the jones jr debate.

So afraid that he fought him directly after fighting Ruiz?

And then fought him 2 more times after that?

Ok then champ.

 

he had no choice when tarver embarrassed him at the post fight conference.

then when tarver made roy look very ordinary...he had no choice but to try and redeem himself. the rest is history.

 

If Tarver had just beaten Harding in the first place, Jones would have fought him years previously

 

:good

 

I thought you referring to 2000.

Not that it matters.

He said in the post fight press conference after his fight with Clinton Woods, that it was Tarver or Ruiz next.

He got the opportunity to fight Ruiz for the WBA, HW belt, as well as the chance to make around $15m. What did you expect him to do?

What happened after Ruiz?

He burnt actual muscle to drop back to LHW to fight Tarver.

So I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

A criticism often levelled against Jones is that he relied heavily on his physical ability to compensate for sub-par boxing fundamentals. At the end of the day, boxing is a sport, and a sport in which there are multiple ways a competitor can go about skinning the proverbial cat. To criticise Jones for relying on his physical gifts is to criticise Whitaker for relying on his defence, or Trinidad for relying on his power. At the end of the day, these variations and approaches are what makes boxing so fascinating. Roy fought in a way to maximise his strengths and in doing so, presented an almost impossible puzzle for every opponent until the first battle with Tarver in 2003.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle; he's not the greatest of all time as some claim, but would certainly be up there in the modern era of boxing.

 

The fact Roy Jones used steroids and got caught, may forever taint his legacy to a lot of people, however putting that aside for he moment, His wins against two all time great fighters in their absolute prime can not be brushed aside. He dominated Toney and Hopkins at their best. Amazing achievement. He also has several other top qualities wins.
He did begin to take too many soft matches during the late 90s and should have ventured to Europe to fight Dariusz, Nigel, and Steve.

 

what did roy do to suggest he's so special,he was just fast in his day,as soon as he stepped up and fought a good but not great fighter in tarver he got caught out

 

So Tarver was better than Toney ?

 

toney was a good clever boxer he is nowhere near as good as he gets made out to be.why do people choose to ignore the fact he lost to griffen twice,drake thadzi.his win over jirov is spoken of as if its stuff of legends,who did jirov ever beat,his resume is appaulling.and why toneys hw record is ever spoken of as anything above average at best is beyond me,who did he beat,are we in agreement that his best win was against an absolute shell of holyfield ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o0c8fXHp-4

 

:good

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN6042XXKME

 

What did Roy do to suggest he was so special?

Go and educate yourself.

 

his greatest achievement would have been to step up and win a version of the hw title but he was caught using steroids which basically nullifies it,for some reason people still talk about it like he wasnt ****ing cheating.and while we are on the point,if he was striving for such greatness why did he choose ruiz instead of the actual world champion of the time not a bum of a heavyweight paper champ