Roy Jones' Legacy...

......
I am embarrassed for you... If you are going to criticize someone's grammar -rightly or wrongly- at least learn how to spell.

You certainly do "present as an American stereotype". And you clearly have no understanding of what the word "present" means in this context.

A wisdom nugget just for you:
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." ~ Abraham Lincoln

You compound your faults. Not only are you stupid, you are also a liar. I was debating a respected poster out here and jump in with "ok mr rose tinted glasses" and then follow up with "Your so full of **** its unbelievable"... the first one I let slide.

You're name-calling is long-standing out here and is indicative of your simple mind. Additionally, it demonstrates that you are a coward. You are safely overseas so you provoke people who would cave in your face. PowderPuff is an ignorant, lying, coward.

If you really believe this, then you are ignorant, lying, cowardly --and insane.

 

McCallum only schooled Collins for the first half of their fight when Collins was on the backfoot trying to box.

he punched himself out seemingly and struggled a good deal when Collins turnd aggressive brawler.the second hafl of the fight was more or less evenly contested.

The 40 year old Slow as hell McCallum would get mauled and physically totally obverwhelmed.

 

What's your definition of "the man"?

I'd always took that term to mean the guy who cleans out the division and is recognized by the people as the undisputed champion - like Lennox Lewis once he'd beaten Holyfield or Hopkins once he'd beaten Tito. Roy never did that at LHW.

At LWH, Dariusz won many of the same belts Roy did, beat many of the same opponents, was a recognized champ for the same amount of years, and went about the same amount of fights before being decisively beaten at around the same age. I agree that Roy is the more accomplished and probably the better fighter, but the difference in credentials at this weight is not what you are exagerrating it to be.

It's not "moot". It contradicts an earlier statement by you, that a guy with one of the longest title reigns in a division's history must be ranked among the top 10. You're absolutely right, that alone isn't enough to do it, and there's a whole host of other factors that must be considered - and that goes for both Dariusz and Roy.

Half the fighters floating around the division in recent years didn't start there - Calzaghe, Hopkins, Toney, Glen Johnson, Reggie Johnson, McCallum, Otis Grant, etc., etc. What's your point?

In the course of Roy's title reign, the most standout fighters in the division were Dariusz and Tarver, and later Glen Johnson - none of whom are considered true greats (as you yourself acknowledged). If they're not great, and the rest of the division is at least a notch or two below them (and some even moreso), how much can you build up those guys?

Did I say it does? Or didn't I just say it was just one of several mars against him that combined prevent him from being a top tenner?

Anyway, think about what you're saying: He went a full seven years without fighting the biggest standout opponnet in his division by far, who was right there in that division the whole time, won a bunch of titles and eventually went 48-0. Are you saying that shouldn't be considered any kind of a mar against him?

Most of the points I've made have been outright FACTS. (Unless you think it's just my opinion that Roy was flattened by Tarver, or that he never fought Dariusz, etc. ...) What the hell do you need to back up FACTS for??

The burden of proof here is on you to explain why certain facts should be disregarded, aren't relevent, etc. - and in most cases you haven't done that.

Hill unified against Maske, and then Dariusz beat him to further unify. Most of the belts Roy later held had previously belonged to them.

Did Jones?

No, but neither did Jones.

Hill did, once he'd beaten Maske.

Well, the better fighters of Roy's division were Dariusz and Tarver, and Roy certainly didn't dominate them.

However, Hill did dominate many opponents during his title reigns and probably against roughly as good a level of opposition as Roy.

No, that depends several factors:
1) How much past his prime the fighter is.
2) The opponent and his circumstances.
3) The severity of the loss.
4) People's general expectations of the fight.

That's very significant though. Tarver was one of Roy's best opponents at the weight - and as has been said, he was not a true great. If Roy can't be guaranteed to beat someone even of Tarver's level, how does that look compared to those LHWs who are among the ATGs?

You're right, being one-punch KTFO once in 50-something fights could probably be forgivable.

But one-punch KTFO twice in a row... Sorry, that's asking a helluva lot.

Quitting in a rubber match with Tarver because he's petrified of getting hit on the chin again doesn't help his case either.

Not it isn't. Fighters can become more succeptible to bone breaks and injuries as their careers progress just as much as their chins can weaken. In fact, Hill was already being plagued by various injuries before that fight and would continue to be so afterward.

Roy is no more deserving of a revisionist excuse than Hill is.

I don't know.

Did Roy have a degenerative disease affecting his chin and determination?

Then don't. Try explaining why Roy should be given a free pass in circumstances that other fighters aren't and haven't - that's the real crux of the matter here.

Nothing I've actually said has been revisionist though. You can try to dismiss me as "biased" or whatever all you want, but the revisionism is still coming from you.

According to many people, yes.

And if Spinks had walked through him in two rounds like Roy was, I can't even imagine the ridicule he would've gotten (and still would be getting today).

As I clearly explained:
1) Arguably winning the rematch.
2) Coming back to beat Ray Mercer.

Again, the kinds of things ROY HAS FAILED TO DO.

Eh? What the hell fight did Roy beat Calzaghe in? :huh

What's incorrect about my analysis?

More likely you were just hoping I would analyze it differently, or that I would overlook the flaws in your comparison.

 

Stoneshands, i have to say that your Internet threats are rather childish and not very Christian of you (and it's not the first time). Can't you just show the other cheek?

 

I agree with these points.

 

You were full of ****, hence I called you on it and your zero knowledge of boxing, thats not name calling you brought it to that level. You were posting either lies or ignorance or both, so now on I will refer to you as the LIAR. I proved you wrong on many of the bogus points, not that you'd admit it, rather ignore the truth like the fool you are

And you do have rose tinted glasses, compounding modern fighters indiscretions while ignoring past fighters who may have done the same

So from now on perhaps I will refer to as the lying ignorant 1.

Again the Internet hardman routine comes out, but you've blatantly never stepped in the ring, I know you wouldn't dare say any of these things to my face, so go on 'Mr Hardman' where are you from, due to my business interests I travel the world, I'm all over Britain, in many US states, maybe I could pop into your local boxing gym, not that they'd have heard of you down there

 

I don't "threaten" -I offer illuminations when provoked. When provoked. When posters like this guy, or I am Legend, or a couple of others whose names I've forgotten start crossing lines, I sometimes will respond as I did here. Posters who do what PowderPuff do, would not do it if this forum was in a room. And I find that more than mildly irritating.

Understand as well that there have been exactly 4 posters that I have "gone there" with in ~4 years. I will resolve to reserve my illuminations in PMs; That way there is no misunderstanding my motives.

Christ was no pacifist although he did call for meekness. That is a tough one to follow -at least for me. However, it is Lent and I did allow my intolerance of ignorant cowards to lead me into sin. My penance will be to bow out. (Lenten reminders sometimes come from peculiar places.)

 

If you wish to go on believing that:

1. A prime Jones lost to Tarver

2. That DM had a case for being the lineal champ over Jones in the 90's

3. That Jones defeated mostly mediocre opposition

4. That Jones was a " chiny" fighter despite never having been Ko'd prior to age 35 and after fighting through 4 weight classes.

5. That he wasn't a top 10 all time great lightheavyweight, and that his rather lengthy reign was all smoke and mirrors.

Then feel free to go on believin' my man. Nothing I say is going to change that view point and I'm sure as hell not going to waste anymore time arguing with someone who claims that Jones was at his best in 2003 or that it was entirely his fault that the DM fight never happened and that one unmade match exludes him from being an all time great..I for one, live and breathed every moment of boxing during the 90's, and for some reason don't recall hearing too many of the claims that you are making now.. Revisionism on my part??? I don't think so. Sounds more like selection bias on the part of a person who has made it painfully obvious that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about where a certain fighter is concerned.

BTW, I still haven't seen this elaborate list of yours containing TEN LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHTS who are BETTER than ROY JONES, But don't bother. My interest in the matter is gone.:hi:

 

Then don't argue with whoever that mystery poster is claiming those things (obviously not someone from this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone post any of those claims here) - try arguing with the points that I've actually made instead.

Then either your recollection is bad, or you don't live and breath too well. Roy was hounded by most of those claims through most of his LHW tenure.

Anyway, given your rampant insistence on either deliberately distorting my points, ignoring them, or asking me to repeat them 100 times, you haven't shown your powers of observation to be so ace anyway.

But your botched analysis of Holmes-Spinks that blew up in your face was right on the ball, correct? :roll:

You mean the one right here I posted just a couple weeks ago? http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3486908&

I'm still waiting for a direct answer whether Dariusz was in your all-time top ten, remember? :nono

Good. It was completely irrelevant to this thread. Like I called right from the beginning, it was nothing more than a ruse on your part to distract from the real issue at stake here. That you ever had any "interest" in it from the beginning shows just how much whatever your "point" was hinged on derailing the discussion rather than defending your case. Clearly, without such things, you didn't have a leg to stand on - as we now see by your clamor for excuses not to defend your indefensible position.

 

Considering that I have focused on whether or not he was past his prime ENOUGH to excuse a quick one-shot KO loss, rather than claim he was still in his utmost prime, you are mistaken.

That's because the thread topic asked for ROY's legacy, not Dariusz's.

Meaning what? That those criticisms didn't exist? (which is what you tried to claim) Or just that you don't agree with them?

That's where you're wrong. They DO devalue his rating for losing that fight, but he did other things afterward to compensate for that devaluation and raise it back up - though who knows what it would be if he hadn't lost that fight and had continued to 49-0 and onward. What you're saying is that Roy's losses should not even factor into his rating in the first place. That's not the same thing.

No, I clearly addressed it with my point about Holmes redeeming himself nearly beating Spinks in rematch and later whupping Mercer.

The response I got from you there was some bizarre comment about Roy beating Calzaghe. I asked you to elaborate, but got no response.

Roy didn't clean up the division, so this concept you keep pointing to of cleaning up a division "the way Roy did" is a contradiction.

But I take it you DON'T have Dariusz in your top ten, correct? That's the direct one-word answer I've been looking for in this thread, but haven't gotten.

No one said he couldn't have been. The topic of this thread is Roy's legacy, so only his share of the blame in the fight not happening is what's relevant.

No, because my arguments never had anything to do with who else is in my top 10.

You left out the part where you said it was based primarily on a particular figure, the length of his title reign, which you are now backing away from.

That's because that's what it is.

No, I directly addressed most of your reasoning with FACTS - ie: things that are absolutely tangible, that have actually happened.

The empty rhetoric came from you, when you invented nonsensical arguments like "There was nothing else for him to accomplish - so that excuses him for not being able to withstand Tarver's best punch," and "If he can manage to go 50 fights without being KO'd, then we should stop continuing to evaluate him."

What "blasphemy"??

So now you're likening Roy to a religious figure?? atsch

Which is what you were doing.

Even though I said I've already listed those ten fighters numerous times on this forum? (as the link I posted here already shows) atsch

What kind of zany conclusion is that??

I guess you must feel like a total jackass now the that proof otherwise has been bitchslapped you in the face. :rofl

Or are you just going to continue to deny that you've seen my list? (just like you claim to have not seen/heard the various criticisms of Roy during his title reign)

 

LMAO.......

You wanna see who the REAL jackass is? Tell ya what dip****, go take a look at the poll I started this afternoon entitled " Is Roy Jones a top 10 all time great lightheavyweight? " Also check out my other Poll entitled " who do you think the MAN was at lightheavyweight from 1997 to 2003 ". Then tell me if you think your so called opinion sizes up with the concencus.......


Better luck next time my man.... :finger

This content is protected

 

GO TAKE A LOOK IN THE THREAD I DIRECTED YOU TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ONE YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR, AND YOU WILL SEE MY OPINIONS FIT IN QUITE NICELY.

Great way to self-own yourself even more, jackass. :rofl:rofl

 

WTF?? Did you even read your own thread before you posted that **** above??

But thank you for providing me with all this outside support - which is ironic, since I wasn't the one looking for help elsewhere in the first place.

The one who needs "better luck next time" is you apparently. You're going to need it in order to refute all these arguments in these threads you started here. :rofl


Meanwhile, getting back to points that neither you nor your "other threads" have yet addressed...

Can you explain what is this mysterious fight you refer to in which Roy upset Calzaghe?

Do you have anything further to say about the obvious double standard your assessment Roy's KO of Hill and Tarver's KO of Roy?

And do you have anything substantial to say about your "Roy had nothing left to win, therefore he was shot" storyline that you apparently just made up off the top of your head?

You know, all these points that your own position (not that of people's in other threads) actually hinged on.

 

You do know what the word concensus means don't you? It means things like majority, popular opinion etc. About 80% of the forum agrees with me, but you're too dense to see that. And no, I never needed a shred of help in schooling your ass. I merely wanted to show you what a moron you looked like and I'd say that I've done a pretty good job of it.****patting myself on the back****

Every point has been addressed. Its YOU who have been hiding behind your own pathedic spin on things and avoiding the plain truth which is that Roy Jones has more than enough substance to his legacy to be a top 10 light heavyweight. Claiming that his lengthy reign means nothing because it was matched by a plastic titlist who wasn't THE MAN, is one of the most desperate acts of revisionism that I have ever seen, as was your attempt to deduct points for a past prime loss, which by the way we could do all day long with most other champions.

YOU'RE the one who brought up what you termed as " Past prime efforts" or something to that effect. You mentioned Holmes' win over Mercer, and I then mentioned Jones' "EFFORT" against Calzaghe. The difference of course is that Holmes won whereas Jones didn't, but then Holmes wasn't exactly in there with an all time great who he managed to deck in the first round was he?

Get the facts strait. Jones was only in his third or fourth fight at lightheavyweight and crushed Hill with a single punch. Tarver was a natural lightheavyweight his whole career and actually LOST to Jones the first time they met. Comparing apples to oranges isn't going to get you anywhere. Besides, Jones' legacy does not rest on the shoulders of the Hill win nor the Tarver loss, so get your head out of your ass and start debating real criteria like how many lightheavyweights can you name that reigned as long as Jones and were as dominant. DM's WBO reign won't cut the mustard.

You took what I had to say out of context and in so doing confirmed your desperation and comprehensive incompetence.. I said that Jones was 35 years of age AND had both gained and lost a lot of weight within a short period of time to capture the heavyweight title ( another thing that you can start firing off names of other lightheavyweights for, and whether or not they succeced. ) I THEN said that between the age, weight shuffling and having been to the very top of the mountain and back, that it was possible he could have lost motivation. In either case he received the nod against Tarver in the first fight and I don't devalue a champ for past prime losses.... If you're going to do that ****, then why don't you take points away from Moore, Charles, Foster and everyone else for their late losses.. Oh I'm sorry, bringing up factual comparisons is only detracting from the issue.......Right?

At least I'm the only one between the two of us that ACTUALLY MADE A REAL ARGUMENT. Hell, you challenged my statement about Jones being top 10 and couldn't even answer a simple question when called on it....

I am going to now charish my victory while I leave you to savor your defeat

Enjoy 2sense. :hi: