Did Roy Jones Jr blatantly duck / avoid Dariusz Michaelczewski? Why?

[Mr Objecitivity]

No. He chose to hide behind an unrecognized title to avoid top competition. He was rightfully stripped for refusing to give up the WBOgus belt.

I call it nonsense unless you can prove that it was INITIALLY part of the contract and the rules that had Michalczewski held on to the WBO belt, he would've been stripped off his other titles. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary / random / spontaneous changing of the rules to screw over the champion at the time.

[N/A]

I call it nonsense unless you can prove that it was INITIALLY part of the contract and the rules that had Michalczewski held on to the WBO belt, he would've been stripped off his other titles. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary / random / spontaneous changing of the rules to screw over the champion at the time.

Nothing arbitrary about it. The WBO wasn't recognized back then. If you unified with a real world title, you had to pick between keeping the real world title or keeping the bogus title. Like Naseem Hamed, who is personally one of my favorite fighters of all time, he chose to hide behind the bogus title to more easily avoid top competition.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Nothing arbitrary about it. The WBO wasn't recognized back then. If you unified with a real world title, you had to pick between keeping the real world title or keeping the bogus title. Like Naseem Hamed, who is personally one of my favorite fighters of all time, he chose to hide behind the bogus title to more easily avoid top competition.

That's all subjective and speculative. Where were the actual rules and conditions that specifically stated: IF MICHALCZEWSKI CONTINUED HOLDING THE WBO TITLE AND CONTINUED HAVING WBO TITLE DEFENSES, THEN HE'D BE STRIPPED OFF HIS OTHER TITLES AND BELTS.

If that rule was INITIALLY in effect and if Michalczewski still refused to abide by that rule, then I could accept that it was fair for him to be stripped. Otherwise, it remains an unfair treatment to the foreign boxer.

[IMDAZED]

That's all subjective and speculative. Where were the actual rules and conditions that specifically stated: IF MICHALCZEWSKI CONTINUED HOLDING THE WBO TITLE AND CONTINUED HAVING WBO TITLE DEFENSES, THEN HE'D BE STRIPPED OFF HIS OTHER TITLES AND BELTS.

If that rule was INITIALLY in effect and if Michalczewski still refused to abide by that rule, then I could accept that it was fair for him to be stripped. Otherwise, it remains an unfair treatment to the foreign boxer.

I don’t know if it was a rule, but he had x amount of days to defend his title versus Lou Del Valle (a dangerous LHW) and he chose to drop the belt and defend against the WBO’s Nicky Piper instead.

[PAC-BOY]

Both were worried undefeated at the time. Both worried about losing a decision to home town advantage. Of course we want to see the confident one say "Ill go to your back yard and beat you". But this is also a business and those things have left Money being the reason many fights didint happen.
Roy felt like he wanted the lions share. so did Dariusz to come to the US. And Roy wanted way more to go there. If youre gonna take the risk...make the pay for it. And where did the fight make more sense to be placed. Both would have done good ticket sales but it have to end a KO for either of them to take a risk on the cards

[N/A]

If that rule was INITIALLY in effect and if Michalczewski still refused to abide by that rule, then I could accept that it was fair for him to be stripped.

yes that was the official rule of most of the sanctioning bodies back then. were you not watching boxing at the time?

[N/A]

I don’t know if it was a rule, but he had x amount of days to defend his title versus Lou Del Valle (a dangerous LHW) and he chose to drop the belt and defend against the WBO’s Nicky Piper instead.

At the time, you could unify the IBF & WBO, but he was stripped for refusing to face the IBF mandatory.

But back then you couldn't keep the WBO title if you wanted to be a WBC or WBA champion. By rule, you had to get rid of the bogus belt if you wanted one of the real belts.

[robertzimmerman]

Mr Objecitivity,

Very good, informative, well thought out and detailed comment. Green K sent for it!

Thanks.

Although from what I've learnt. Dariusz Michaelczewski was willing to travel to USA to get his belts back that was unfairly stripped off him. However, he demanded the appropriate money. Not only was sufficient money unprovided, but further obstacles were constantly being put in front of Dariusz Michalczewski unfairly by having prerequisites of him having to box against many other opponents in USA to qualify for his bout against Roy Jones Jr. Appears to be very unjust and harsh treatment to the foreign boxer.

No money was ever provided, because their advisors and the heads of their TV networks, were never able to sit down together and discuss any specifics.

What prerequisites?

The only thing that happened, was that HBO suggested that they both fought in a 'Double Header' to introduce Dariusz to a live U.S. audience. Kerry Davis of HBO put the proposal together, and it was sent via fax, as their calls were being ignored.

There weren't any obstacles.

Also, Germany really isn't as corrupt as many make it out to be. The scoring is usually pretty fair and objective. It isn't any more corrupted than USA. The odd, inaccurate scoring does occur from time to time but this applies pretty much everywhere.

I agree that it does occur everywhere and it has done many times in the U.S. But Roy was scarred from the Olympics, and some of the judging and refereeing in some of Sven Ottke's fights were outrageous.

Also, Dariusz pathetically feigned injury in order to get Graciano Rocchigianni disqualified in their first fight.

It was cringeworthy, but worthy of an Oscar.

It was an absolute joke. See for yourself:

https://********/W9_Dxs51QvI

Roy was well within his rights to not want to take all 3 of the main belts over there.


If you want to see if a fighter genuinely wants to have big fights, then the best thing to do, is to look at what happened after they lost out on a big fight. Look at what they did instead. Look at what they did afterwards.

Roy proved that he was open to big fights back then. When he couldn't obtain the fight with Dariusz in 2001, he then tried to rematch Bernard Hopkins in 2002. Mark Taffet of HBO is on record stating that Bernard was offered $6m, but he flatly refused and demanded $10m. So that was the 2nd big fight that Roy lost. But in the following year, Roy then fought John Ruiz and Antonio Tarver. So when Roy lost out on a big fight, he pursued the next one.

Now take a look at what Dariusz did. His resume speaks volumes. When he lost out on the opportunity fight with Roy, he just continued to do what he'd done previously, which was to milk his lightly regarded WBO title in Germany, against mainly B and C class opposition. So I don't believe that he ever really wanted to fight Roy in the U.S. back then. I don't think he wanted the big fights. I think he was more than content to just carry on with what he'd been doing, which was similar to what Joe Calzaghe did with his WBO belt at SMW.

Anybody can say anything. But as per the old adage: "Actions speak louder than words"

[IMDAZED]

At the time, you could unify the IBF & WBO, but he was stripped for refusing to face the IBF mandatory.

But back then you couldn't keep the WBO title if you wanted to be a WBC or WBA champion. By rule, you had to get rid of the bogus belt if you wanted one of the real belts.

I vaguely remember something like that. It just made no sense why he kept the lightly-regarded WBO belt over the others. Actually, it made a lot of sense. His promoter was in bed with them and he could milk it for all it was worth.

[N/A]

Actually, it made a lot of sense. His promoter was in bed with them and he could milk it for all it was worth.

bingo

hamed, calzaghe, etc did the same thing