Roy Jones.

No, as I said it could have gone either way. Nothing controversial about losing (or winning) such a fight.

Btw, this ESB article has Calzaghe as a greater SMW than Jones. Thoughts about that? http://www.boxing247.com/boxing-news/the-greatest-super-middleweight-boxers-of-all-time/37137

 

Absolutely. McCallum is one of my favourite fighters. Brilliant technician, but aggressive with it.
There's a lot of rewriting history as far as McCallum is concerned. He was a monster in his day, and for me is the greatest ever 154lb fighter.

 

Foxy 01,

There is no nonsense.

Roy's circumstances have now changed.

He's now fighting wherever in the world he needs to, to try and get his final CW shot.

He's no longer in the position of power that he was in during his prime.

How many fighters go to America to progress their careers?

There's literally hundreds of examples.

Roy didn't want to go to Germany, because he didn't feel he'd get a fair deal. Again, he was robbed in the Olympics and Dariusz dived to get Roch disqualified.

But the point I'm making, is that it's unfair to just blame Roy for the fight not taking place.

If you're upset that the fight never happened, then you also have to blame Dariusz for his part.

You have to take an objective look from different perspectives.

Roy was considered the best fighter in the world, and he had a huge ego.

He negotiated a great deal from HBO, and they accepted his terms.

Was he greedy? Yes, he was.

But how many people would have acted differently in his position?


Look at Floyd and his Showtime contract.

I believe that he got paid over $30m for the Guerrero fight.


Roy did get criticism from time to time, and it was justified. But he also had big fights in between his Frazier type opponents, and certain fights were hard to make.

http://youtu.be/4TPjvtASn0c


But the Frazier type fights that he had weren't his fault. Every fighter has to face their mandatory challengers. And because HBO had signed him on a long contract, they knew beforehand, that they'd have to screen his mandatory defences. Of course, they obviously hoped that they'd be big fights as well, that would make up for the less than stellar mandatories. But again, big fights aren't easy to make.

But things got worse after Roy had unified the division. Because he then had mandatory obligations from the WBC, the IBF, and the WBA. If the WBA made Rick Frazier the number one contender, then that's who Roy had to fight.

If they'd have named a better fighter to be his mandatory, or if Roy hadn't have been as great as he was, and the fights had've been competitive, then he wouldn't have gotten the same criticism.

So you had a mix. A mix of a great fighter, poor mandatory opposition, and big fights that couldn't be made (Dariusz and Hopkins II etc)

So I can certainly understand why Roy got criticised.

But when Roy's team and Kerry Davis of HBO, couldn't make the Dariusz fight in 2001, it was back to fighting guys like Gonzalez and Harmon.

So again, the criticism came due to frustration, but it wasn't all Roy's fault.

Roy's resume proves that he wasn't just content to keep fighting the Frazier's of the world.

John Ruiz was a decent HW. He wasn't great, but he was decent.

Styles make fights.

If it'd have been exciting, Roy would have gotten a lot more credit.

But because there was little action, it was deemed boring.

Roy's speed and power made him hesitant about trying to walk him down.

But that doesn't mean it wasn't a great win.

However you viewed the fight, it doesn't alter the fact that Roy had fought at JMW and MW, and then ended up dominating a top 5, 226 pound HW, at 34, after having 50 fights.

 

These Brits trying to trash Roy's legacy. If you want "Smoke and Mirrors" see Joe Calzaghe. Wouldn't travel to U.S. to fight the best. Stayed in Great Brittain and fought a plethora of mediocrities defending the Super Middleweight title. Then fought way past their best Jones and Hopkins to seal his "Legacy."

 

And then battered the new mini Mike Tyson who was by the way a U.S fighter..... :rofl:rofl

 

I'm an American, you dummy.

 

you mean the mediocre Jeff Lacy? That was before jones and Hopkins fights.

 

LOL.. But you speak English :good

 

Yeah Jeff Lacy who only became "mediocre" after Joe gave him the beating of a lifetime.... :hi:

 

Ruiz was a top five heavyweight. Ruiz had a title, yet Jones made that fight look no different really then title wins at lower divisions. If it was boring, then full credit to Jones.

In fights against Hopkins, Toney, Del Valle and Johnson to unify at 175 and then Ruiz at heavyweight you can easily argue Jones lost only 6 or 7 rounds in total.

Marketing, it's as simple as that.

 

I didn't say that at all.

Stop twisting my words.

It's you who is criticising his resume.

What I've said, is that Roy has a very good resume, and it stands up to ANY other fighter who fought in his era, across the weight classes he fought in.

Meaning, that if you don't think Roy has a good resume, then you can't rate anyone's resume from around that era.

Roy's resume could be better, as could anyone's.

Fighters miss fighters all the time.

But it's hard to fight everyone, especially as it's a business and there's lots of obstacles to overcome behind the scenes.

But all things considered, Roy has a very good resume.

It may not have been as great as other fighters, but that doesn't mean that Roy wasn't great.

 

I'm a Brit and who the hell around at that time would have beat Jones in his prime? He already beat Toney and Hopkins, what more did the man have to do??

 

It doesn't matter at all.

It gave Roy the upper hand in negotiating.

Do you seriously think that the number of years makes a difference between two guys who have huge egos?

If Bernard had've beaten Roy in 93, he would have used it to his advantage when negotiating, just like Roy did.

But Roy didn't need to fight Bernard again.


He'd beaten better fighters than Bernard had.

He was two divisions higher and would had to have lost weight.

He won the first fight whilst being injured.

Which meant a 50/50 fight was never going to happen.

Roy had to have the bigger share.


Bernard needed Roy, more than what Roy needed Bernard.

It was Bernard who was looking for revenge.

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


I see that you've ignored these comments from Bernard from 2008.

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Benz/Benz_1112a08.htm

 

I agree.

The guy was a class act.

I'm going to have to put you on the spot now, and ask who would have won between him and Tommy at 154?


:good

 

That's a great point you've made regarding Ruiz.

'If it was boring, then full credit to Roy.'

Exactly!

I can't tell you how many people I've seen on here, who dismiss the Ruiz win, but who credit Toney for the Jirov win.

Don't blame Roy for not being involved in competitive fights.

Appreciate how great he was.