GL: Any accusations that he's making about the wraps being illegal are completely false?
Danny Green: "No comment on that mate, now I'm off to do Bernard Hopkins business."
No comment?
It's not really the words you would expect from a clean conscience.
I don't know what to say really. The wrap thing is ****ed up if it's true. Maybe Roy should have complained to the ref when he was hit in the neck so that he got time to recuperate but he didn't, done is done.
If Roy feels he want to fight Green again, maybe he should or maybe it's just his ego talking.
Jones was way past it at 35 but so was also Ali, Leonard and many other greats. Jones kept fighting partly because his love for the fight game. It dosen't change what he was and did in his prime.
Skills are always skills but if a skilled fighter dosen't entertain no one want's to watch it. Wlad has skills but he dosen't entertain, watching his fights are as fun as Floyd vs. Baldomir. On top of that Wlad has a glass chin in a division where the biggest punchers reside. He is dominant but in a boring and carefull way. I can't see much entertainment value.
Vitali on the other hand is a warrior who comes for a fight. I appreciate his skills and watching him.
Kelly Pavlik
Ronald Wright
Antonio Tarver
Oscar De La Hoya
Felix Trinidad
Glen Johnson
Jones beat Tarver to in the first fight despite severe dehydration. Old Jones beat old Trinidad (don't see young Jones having more problems with young Trinidad). De La Hoya was a good win for Hopkins but De La Hoya was a great smaller fighter. I think Jones victorys over Toney and Hopkins counts for more. Glen Johnson is a good win for Hopkins and i was also impressed with the Pavlik domination. Jones wins over Virgil Hill and Montell Griffin are also nice.
I would rank Jones higher but i have great respect for Hopkins. They are very different fighters but both all time greats.
Roy can box orthodox he just dosen't want to. He want's to be superman Roy Jones and i think the style he uses is the one that best utilizes the abilities he had in his prime. His style is much more unpredictable then an orthodox style. That combined with amazing speed and reflexes made his success. An orthodox Roy would't be as good but would maybe have more longevity.
Floyd would run around until bruce lee and pacquiao died of exhaustion trying to catch him. After that Floyd would catch Chuck Norris with a check hook and Norris would be knocked out by diving head first into a street light. Floyd by TKO victory.
50 years ago people got away for lynchings too. Don't make it right. If he did it, it should be brought out in the open and the women vindicated. Im not judging yet, but right is right.
He's the champ or at least was at the time. He should not be robbed for millions for something like this, he fought and bleed for that money. That would not be right.
I disagree with you there and I suppose we are at an impass because the working man deserves as much respect and regard as anyone. Cotto works and his job has its advantages and regular guys work and have the advantage of not taking beating but its rough for everyone so I enjoy the debate but disagree with you.
Ok, cool. Lets agree to disagree.
You've proven yourself to be a total moron. Nobody should be able to get away with something against the law because of their stature in sport or society. You obviously cannot understand that. Lets hope nothing like this ever happens to anyone you care about. As I've already said, Im sure you would change your tune. You're a disgrace as a person and a man. If you aren't ashamed of yourself you should be. Peace.
You seem like a fairly intolerant person. The legal principles you condem has been applied in the vast majority of civilisations throughout the world and history. From your reasoning it follows that the Romans, the Mayans, the great Greek and Japanse civilizations all would be "total morons". I find it sad that you a so enclosed within your own mental horizons but i still enjoyed or discussion. Peace. :)
So where do we draw the line then for what is minor or major enough for leniency?
It would most likely be a questions for experts but maybe this definition is a good place to start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misdemeanor
Doesn't he get enough perks making insane amount of money for his job......and actually alot of free time where he can do nothing? why does he need more special treatment?
Yes thoose are good perks which he has deserved with his sweat and blood. My point is: If his money is taken from him through legal processes what does he have left? Alot of free time? The courts should show leniency. He has taken severe beatings and put in enourmos amounts of effort to get that money. It should not be robbed from him. At least he deserves a second chance.
that is just sad.
i hope your mom/sister gets molested by a boxing champion. so that you can use that reasoning of yours.
It saddens me that a theoretical discussion of a juridical situation seems to get you upset.
No one says they do not have such tendencies,it's the degree to which such tendencies are frowned upon or tolerated.The word cheat is not a nice word in the Anglo communities but I dont think it even exists in some latin cultures,after being cheated some Latin women will declare the 'guy is still my husband, he will come back to me',the Anglo way is different.If Gordon Brown had been accused of things Belusconi has been accused of,he wouldnt have been a Prime Minister anymore.You saw what happened with Bill Clinton after the Lewinski case,can you see the difference with the Belusconi case.That shows the level of tolerance such practices are accepted in societies.
Let me also point out,no culture is necessarily better than the other,cultures tend to make people more efficient in some things and less competent in others.The Anglo way is not superior neither is the Latin way inferior,we have just learnt different ways because of past experiences of dealing with cultural issues.
Good post. What you say should be self-evident but to some apparently it's not. There is no objective way of looking at or judging cultures and trying to do so only hampers one's understanding. Each culture must be understood from it's own perspective.
Funny, but I think you would have a different outlook if it was your sister. Would you?
Yes, of course but in cases of law and justice you i'll have to try and look at things objectively and not out of a personal viewpoint.
You have not explained why he deserves leniency over just an average person.....
Because he is not an average person. Average persons work for their money, Cotto has fought for his money. He has risked his health, he has dedicated far more time and effort then the average person does in their trade. Quite simply he is better then the average person and deserves better. His offence is not a good thing but it should not rob him of millions.
So you are saying he should be treated differently. That laws that apply to everyone else should not apply to him. Thats fucking BRILLIANT!!
Yeah equality before the law is a recent invention from America. I never supported it.
Than again, if it was youir sister or daughter you would want justice. What a pathetic double standard you have. God forbid anything like this ever happens to someone you care about, you would be singing a different tune instantly, you moron.
I will write this again. In matters of law you have to look at things objectively from societys point of view. Personal feelings has no place in it and should not be considered when making decisions. What i would feel in such and such hypothetical situation is totally irrelevant from a juridical perspective, do you think we should legislate based on personal feelings?
Should he only get 5-10 for murder if he did that while a normal person got 25-life? Its basically what you are saying.
No, i clearly stated earlier in this thread that i was talking about minor offenses.
So because he was a champion that gives him immunity from committing crimes? If he did it he should be held accountable. He doesn't seem like that type of person, and I hope its not true, but if it is, he shouldn't be held to a higher standard.
Yeah things like this should be overlooked because of who he is and what he has contributed to the sport and to society. It's not like he has commited high treason or tried to shoot the president. Once a champ, always a champ, people should support him. :)
So you're saying it is "best for society as a whole" to let celebrities get away with crimes. Is that it?
No, i never mentioned the word celebrities. Most celebrities are what i consider worthless degenerates.
Miguel Cotto as a boxing champions has acted like a good role model, taking on the best, showing heart and determination, never bad mouthing his opponent. He has given much to the public. Therfore society should be lenient. Considering giving him another chance and preserving his positive value for society. It's about giving and taking, Cotto has given much, now society has the chance to show appreciation of him when he is in need. His career and all he has done should not be destroyed by one possible mistake
so you're saying he should be able to get away with sexual harassment because he was a boxing champion?
The law should show leniency partially because he was a boxing champions and partially because his contribution to society.
How about tv stars?
No. They are no good we should be better off without them.
CEO's of fortune 500 companies?
No.
Cops?
Certainly not they should be severly punished as their prime function is to uphold law and order.
Priests?
Same as cops. It should be an aggravating circumstances as their calling brings with it a higher standard then for normal people.
So if he did do it this is still somebody's sister or daughter. Why the double standard?
You misunderstod my post, from a juridical perspective i think he should get away with it. When considering a law you can't look at how it would benefit you personally. You have to look at whats best for society as a whole. Anything else would be nepotism.