Roy Jones Jr's alleged "weak opposition"

[robertzimmerman]

BattlingNelson already proved you wrong on atleast one case. I don't deny that it wasn't always his fault, but to claim that it never was is the biggest joke told in this thread next to Hamza's denial of his true intentions(it's hilarious watching him squirm)

Anyone who vehemently denies any wrong doings on Roy's entire career is a fanboy who you can't reason with. Interestingly you have ignored this question several times so you're being pretty ironic.

What has Battling Nelson proved?

The only guys who Roy could have fought who he didn't want to, were: Collins, Nunn, Rochigianni, and Sanders at HW.

He didn't want those guys, and he went with what he thought were the better options at the time.

That was his prerogative.


Collins:

In 96, Roy moved up to LHW instead of fighting Collins, because he couldn't get fights with Benn and Liles to unify.

In 99, he dismissed him again, to fight Reggie Johnson instead to unify the LHW division.


Nunn:

He wasn't happy with the amount of money that the fight would have generated, so after failed negotiations and a lost purse bid, he relinquished the belt and then took his advisor to Atlanta to meet Evander Holyfield and his attorney Jim Thomas. When Evander wasn't interested, he signed to fight Douglas, which would have made him $6m, which was over 3 times the amount the Nunn fight would have made at $1.8m. Then after his father had blocked it at the last moment, he finally ended up fighting Hill at a CW for $3-4m.


Rochigianni:

Roy said that he thought it would make for a very lacklustre fight, and he'd much prefer to fight Dariusz instead.


Sanders:

A horrible match up for Roy at that point. Roy wanted huge money to remain at HW, as he was approaching 35. He wanted to cash out. The fight was for a $10m guarantee, the same terms as the Ruiz fight. He considered it, then went back and asked for more. And when he couldn't get it, or fights with Tyson and Holyfield, he moved back to LHW to fight Tarver.


That's all I can think of.

Fights like Benn and Dariusz etc, were extremely hard to make due to rival promoters and networks.

Fighters like Eubank, Liles, Hopkins and Calzaghe etc, did not want to fight Roy. Not every fighter wanted to fight Roy. You've got to accept that.

You're trying to simplify things, when boxing is a ruthless, complex business. You have rival networks, rival promoters, promoters wanting future options, arguments over percentages of the PPV revenue, everyone trying to protect their investments etc. Behind the scenes factors that most fans aren't aware of.


What I've wrote above is all factual.

[robertzimmerman]

BattlingNelson already proved you wrong on atleast one case. I don't deny that it wasn't always his fault, but to claim that it never was is the biggest joke told in this thread next to Hamza's denial of his true intentions(it's hilarious watching him squirm)

Anyone who vehemently denies any wrong doings on Roy's entire career is a fanboy who you can't reason with. Interestingly you have ignored this question several times so you're being pretty ironic.

Are you going to answer my question?

Out of all the guys who Roy missed, who has a better resume than what he has?

[BKM-]

What has Battling Nelson proved?

The only guys who Roy could have fought who he didn't want to, were: Collins, Nunn, Rochigianni, and Sanders at HW.

He didn't want those guys, and he went with what he thought were the better options at the time.

That was his prerogative.


Collins:

In 96, Roy moved up to LHW instead of fighting Collins, because he couldn't get fights with Benn and Liles to unify.

In 99, he dismissed him again, to fight Reggie Johnson instead to unify the LHW division.


Nunn:

He wasn't happy with the amount of money that the fight would have generated, so after failed negotiations and a lost purse bid, he relinquished the belt and then took his advisor to Atlanta to meet Evander Holyfield and his attorney Jim Thomas. When Evander wasn't interested, he signed to fight Douglas, which would have made him $6m, which was over 3 times the amount the Nunn fight would have made at $1.8m. Then after his father had blocked it at the last moment, he finally ended up fighting Hill at a CW for $3-4m.


Rochigianni:

Roy said that he thought it would make for a very lacklustre fight, and he'd much prefer to fight Dariusz instead.


Sanders:

A horrible match up for Roy at that point. Roy wanted huge money to remain at HW, as he was approaching 35. He wanted to cash out. The fight was for a $10m guarantee, the same terms as the Ruiz fight. He considered it, then went back and asked for more. And when he couldn't get it, or fights with Tyson and Holyfield, he moved back to LHW to fight Tarver.


That's all I can think of.

Fights like Benn and Dariusz etc, were extremely hard to make due to rival promoters and networks.

Fighters like Eubank, Liles, Hopkins and Calzaghe etc, did not want to fight Roy. Not every fighter wanted to fight Roy. You've got to accept that.

You're trying to simplify things, when boxing is a ruthless, complex business. You have rival networks, rival promoters, promoters wanting future options, arguments over percentages of the PPV revenue, everyone trying to protect their investments etc. Behind the scenes factors that most fans aren't aware of.


What I've wrote above is all factual.

Atleast you're willing to admit a couple of names now(though your wording is off. But I know you couldn't bare the thought of a non-positive word about Roy coming out of your mouth so it's forgiven). Still disagree about cases like Hopkins and Dariusz.

As for your question, what is the answer supposed to prove? The answer doesn't in any way condone RJJ's many missed opportunities. And for your info I rank Hopkins above Roy now for sure. Roy's fanboys can cling on to the UD over a green non-Hopkins as I like to call that version. But the prime Hopkins that Roy missed out on hurts his resume the most, and I happen to think Hopkins could have squeezed out an ugly UD/SD over prime Roy(OMG, the blasphemy I know. Culture shock here pal. LOL)

[BattlingNelson]

Omg. What a longass reply that really brings little new.

BattlingNelson,



I said that if Dariusz had kept hold of his belts, Roy would have had to have made the concessions to go to Germany to try and get them. But due to the unfortunate circumstances with the Org's, the belts were split up. Lou Del Valle ended up with the WBA, and Reggie Johnson ended up with the IBF. But that unfortunate incident was nothing to do with Roy. Three years after Dariusz had lost them, Roy ended up with all of them, including the WBC. So no, due to those unfortunate circumstances, Roy no longer had to go to Germany to unify the division, as he'd ended up with all of the belts.

Why? (Rhetorical question). Because in Mr. Zimmerman's mind alphabet belts and the number of Them is what matters. Not linage.

A fight between them would have been great. But again, I don't blame Roy for not travelling to Germany.

We know. We also know why. At the same time we also know that you Blake DM for not going to the US.

No, I don't agree with what the Org's did to Dariusz. But you have to ask yourself the following questions:

When the WBA said to Dariusz "You can only keep our belt if you ditch the WBO.."

Why do you think he dropped the WBA?

He didnt drop the belt. He Was stripped! Why (not rhetorical because you clearly do not know). Because he displayed the WBO belt alongside the WBA!

Was it in disgust, to stick two fingers up to the establishment?

Or was it because he wanted an easy ride with the WBO belt?

He Was stripped dude. He had the WBO belt before the unification with Hill. Aften he beat Hill he had there belts. Unlike you I reel that it is the man who makes the belt and not the belt that makes the man.

I've told you why numerous times.

He had no moral obligation to go to Germany because of what had happened with Dariusz 3 years earlier.

Again, he'd been robbed in the Olympics.

Again, he'd seen Dariusz feign injury to get Graciano Rochigianni disqualified.

He was considered the best fighter in the world, and he didn't have to go to Germany to prove he was the better fighter.

Nothing new here. You just give Jones a pass and still fail to see that bad decisions are everywhere. We have covered it. I have explained it to you. Reiterating the exact same argument proves nothing Else than you simply cannot see this case from another perspective than that of Roy Jones JR.

He had all three of the main belts.

And why does that matter (Rhetorical question)? Because in Mr. Zimmerman's mind Alphabet organizations carry the authority in boxing history.

Is that enough for you?

Enough? Its a repetion of the the exact same things you have said before and which has been dealt with before.

What belts? The belts had gone. Roy already had all of the belts. Nobody gave a **** about the WBO back then.

Lineage dude. Lineage. Had Ring Magazine not dropped the ball on this issue, there Might have been more pressure on Roy to travel. Yet Ring magazine wanted Roy as champion and also chose to strip DM.

Of course bad decisions have happened elsewhere. Those guys would be well within their rights to not want to fight American's again.
Of course I'm giving you Roy's perspective. It's a thread where we're now discussing his career.

Yes, and he had a fine career. It just could have been so much better but for various reasons it stands as stands. I Think he Might have made the top 20 or maybe even 10 had he fought them all.

We're not talking about triangle theories.

Yes you are.

I'm saying that Roy didn't need to go to Germany to prove he was better than a guy who's biggest win was a points decision over a faded Hill.

Your argument Was that Roy did not have to travel to fight a man who could 'only' get a decision against a boxer Jones KO'ed.

Thats about as triangular as it Can get!

Why did Roy have to take himself to Germany with all of the belts, to prove he was better than Dariusz?

He was considered the best fighter on the planet. A fight would have been great. But Roy didn't have to beat Dariusz to for validation. Roy had already proven he was a great fighter.

Let's assume that Roy had all the belts and was then stripped, which resulted in Dariusz ending up with them.

Then what?

You seriously think Dariusz would have gone to the U.S. to fight Roy?



This is becoming really tiresome.

You are seeing things from your perspective as a fan, and not from the perspective of Roy.

In 2001, Roy was the champion.

Rightly or wrongly, Dariusz at that point was the former champ, and the current WBO belt holder that nobody cared about.

.
Same as before. Lineage.

It's hilarious how you trash Roy's career.

.
I havent trashed his career. At least not here.
So you are a ....? Or?


The rest here is what we have seen from you before and its repetitive and has been dealt with.

Was Dariusz some sort of a superstar who Roy had to fight before he could be declared the best fighter in the world?

Who had Dariusz even beaten for you to be getting so upset?

He defended a lightly regarded belt against decent to poor opposition, before beating a faded Hill on points. That's it. Then he gave up the WBA and kept the WBO.

Look at things from Roy's perspective:

He'd beaten Hopkins with a fractured hand who'd never lost since.

He'd knocked out Malinga.

He'd beaten Toney with ease.

He'd iced Griffin in a round.

He'd easily beat Reggie Johnson.

He'd crushed Hill in four rounds, just after Dariusz had beaten him on points.

He'd smashed up Hall.

He'd beaten Harding.

He'd toyed with Gonzalez.


He didn't need to go to Germany to prove anything.



I have given you valid reasons why I gave Roy a pass for not travelling to Germany.

It's not my fault that you won't consider them.

[robertzimmerman]

BKM,

Atleast you're willing to admit a couple of names now(though your wording is off. But I know you couldn't bare the thought of a non-positive word about Roy coming out of your mouth so it's forgiven). Still disagree about cases like Hopkins and Dariusz.

I tell it like it is.

I've criticised Roy before. He wasn't perfect. He's made a few mistakes and could have done things differently. But we can all say that.

The Dariusz saga has been done to death. I can't tell you anymore than what I've already discussed.

What do you disagree about regarding Bernard?

As for your question, what is the answer supposed to prove? The answer doesn't in any way condone RJJ's many missed opportunities. And for your info I rank Hopkins above Roy now for sure. Roy's fanboys can cling on to the UD over a green non-Hopkins as I like to call that version. But the prime Hopkins that Roy missed out on hurts his resume the most, and I happen to think Hopkins could have squeezed out an ugly UD/SD over prime Roy(OMG, the blasphemy I know. Culture shock here pal. LOL)

The answer proves that Roy has the best resume out of every guy I listed. Which means that despite him missing a lot of guys, it's still pretty damn good. If you truly think that Roy has a poor resume, you can't think much of those other guys.

You can rank Bernard above him. I don't why, but that's up to you.

You're entitled to your opinion on how you think a Hopkins rematch would have gone down. All I'll say to you is this: You have more confidence than what Bernard had.

[IronDanHamza]

BattlingNelson already proved you wrong on atleast one case. I don't deny that it wasn't always his fault, but to claim that it never was is the biggest joke told in this thread next to Hamza's denial of his true intentions(it's hilarious watching him squirm)

Anyone who vehemently denies any wrong doings on Roy's entire career is a fanboy who you can't reason with. Interestingly you have ignored this question several times so you're being pretty ironic.

My intentions could not be clearer mate. It's literally as simple as could be I'm dumbfounded by the fact yourself and others are struggling with what I thought was an extremely basic concept.

The fact I've had to explain it more than once is baffling.

[LacedUp]

No we don't know how good he truly was in his prime, the measure of that is by fighting greats and he fought one ATG in his prime which was Toney, so we know how good Roy was against that one particular style. But to know if he was one of the greatest fighters ever? He would have had to fight several ATG's with several styles.

Roy looked great against the limited opponents he fought but he did not fight the best he could have fought. You say none of it was his fault, but he did not make the extra effort to make those fights either, the most unforgiveable being the rematch against prime Hopkins. That's fine, but it has consequences for one's legacy even if it's not his fault. I don't think Roy fullfilled his potential at all.

You say you rank Hopkins higher than Jones - But Jones beat more ATGs than Hopkins. And his general opposition is also way better.

[LacedUp]

Lmao at this thread and Dan's other thread... Dude has lost his mind...


Downgrading toney

Hyping roy...


Lmao

Your giving credit for roy beating REGGIE johnson... Lol,, a career 154-160 fighter, and you hypin roy beating him at 175 a decade later... But wants to discount toney's won over REGGIE because he struggled... Maybe he should have just fought him much higher in weight at the end of his career like roy did... Your fanboy ass will give roy credit for fighting a faded ass 154 champ at 175, but then downgrade toney's win when REGGIE was in his prime and at his best weight..


If you watched boxong throughout Roy's career, you would know that this dude took one big fight in his prime and nothing else..

Your ass in other threads tried to be a revisionist history and claim roy-hopkins was "clearly battle of the two top middleweights". Lmao,,,,,, hopkins was nothing more than a regional chamo club fighter at best when roy fought him for a vacant belt... Similar to how Charles Martin just fought for a vacant belt...

Since you want to downgrade toney's career, I will ask you this..

What is Roy's best wins from the toney fight in 94-2003.. guy was a superstar and the money man, with an hbo contract and was the best possible fight for any opponent, could make any fight he wanted..band didn't deliver a big fight for nearly a decade..

Yet your the same dude that craps all over calzaghe.. Lmao... Match Roy's lightheavy opponents vs joes 168-175 opponents.. There is little difference..

I can't tell if your just trolling or you actually believe the crap your saying..

Roy was great but coasted for the majority of his career, that's why he never hit stardom like floyd or Oscar. His resume is filled with Berto's, ghost Guerrero, etc but no Canelo's

Only a fanboy can hype up roy beating 40 year Reggie and mccallum, old ass virgil hill that already got outboxed by old Hearns and beaten down by daruisz


ROY TOOK ONE BIG FIGHT IN HIS CAREER VS TONEY... That's the facts.. Hopkins was a nobody that turned out to be somebody a decade later, if you watched bixing back then you would know, unless your a fanboy

Ever notice how roy wasn't that spectacular when fighting legit competition..


Name the prime fighter that roy blew out and stopped..

Sure he was great vs Vinny paz, del Valle, old hill, Otis, etc

Floyd even says you a cherrypicker..



Literally how can you go from nov of 94 to May of 03 and not fight anyone of note or PPv worthy...... But you want to claim roy had great competition.. Lmao, trying to hype vaca and Castro,,, basically the baldomirs of the 90s

For real, I can't tell if your trolling or for real... But if your for real and toney is overrated and roy fought murderer's row, then your a fanboy idiot..


Name the star in boxing that went a decade without a big fights even though they had hbo money behind any fight... Guys like floyd, roy, wlad, chavez jr, canelo, Oscar can ,are any fight they want at anytime.. Yet roy spent a decade beating up the Vinny paz's of the world.

Your threads are a joke if your serious... Lmao at you downplaying toney's won over a prome Reggie but then hyping Roy's win over a faded Reggie at the end of his career..

Your threads are ****** and all your doing is losing credibility.. I really do like you as a poster, and sorry if I'm being harsh, but you are entering the Elroy zone recently

Oh no not again.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Ok I had to skip over a lot of ridiculous points but I'll address the ones worth addressing;

Firstly, I am not downgrading or hyping anybody. In my first thread I'm analysing Toney's career (supposed to be mainly the 90's) and in this thread I am analysing Roy's alleged "weak opponents"' and these so-called weak opponents have been specifically listed in the OP. This is NOT a "analysing Roy Jones career thread" I mean are you ****** or what? Can you not read the thread title mate and the OP? It's like you people just discovered reading.

Secondly, at no point do I "hype" Roy's win over Reggie Johnson nor do I imply that the version of Johnson that Roy fought was better than the one Toney fought. I am merely comparing their performances. Now whilst Reggie wasn't prime he was still a top fighter and still very good at that point he showed that both before and after he fought Roy. As for Toney, I had Reggie beating him. Again, a COMPARISON. You know, the thesis of the thread?

And I also never discredited that win for Toney. I had him losing but it was close enough to go either way.

Thirdly, in regards to Hopkins-Jones, I said that the broadcast team said that they were two of the world's top MW's. Both were green and unproven at the time it was two young prospects fighting for a belt.

You keep repeating the same crap about Jones having no big fights but that's the point of my thread, to look at his opponents and compare his performance against them to the other top fighters of the era. Toney gets credit for beating Sosa and losing twice to Griffin, Eubank gets credit for IMO losing to Malinga, Dariusz gets credit for beating Hill etc etc etc but Roy destroys them and doesn't? That is the point of my thread if you missed the huge clue in the thread title.

"Trying to hype Vaca" no mate, I have not mentioned Vaca at any point. So what are you talking about? I've not hyped Castro either.

You've literally said about 4 times in the same post "lmao at you hyping Reggie for Roy and not for Toney" how primitive do you have to be to not understand what's being done in this thread? Seriously?

At no point do I say, imply or consider Roy Jones opposition "Murderer's row". Once again struggling with the basis of the thread. Take a breath, read it back again slower, try agin.

Also, you said Roy didn't dominate his opponents when he stepped up I'm pretty sure he dominated every fighter he fought in the 90's other than Griffin 1.

If I missed any points it's because I deemed them too laughable to respond to.

I'm entering then "Elroy zone" Yeah....riiiight. Whatever you say man. Both my thread thesis have logic behind them and I've broken down with valid points. You just don't like what you hear and in typical Toney fan fashion put your fingers in your ears and refuse to acknowledge any opposing argument.

Some great points minus the hyperbole. However one cannot compare the comp of Calzighe to Jones...Jones fought at least two great fighters at prime (I will leave it up to the boxing gods to determine atg status).

Hopkins was good enough to start winning shortly thereafter, not over the hill and comparable to roy where he was at career wise at that time, the victory over Toney speaks for itself.

Any great fighter Calzighe beat was past prime and not on the level of Jones opposition by any stretch...comparing Jone's comp to Calzighe is like comparing Iron Dan to Elroy imo.

I think Roy fought great comp for a very small part of his career and then coasted. I also think Toney's foray into heavyweight, where Jones also went really challenges the notion that Roy is more atg than Toney...its a sore spot in this debate for sure.

I love Lights out also...I think Toney and MCcallum are just starting to be evaluated with more objective measures and I hope it gives both these fighters props.

You started out by making some great points regarding Iron's thread on Toney. But then you've let yourself down.

Roy didn't just take one big fight in his career.

He could not make any fight he wanted.

He also looked spectacular against fighters who were above the ability of guys like Pazienza.

He blew out a prime Griffin who was a good fighter.

How on earth can you say that he fought nobody worthy for 9 years? If that was the case, then nobody would get credit for anything. He consistently beat top ten guys and other champions, as well as former and future champions.

He did not spend a decade beating up the Paz's of the world.

I suggest you go and view the links I've uploaded in my previous posts.


I understand you were trying emphasise your point to Iron, but you've gone too far.

I will admit,,, I was drunk as hell on my first post, hence why I repeated myself and was not very clear,,, my bad...


But for real,,, roy jones was the money man on his day.. After the toney fight, roy could make any fight he wanted, but he would have rather taken the hbo millions from his contract and fight no hopers like de Valle, paz, Brannon, lucas, etc.. Hbo executives are even on record saying when they signed roy to the deal they expected much more, but they ****ed up and gave him millions for fighting scrubs on hbo... Once the contract ended, then you saw roy take the ruiz fight, and tarver, calzaghe, etc...

It's absolutely laughable that people think he fought stiff competition during his prime..

List his best five fights from 95-03

Virgil hill...lmao,, dude was old and already beaten by old hearns and pummeled by dariusZ

mccallum was 42 and a blown up jr mid

Reggie was a career 154-160 but a big win for roy at 175

Lucas, paz, Brannon, byrd, etc, etc... Roys resume from 95-03 was a ****ing joke, and he really didn't do anything pre 95 or post 03..


Just please name me the big fights from 95-03,, between toney and ruiz.. A decade's worth of time, roy in his prime, the money man that could make any fight happen, and no big fights happened...

Same posters that hype roy, are the same that degrade oscar's career, even though Oscar fought everybody on the block..

Any non fanboy can realize that roy fought the bare minimum .. He had one night fight vs toney and that was it..l hopkins was an espn club fighter when roy fought him.. He just happened to turn out great a decade later..

[BennyST]

Seriously, you aswell?

Where have I said Roy Jones opposition is "underrated"?

Where have I said Toney's opposition was "poor" and "overrated"?

What are you confused about?

My first thread is about James Toney's career.

This thread is about the specific list of opponents listed and are they are weak as people claim.

That-is-it.

There's no "underrated" in here, this isn't a comparison between Toney and Jones, it isn't a breakdown of Jones career hell its not even a breakdown of his overall opposition.

Specific opponents, are they really as weak as claimed. No more, no less.

I don't understand the constant confusion my thread title and OP are very clear and I thought easy to understand.

It's pure semantics. You suggesting that Roy's opponents aren't as weak as people say they are, as other top fighters struggled with them, is strongly implying that they are underrated. It's saying exactly the same thing. Just because you didn't say it in those exact words doesn't mean that's not the basic point of what you're saying, so just relax. The way it's been written is what brings up the constant confusion from everyone here, not everyone's poor comprehension skills.

You've now come out and pointed out that's not what you're saying, but you could have made that much clearer in the initial post. You've gone through a series of Jones' opponents and written out why they're not weak opposition (which is simply another way of saying underrated), despite most people saying they are. That means that you are saying they are better than people give them credit for and are thus good wins. The constant confusion from everyone is because that's what being underrated is!

Or do you think that every single person that took it exactly that way is wrong and should have read your mind clearer? Maybe the fault lies with you and the way you wrote it out, and the strong implications and suggestions therein, rather than with literally every single person that read it just being too blind and confused to figure out what you were really saying.

I know it's not a comparison between. But people are going to draw very obvious conclusions between the two threads, as they fought common opponents, fought each other, had similar careers in many respects and you are saying one is the most overrated of the decade, while the other has opponents that aren't nearly as underra...sorry, weak, as they seem.

Everyone that has read this is going to draw parallels very naturally and very quickly between the two threads. How you are getting defensive over that is beyond me...you must have expected that, given what you've written about both. Like it or not, but people are going to draw the conclusion that you're taking the piss a little or are on an NSB style kind of rant by saying two opposite extremes between two fighters with similar opponents, similar careers, etc. Maybe that's not what you meant it to come out like, but that's how it looks, hence why everyone is saying the same things.