Sometimes I Wonder Why Did Roy Ever Waste His Time Fighting Fighters Like.....

[Toney616]

Also without the use of steroids you tend to look like **** . Jones was done, my friend. Whether it's because he was off the juice or too old and too much on it in the past and it began taking its negative toll, he was done. And since when did Lampley and Merchant become Jones' advisers? Jones stayed kept the weight months after the Ruiz bout as he negotiated a bout with Holyfield (which Evander eventually pulled out of) and dreamily spoke of a mega bout with Tyson. The Tarver bout came to fruition last minute when Jones had no big fights at HW except a Corrie Sanders he wasn't trying to see in the audience, much less in the ring.

Toney thought he had a deal to fight Hopkins, but it fell apart because King and Hopkins couldn't agree on numbers. Then negotiations for Jones Holyfield went down the drain because King demanded options on all of Holyfield's championship fights should he beat Jones and presented Evander with a dollar amount that the Holyfield camp considered insulting.

More specifically, Jim Thomas (Holyfield's attorney), says, "Under the final offer that Don gave us, Evander would have made $8,000,000, and $36,000,000 would have been divided between Roy Jones and Don King."

Holyfield elaborates, saying, "I want to fight for the title, but I don't want anyone abuse to me. I shouldn't have to sign a longterm contract with Don King just to fight for the title. I went through that one time, and I don't want to put myself in that situation again. I don't want to deal with Don King anymore. I don't want anything to do with him. I won't give options to Don King."

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/th...hes-for-glory1

He was offered around 18% of the purse with life long obligations to King if he won. No wonder he turned that nonsense down.

Jones said himself that fights with the hw's were too high risk for the money involved.

Lampley and Merchant know Jones well and I'm sure that they had by then a very good idea of what options Jones would of considered and not considered.

The Tarver negotiations came around after his wba extension had run out. I.e fight your wba mando or vacate the belt.

[Toney616]

.
I think you can make a case that, style-wise, Nunn would cause problems but you can't say he was a better opponent for Jones than Griffin or Hill, for instance at that time. So I don't know if he should've fought him, as you put it. There were better opponents who he did fight in that timeframe. The idea that Jones vacated his title to avoid Nunn...just think about it for a sec . This wasn't Nunn of 1993 here. And if he fought Nunn during the time you seem to be talking about - after he fought Graciano, he would've been ridiculed like he was for the McCallum bout.

After beating Toney the only guys Jones beat, from 94-2002, who have a case of being classed as better than lhw Nunn are:

Montell Griffin
Virgil Hill*
Reggie Johnson
Eric Harding

The Hill win doesn't mean much. Seeing as how he was past prime, coming off a loss and inactive for a year . He never beat anyone worth mentioning after Jones.

So thats only THREE guys.

When you vacate your belt to avoid your mando then its a duck in my eyes. Maybe Jones wasnt as confident in his abilities as you are

I agree with you. I remember that well and scratching my head. This is one of those other instances where I felt he avoided a match, aside from the Jirov bout. I always felt Tarver was the guy to beat him--no lie. Always.

I cant really comment on this, because this happened during my self imposed exile from boxing. Lost the taste for it after watching Benn-McClellan. I think I would of favoured Toney over Jones, who wasn't tested at the time. Never been too sure what to make of Tarver.

But to his credit, in that letter he wrote to the IBF, Jones stated that he was more than willing to face the winner of a Tarver-Harding box-off and he did. Right after. And his reason for wanting to delay that mandatory was because he had another mandatory due earlier for the WBA. And much to our chagrin, Jones loved keeping his belts. How true that really is, who knows but he did fight the winner...a tall southpaw with damn good skills.

The letter also questions Tarvers credentials to be his mandatory. Which is a bit rich coming from him. If he wanted an extension he could of just asked for it instead. I doubt if the IBF would of said no

Man, you are talking crazy lol. No, he could'n't have fought him instead of Woods or Kelly. Tarver wasn't the mandatory when Jones fought Kelly (he fought Kelly like a week after Tarver fought for the #1 contender slot against Johnson). That fight was signed well before, come on. And no, he couldn't have fought him instead of Woods, Tarver wasn't even calling for the fight then. He wanted Harding again, who he got a month or so before Jones fought Woods. Fights don't get signed and occur in a matter of weeks. So no, man .

Tarver didnt have to be his mando for him to face him. As long as he was seen as a credible opponent then there would of been no problem. It is true that Tarver wanted to avenge his loss to Harding, but if he was offered the Jones fight in 2002 I'm sure he would of taken it instead of Harding

And yes, he moved up to HW and fought Ruiz instead of Tarver which is about as much a duck as Hopkins moving to 175 to fight Tarver instead of 168 to fight Calzaghe.

Why does it have to be lhw mando OR hw? Why cant it be lhw mando AND hw?

And after they finished laughing, they watched Jones move back down and fight Tarver in his very next bout.

After he beat Ruiz the WBA got on his case and told him he had to arrange a mandatory defense within the next 6 months. It would of been against Vitali K, who was far from impressed with HW Jones. Don King, the peoples promoter, who has no influence with the wba, would talk for the wba and tell Vitali K that he had to take part in an elimination bout before he could get a shot at Jones. Vitali was unimpressed, saying that he was already his mando and refused to pay another sanctioning fee. So he vacated his spot and went after Lewis. The next guy down the line was Tua who started petitioning to the wba to force Jones to face him. The deadline that Jones had from the WBA was late July/early August. Which is when Jones notified Tarver about a fight.

If you watch the countdown to Jones-Tarver 2, Lampley laughs about the whole thing. Saying that Jones was always going to move back down because he saw fights with hw's as too high risk.

And then give him an immediate rematch when most big name fighters would've taken that win and run for the hills. Then took 15 months off after two devastating KO losses and went straight to Tarver again in his first bout back. Yeah, Roy the ducker did that .

He would of lost a lot of credibility if he refused to give Tarver a rematch. I'm sure HBO offered him a lot more money to persuade him as well. It should also be pointed out that with his contract up, it ran out with Tarver II. Look how HBO started to treat him. If the fight wasnt against an opponent they rated, then they refused to buy it.

[Toney616]

Thank you.

your welcome.

He could of also fought him at smw. Nunn was willing to move down to face him. Its the reason Nunn moved down to 168 and fought Scully. Hoping to get a shot with Jones down the line.

"Jones keeps saying he has no one to fight. He then goes and fights Brannon, while Nunn is right here reay for him"-Dan Goosen

[Toney616]

I'm certain fighters complain about all sorts of problems during a fight and that their trainers give them hell. It doesn't mean they will suffer a massive brain bleed.

You got any examples to back this claim up?

[Mugwump]

Think about what you are saying here.
If your fighter tells you he wants to quit because he knows something is wrong with his head, you pull him out. They didnt and look how things turned out. That fight took place only a couple of months after Eubank-Watson II

My thinking (for the role of devil's advocate) is quite clear on this matter. Fighters telling their trainers they want to quit for some reason or another (including feeling "funny") is nothing new. In many cases trainers respect the wishes of the fighter and throw in the towel. But in many others they don't. There are numerous reasons for this. Too many to mention, in fact. But I can give a couple of examples that I have heard of in the past:

a) The fighter makes an early pact with his trainer NEVER to be pulled out - under any circumstances. He knows the risks and he's prepared to take them in order to achieve the rewards. Health is secondary. You only need look at the pitiful condition of Evander Holyfield to realise this. Moreover, consider the enmity that has been generated between partnerships after the trainer has thrown the towel in prematurely in the opinion of the fighter (Joe Frazier?)

b) The fighter is lacking in self-confidence (perhaps after a recent defeat) and asks his trainer to make a judgement call if he is considering quitting (perhaps to give him one or two more rounds). The reasoning being the trainer is by definition a better judge of what's left in the tank than the fighter.

I find it strange that you consider this a cut-and-dried case. I assume you watch a lot of boxing. If so you must - like me - have seen plenty of evidence of fighters saying "I'm done", or "I can't go on" or both nodding and shaking the head at the same time when their trainers ask if they want to continue? It is far from uncommon to see a trainer ignoring the protestations of their charge and sending him out for one or many more rounds (in some cases leading to victory).

Ethically speaking it's a debatable practice. I mean, it's not something I'd do. Which would put my fighter at a disadvantage facing a trainer who refuses to throw in the towel. I could live with defeat and the health of my fighter. But some fighters are solely fixated with winning and all other concerns are irrelevant.

He was blinking both eyes, not one.

Again, playing devil's advocate - perhaps it was something in the water or on the sponge (in this past tampering with an opponent's water bucket was far from uncommon)? I remember watching a bout many years ago in which the fighter's face ballooned up because of an allergic reaction to his trainer's latex gloves!

I remember the Benn-McClellan fight very well. Like yesterday, in fact. I remember spotting McClellan's blinking quite early. I thought it was odd - but I didn't think it was REALLY odd until he took the knee. I certainly didn't think he MUST be suffering from some serious neurological disorder. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. And there were any number of simpler explanations.

He took a knee in the corner and the ref told him to get up and keep on fighting. In a boxing fight the last one to stop a fight is the fighter, who because of his career, ego etc refuses to quit no matter what.

I used to think this. But not any more. Not since corners were miked by default. I agree that fighters very often are the last ones to quit. But it is not uncommon to see trainers ignore a plea to finish (especially in domestic, lower-level bouts). Some will keep their man out for an extra round (perhaps fearing a backlash over what might have been). Some will keep on pushing till the end. Again, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do - but if all any boxer in question wants to do is win a title and through ignoring pleas to quit his trainer helps him win that title then you can be pretty sure both will think it was the right thing to do.

The corner is also comprimised it they are not in charge and bow to the dictates of the fighter. The person who really should be on the look out for serious signs of distress is the referee. Who should at least have a certain level of impartiality.

I don't think it's an issue of impartiality. The man had received no training and was therefore not qualified to make a judgement. Yes, I suppose you could say he should have made the call anyway. But we also have to remember that he is human just like anyone else. I'm not sure what experience he had of officiating over major fights but he didn't LOOK like someone who'd spent a lot of time at that level. For an inexperienced referee stopping the fight prior to McClellan taking the knee would have been an enormous call. If he'd got it wrong doing the "right thing" might seem little consolation for the end of his career. The media would have flayed him alive. As for the crowd, it was like a bear-pit in there that night. Heaven knows what might have happened had he stopped the fight early despite McClellan showing no obvious (from the position of someone sitting in the arena) signs of injury. And let's not forget that it was only one or two rounds (?) earlier that McClellan had knocked Benn down for the second time.

In my opinion, if the finger of blame should be pointed anywhere it is toward the medical safeguards - or lack thereof - in place at the time which a) allowed the sanctioning of the bout despite McClellan being symptomatic after his fight with Jackson, b) failed to provide clear guidance to the referee (and doctor!), c) failed to react sufficiently fast to meet the crucial deadline after which point damage from a haemorrhage is likely to be severe.

[IMDAZED]

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/th...hes-for-glory1

He was offered around 18% of the purse with life long obligations to King if he won. No wonder he turned that nonsense down.

Jones said himself that fights with the hw's were too high risk for the money involved.

Lampley and Merchant know Jones well and I'm sure that they had by then a very good idea of what options Jones would of considered and not considered.

The Tarver negotiations came around after his wba extension had run out. I.e fight your wba mando or vacate the belt.

You're basically rehashing what I said. I'm glad we agree. The bottom line is Jones stayed heavy throughout that summer and the Tarver bout was done at the last second, making getting down in weight very very difficult.

[IMDAZED]

After beating Toney the only guys Jones beat, from 94-2002, who have a case of being classed as better than lhw Nunn are:

Montell Griffin
Virgil Hill*
Reggie Johnson
Eric Harding

The Hill win doesn't mean much. Seeing as how he was past prime, coming off a loss and inactive for a year . He never beat anyone worth mentioning after Jones.

So thats only THREE guys.

When you vacate your belt to avoid your mando then its a duck in my eyes. Maybe Jones wasnt as confident in his abilities as you are

I cant really comment on this, because this happened during my self imposed exile from boxing. Lost the taste for it after watching Benn-McClellan. I think I would of favoured Toney over Jones, who wasn't tested at the time. Never been too sure what to make of Tarver.

The letter also questions Tarvers credentials to be his mandatory. Which is a bit rich coming from him. If he wanted an extension he could of just asked for it instead. I doubt if the IBF would of said no

Tarver didnt have to be his mando for him to face him. As long as he was seen as a credible opponent then there would of been no problem. It is true that Tarver wanted to avenge his loss to Harding, but if he was offered the Jones fight in 2002 I'm sure he would of taken it instead of Harding

Why does it have to be lhw mando OR hw? Why cant it be lhw mando AND hw?

After he beat Ruiz the WBA got on his case and told him he had to arrange a mandatory defense within the next 6 months. It would of been against Vitali K, who was far from impressed with HW Jones. Don King, the peoples promoter, who has no influence with the wba, would talk for the wba and tell Vitali K that he had to take part in an elimination bout before he could get a shot at Jones. Vitali was unimpressed, saying that he was already his mando and refused to pay another sanctioning fee. So he vacated his spot and went after Lewis. The next guy down the line was Tua who started petitioning to the wba to force Jones to face him. The deadline that Jones had from the WBA was late July/early August. Which is when Jones notified Tarver about a fight.

If you watch the countdown to Jones-Tarver 2, Lampley laughs about the whole thing. Saying that Jones was always going to move back down because he saw fights with hw's as too high risk.

He would of lost a lot of credibility if he refused to give Tarver a rematch. I'm sure HBO offered him a lot more money to persuade him as well. It should also be pointed out that with his contract up, it ran out with Tarver II. Look how HBO started to treat him. If the fight wasnt against an opponent they rated, then they refused to buy it.

This is going to take a while and some of your responses here, quite frankly, caused me to roll my eyes a couple times . Bastard. Good chat though - I'll respond to this once my girlfriend leaves or I won't have one soon.

[Mugwump]

You got any examples to back this claim up?

None that spring immediately to mind. I mean, it's something I've occasionally observed and found curious - but I can't say I was compelled to hurry for the pen and paper. That said, I'll pull the old memory lever and see what drops out.

I think something along such lines happened in Jamie Moore's last fight. But I'd need to watch it again.

[IMDAZED]

After beating Toney the only guys Jones beat, from 94-2002, who have a case of being classed as better than lhw Nunn are:

Montell Griffin
Virgil Hill*
Reggie Johnson
Eric Harding

The Hill win doesn't mean much. Seeing as how he was past prime, coming off a loss and inactive for a year . He never beat anyone worth mentioning after Jones.

So thats only THREE guys.

From 1994-2002? You mean to tell me the 2002 version of Nunn was better than Clinton Woods? I don't understand your point. If you're saying that overall, Nunn is a greater fighter, sure. I'd rather concentrate on when the fight could've been made. Just saying Nunn was greater is exactly the argument I'm talking about and why I raised the Alexander/Bruseles comparison.

When you vacate your belt to avoid your mando then its a duck in my eyes. Maybe Jones wasnt as confident in his abilities as you are

You believe he vacated his title to avoid his mandatory. I wholeheartedly disagree.

The letter also questions Tarvers credentials to be his mandatory. Which is a bit rich coming from him. If he wanted an extension he could of just asked for it instead. I doubt if the IBF would of said no
Tarver didnt have to be his mando for him to face him. As long as he was seen as a credible opponent then there would of been no problem. It is true that Tarver wanted to avenge his loss to Harding, but if he was offered the Jones fight in 2002 I'm sure he would of taken it instead of Harding

You're right, he didn't ask for an extension. Instead he offered to face the winner immediately. Which he did, against a southpaw with good skills - which is what we were debating.

Why does it have to be lhw mando OR hw? Why cant it be lhw mando AND hw?

It was both actually, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

After he beat Ruiz the WBA got on his case and told him he had to arrange a mandatory defense within the next 6 months. It would of been against Vitali K, who was far from impressed with HW Jones. Don King, the peoples promoter, who has no influence with the wba, would talk for the wba and tell Vitali K that he had to take part in an elimination bout before he could get a shot at Jones. Vitali was unimpressed, saying that he was already his mando and refused to pay another sanctioning fee. So he vacated his spot and went after Lewis. The next guy down the line was Tua who started petitioning to the wba to force Jones to face him. The deadline that Jones had from the WBA was late July/early August. Which is when Jones notified Tarver about a fight.

If you watch the countdown to Jones-Tarver 2, Lampley laughs about the whole thing. Saying that Jones was always going to move back down because he saw fights with hw's as too high risk.

He would of lost a lot of credibility if he refused to give Tarver a rematch. I'm sure HBO offered him a lot more money to persuade him as well. It should also be pointed out that with his contract up, it ran out with Tarver II. Look how HBO started to treat him. If the fight wasnt against an opponent they rated, then they refused to buy it.

You wrote all that to essentially say, Jones moved back to light heavyweight and fought Tarver. And he would've lost credibility my ass. Yeah some. But he would've lived through it, like Lennox did, Oscar did, damn near every top fighter who either avoided such rematches entirely or waited a few years to rekindle the idea. Regardless, that's neither here nor there. He did it.

[Toney616]

You're basically rehashing what I said. I'm glad we agree. The bottom line is Jones stayed heavy throughout that summer

Whats you evidence for this claim?

and the Tarver bout was done at the last second, making getting down in weight very very difficult.

He had three months to get down(Aug-sept-oct). Its easy to lose muscle. The only fighter I know of who claims otherwise is Jones.