Steve Collins: "Roy Jones ducked me"

You are still hung up on the word "duck."

We were past that.

In post #63, I said... "..So you can use the word 'ducked' or if you prefer, 'avoided.'

It appears that your issue here is definitional...the definition of "avoid."


Roy agreed (verbally) to fight Collins.

And the fight never took place...FOR WHATEVER REASON(S).


Therefore, he avoided him.


By definition.

 

Taking a better option is not classed as avoiding someone.

You know for sure than when you use words like ‘avoid’ and ‘duck’ and especially on this forum, that you are clearly implying that Roy didn’t want to fight him out of him being a perceived risk etc.

You know that.

Everybody using those terms on this thread, are saying that Roy ducked him, clearly implying that it’s because he thought he might lose etc.

That’s clearly what a number of posters have implied.

So you either share their opinions, or you don’t.

If you do, then fair enough.

However, if you don’t think that, then why don’t you just say that he decided to go with another option, but where he was also open to a future fight?

Because the two wordings are obviously completely different from each other.

If you get 2 different offers to go out with 2 different friends of yours on a Saturday night for a drink, in two completely different parts of the town/city, then the one that you don’t take up, hasn’t been avoided by you.

You wouldn’t have avoided one friend in order to have gone out with the other one.

You would simply have chosen the offer that seemed more appealing for whatever reason.

I don’t see the need to take this any further.

Roy simply went with another option.

 

No, you couldn't be more wrong.

Anyone who believed that I was implying this would, by necessity, be profoundly stupid or illiterate.

You don't need to decipher what someone is IMPLYING when something is stated EXPLICTLY.

In my first post in the thread (Post #63) I stated:

This content is protected

And if that point was still not clear, I further stated in post #74:

This content is protected

No, that statement is false. As false as (2+2 =5) is false.

I have used the term in this thread, and if anybody believes that I am of the opinion that Roy was worried about losing or that I felt Roy would lose, then they are beyond any kind of help, other than a complete re-introduction to the English language, starting with the A, B, C...

Not only did I not imply that Roy thought he would lose, I explicitly stated the opposite.

If you even have to ask here, Loudon , or hold out any possibility that I meant that Roy was afraid of losing, then no offence, lad, but clearly you are incapable of comprehending what you read.

Hint: See what I said (not implied, SAID) in red above.

 

Yes, I UNDERSTAND exactly what you have said.

I’m simply telling you how it reads to others, despite what you have said beforehand.

It’s simply the wrong terminology to use.

You just undo everything that you have said previously.

You state CLEARLY that you don’t think that Roy feared him in any way, (which I understand) but then finish by saying that he avoided him, which is clearly everyone else’s term for the complete opposite of what you’d initially written.

There’s no need to argue.


Just go back to my friend analogy.

It’s very straightforward and easy to understand.


You have a friend called Matthew, and a friend called Emma.

If you chose to go out with Matthew, you would not have AVOIDED Emma.

If you’d chosen to have gone out with Emma, you wouldn’t have avoided Matthew.

Pretty simple.


It’s like a contradiction.

You say “IMHO, Roy didn’t in any way…………..”

Before then finishing with “So he avoided him”

It’s just silly.


You’re an intelligent guy.

Even if you profess how you don’t think that he ducked him, you know how the word ‘avoided’ is perceived.

 

You're right about there being no need to argue, and I believe I said several posts ago that you appeared to be hung up on definitions.

I am using the term in its literal sense, as in...

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Roy had agreed to fight Steve.

For reasons unrelated to confidence or fear, he fought Reggie instead, thus avoiding Steve.




I could understand your dogged pursuit of the matter, if I had simply stated hat Roy avoided Steve, and left it at that.

But given that I very explicitly made my views on the matter clear beyond any ambiguity, I'm at a loss as to why you're getting so riled up at me using a term based on its literal meaning.

At any rate, there is nothing to argue about in regard to Roy being afraid of Steve.

Unless....


Which of these two posts would you feel maligned Roy's character more...

a) My first post in the thread (#63)

OR this much shorter post:

b) Roy agreed to fight Steve but later reneged on that promise.

 

Ha!

It’s all good man.

I can assure you that I’m not in any way riled.

This would be better if we were both at a bar having a drink.

It would be a nice, friendly argument.


This will be my last post on the matter.


I just don’t like the terminology.

We could both give examples back and forth all day long.


When you’re talking about places and people, it can also be different.

Again, my friend analogy is perfect.

If you were literally in that position, and you went for a drink with Emma, I’m pretty sure you’d have an issue if someone had said that you’d avoided Matthew.


There’s many definitions of avoid.

The main ones are:

Dodge
Duck
Steer clear from


Roy didn’t avoid Steve in that sense.

He actually told Stanley Levin to make the fight.

He then changed his mind after his new advisor, Murad Muhammad advised him to go with Reggie first, after meeting with the head of HBO, Lou DiBella.

Murad told him to take the opportunity to unify the LHW division. He was also told that DiBella would also be informing Collins of HBO’s wishes.

Roy then made the decision to fight Reggie instead.


Now I’m certain that if you asked 100 people what the words ‘avoid’ and ‘avoided’ meant, that most of them would give you the definitions that I’ve just listed.


I wasn’t accusing you personally of saying anything about Roy ducking or dodging Steve. You made that abundantly clear.

I just believe that it’s completely the wrong terminology to use, and especially on here, discussing this subject.

Avoiding Birmingham to go a different route, is completely different to using that terminology when discussing two boxers on a boxing forum.


So we’ll leave it there my good man.

I always look forward to reading your posts.

I’ll catch you on another thread.


Take care.

 

Ive never seen Collins fight, but from what I read about his bouts with Eubank and with Benn, Jones eats him up.

I love and respect Collins and the British brethren of Middleweights of the 90s. They were world champions with skill, guts and power who gave us an entertaining round robin almost like those of the 5 kings and of Arguello, Chacon, Limon, Navarrete and Boza Edwards.

But Roy Jones Jr was on another level.

 

It was in those days.

 

You do know that one of them was a SHW and the other a HW, right? Even so I wouldn't say that Collins was faster than Ruiz. Ruiz had preyy fast hands against Holy while Collins looked slow even against 35-year old McCallum, who never was fast to begin with.

Anyhow, Ruiz was 5-6 years after he moved to away from the division Collins was in, so the two fights aren't in any way connected.

 

I just think Collins was a non-entity to Jones. He'd rather be the man in a new weight class instead.