School me on Dariusz Michalczewski ...

Good post. That pretty much sums up the situation in the late 90s.

 

Of ****, here we go...

 

Decent fighter. Good jab and solid power. But he was rather stiff and was on his way to near certain defeat before shamefully getting Graziano dq'ed.

What annoys me about RJJ (and I know that the European fighters like DM should take some portion of the blame) was that there were all these highly competent euro fighters (people like the Brit SM's, Graziano and DM at LH) that he would've beaten fairly easily and received enormous credit for. If the will was there it would've happened and it was lacking on both sides.
Jones must've known that he would've beaten them all without too much difficulty so why not get a neutral venue? A huge football stadium in the U.K to watch him bamboozle DM! Would that sell? I think so.

 

Jones is still fighting because people are from some reason paying million +, and he honestly thinks he can win another title.

I'm one that has always understood that niether man was ever really interested in fighting one another. DM because he was happy fighting the guys he was fighting, and Jones because he never thought much of DM. The differance is Dm made his career off of Jones' back. By telling his fans jones was next then saying they offered this and that. While Jones just never cared. He said he wasn't going to Germany be he would fight him the next day if he "brings his ass over here"

 

He should have lost to roccigiani first time round.

He was the man who beat the man at lhw but he quickly became just a champion on paper.

His and jones's ego couldn't fit in the same room together which is a shame as the two were 1 and 2 for the most part of each other's reign.

When I say he was a paper champ I mean that he had the lineal claim but he was quite evidently not the best lhw in the world. His championship status was just a paper one.

This is evidenced by the reality that jones was a much greater lhw than dm and would have been a big favourite had the two ever fought.

If you bum linearity you could argue that he was number 1 throughout jones's stay at lhw.

Any fluid dynamic system of ranking will have seen jones take top spot by the end of 98 at the latest.

Bottom line is, in situations like this were both men are claiming to be world champion for a significant about of time (like wills-dempsey) the two should meet each other to settle any argument.

The more you read about boxing the more you learn the lineal myth lost it's importance around about the 80's.

Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world linearity would be the best way to do things, unfortunately we live in a world far from ideal.

To sum up, i'd say he was a very technically solid boxer who gets a tad overrated by anyone who visits the cbz website and leaves thinking lineage is the be all and end all.

 

Ego seems to be one of the biggest problems in the sport right now.

 

you make a good point about the lineage. Truth is it hasn't been the man that beat the man in a long time. And when they just started to award the lineal title in random fights it lost its worth. DM was never a lineal champ in the true sense because he never beat the man nor was he ever undisputed Champion.

 

it's the problem with having 5 championship awarding organisations. you can have multiple people claiming to be the best in the division all demanding the lion's share of the pot and or home advantage.

 

the problem was when the belts began proliferation there was more than one way to get to the top. Straight away there's more money in a "champ v champ" fight than a "champ v contender" fight.

Once this became the norm, the idea of "the lineal champ is THE MAN" soon became lost.

Look at the HW scene, the lineage was contested between 98 year old foreman and never has been shannon briggs. Meanwhile the two best HW's in the division are contesting the WBA title (Holyfield and Tyson).

It's clearly obvious which one of them is more historically relevant.

 

There has always been a ton of belts and titles. The differance is the importants now placed on abc belts whereas in the past the lineage was more important. For the record foreman was at the time the real lineal champ. Its still in its purest form at heavyweight.

 

It doesnt come down to one fighter being tailor made for the other or any of that speculation bull****, its comes down to the fact it is another fighter that Jones did not face during his career, Calzaghe gets **** loads of grief (some of which is fair) for not facing the absolute best yet Jones Jr gets off scot free because apparently as "Superman" he was too good to face anyone or for anyone to prove a challenge and thus somehow it alright that he didnt face certain guys, seriously **** all the excuses, if other fighters get lamented for not always facing the best compitition then sure as **** Jones shouldnt get a free pass.

 

yeah foreman had the lineal claim but noone in their right mind thinks foreman v briggs was more of a championship fight than holyfield v tyson.

Boxing now (in terms of championship status) has regressed about 100 years. This is how it was originally. You had a few people in each division claiming to be the best, back then though, 9 times out of 10, these guys fought each other to unify the claims.

 

:deal

 

Guy was usually talking multiple flush shots to the head in order to give one you typical know-nothing noob.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected