Was Roy Jones a paper champion??

Title don't define a fighter. It's the fighter who makes the title.

For his 160 belt Roy beat the guy who went on to make the most middleweight defences in history, and he did it with one hand. Really he beat the only guy that needed to be beat in his era at that weight.

At 168 he beat Toney, which some publications held as their #1 p4p. Jones became the man by beating the man, and he did it with ease.

And at light heavy he won all the belts except for Michaelcewski's WBOgus belt, and beat everyone there besides Michaelcewski who would not fight outside Germany.

Heavyweight is really the only division Roy was a paper champion at. He only had one fight against Ruiz for Undisputed champ Lennox's unfairly stripped title, and Ruiz clearly lost the title in his third fight to Holyfield. Still being the first former middleweight to win a heavyweight title in 100 years was some feat, and I guess that's why he did it.

 

Every belt Jones had at 175lbs were at one point Michaelcewski's, even the WBC belt. They were all striped away for political reason.

 

did he not try to get them back for 'political reasons' too?

 

Any fighter can be criticized for his boxing choices,,,,,,,,

But money is the proper direction to choose, because in the end,, thats all you've got.

The old line,,,,,'Will it play in Peoria',,,,,if middle America will buy it, then everybody else will.

Take the most money with the least amount of risk,,,,,,,,just smart business

 

Except Eubank and Benn had equal if not a better claim than Toney at the time.

 

but did bugger all to do anything about it

 

smart business doesnt buy respect - at any price - and thats why we're having this debate

 

Agreed. Huge gaps in his CV. When he stepped up to the real challenges and when his speed had gone, we saw what happened.

 

Maybe we need to add something here--

It is my understanding that a court determined that Rocchigiani was wrongly stripped--So you are giving note to a court decision.

It is also my understanding that the IBF stripped DM due to another court decision in William Guthrie's favor for a title defense in 30 days. To my knowledge that court decision was never overturned and DM was either stripped or he gave up the IBF title.

At that point, he no longer has claim to the IBF Title. If you are giving credence to one court decision, then the other must have equal weight whether you agree with it or not. They both were court decisions.

 

No!!

the guy who invented this is!

This content is protected

 

Fetal crack syndrome is a damn shame.....

 

Ya.. RJJ was a paper champion atsch

Bailey has got to be the biggest RJ hater to have come along in a while.

 

yes...there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between:

forcing a guy who just won your title to fight again 4 weeks later or give his title...

stripping a guy of the title he won in the ring & gifting it to another fighter for absolutely no reason or warning...then refusing to allow the guy you've stripped of the title to face the guy you've just made champion.

 

This is true.

Also true.

 

Pretty Much