any fighter's loss. Quite the opposite, it's one of the most important things to look at with a fighter, how a fighter handles adversity is an indication of the extent of his toughness and resilience. The better a fighter is, the better he usually does in this respect.

 

If you're going to narrow down/ simplify my points, then you should be sure to add #3 (one of the most important of all), which is:

3. Fought in a largely weak/indistinguished division.

 

Looks like the last chapter of the Roy Jones Jnr story is still to be written ?, Roy looks like he is going to carry on after his win over Sheika, he would like another World title shot, seemingly Roy does not care about who the opponent is, where the venue is or even what weight division, so watch this space.