Thanks for the Excuses, Roy!

[Franko]

well he didn't pull out of a fight, but he was calling Lewis out for a while. Lewis said on the telecast where he fought Klitschko that he would fight Roy. Roy never responded after that. He shut up real fast.

Lewis would've slaughtered Jones. I think that's plainly obvious.
With regards to Jones making excuses, i think that's in his nature i.e. because he was at the top for so long he found it hard to accept when he came crashing down. He's an egotistical character.
However, let's get one thing straight, Roy Jones is a legend, and quite capable of beating any fighter from Middle to Light Heavyweight history. Despite what people will say, moving down from heavyweight prior to the original Tarver fight will have an adverse effect, but i do think that some of his excuses are lame in defeat. When a fighter is so soundly beaten they should accept the fact and come again to prove what they can do without making excuses, more respect is gained that way.
Tarver at his best, and Jones at his best, there's only one winner and that's Jones.. end of.

[bsrizpac]

Lewis and Roy were supposed to fight in 2003, before Roy ever considered fighting Tarver as an opponent. Sorry to negate your whole argument.

I didn't have a whole argument actually. That was Lennox Lewis, your boy, and what he thinks of haters of Roy Jones.

And you're also the same guy that says in one thread that Roy was supposed to fight Lewis and then in other Tarver threads says he was never going to fight at heavyweight so the weight against Tarver didn't matter.


Sorry to negate your whole argument. And 10-1 says you were a Jones fan before he lost to Tarver. Just like you were a Tarver fan before he lost to Hopkins. And so forth.

Read what Lennox wrote again.

[Guest]

Anyone who had Tarver winning that fight needs to have their head checked.
116-112 EASY.
Who gives a **** about the crowd???
Lederman, the judges and almost every expert had Roy winning.

Maybe you should read what I said again. I said that having Tarver winning wasn't a controversial statement.

As for "the crowd", then while I partly agree, I was just pointing out that the majority opinion of those that spectated was that Roy was lucky to get the decision.

Considering Roy looked out on his feet and was being blasted on the ropes for most of the bout then I wouldn't call his win "easy".


Oh... and I could give two ****s what Lederman thinks. And OBVIOUSLY the judges had Roy winning... otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the decision in the first place.

[Guest]

I still havent heard from one logical person that tarver won that fight.
Even Deigo had it a draw, and we know how much he loves Tarver.

Logical in YOUR view.

I might watch this fight again... I did have Roy winning it as a boxing match, but considering he was hurt several times in the fight and Tarver wasn't hurt once I don't see what's controversial about someone holding that view.

[bsrizpac]

Logical in YOUR view.

I might watch this fight again... I did have Roy winning it as a boxing match, but considering he was hurt several times in the fight and Tarver wasn't hurt once I don't see what's controversial about someone holding that view.

The controversy would come from them being unable to score a boxing match. Those are the kinds of people that don't understand that punches that bounce off of elbows and the gloves are not scoring punches.

And given your argument about him being "out on his feet" I guess we should give Roy rounds 11 and 12 of fight 3 since Tarver was "out on his feet" from punching himself out or whatever was wrong with him, since his conditioning is terrible.

[Guest]

The controversy would come from them being unable to score a boxing match. Those are the kinds of people that don't understand that punches that bounce off of elbows and the gloves are not scoring punches.

And given your argument about him being "out on his feet" I guess we should give Roy rounds 11 and 12 of fight 3 since Tarver was "out on his feet" from punching himself out or whatever was wrong with him, since his conditioning is terrible.

Nah, you see, this is what happens when you don't want to DISCUSS stuff, you just want to get into some kind of perjorative sub-flame war.

I'll repeat it again: I'm not saying Roy didn't win the first fight, I'm saying that if someone says Tarver did, that's NOT a controversial opinion.

[bsrizpac]

Nah, you see, this is what happens when you don't want to DISCUSS stuff, you just want to get into some kind of perjorative sub-flame war.

I'll repeat it again: I'm not saying Roy didn't win the first fight, I'm saying that if someone says Tarver did, that's NOT a controversial opinion.

I read what you wrote. And I agree that it isn't a huge deal if you had Tarver winning.

What I laugh at, is "Roy was getting his ass kicked" or "Tarver won easy" which is what most of what anyone who had Tarver winning tends to say. I had Roy winning where it counts, the championship rounds. Again people who give the win to Tarver seem to not be able to score fights and think that flurrying for 10 seconds against a guys gloves and elbows is an "ass kicking".

So there's nothing to discuss and no flame war needed. Some people are just silly that's all.

[Guest]

I read what you wrote. And I agree that it isn't a huge deal if you had Tarver winning.

What I laugh at, is "Roy was getting his ass kicked" or "Tarver won easy" which is what most of what anyone who had Tarver winning tends to say. I had Roy winning where it counts, the championship rounds. Again people who give the win to Tarver seem to not be able to score fights and think that flurrying for 10 seconds against a guys gloves and elbows is an "ass kicking".

So there's nothing to discuss and no flame war needed. Some people are just silly that's all.

Maybe I was thinking of the other guy then, who seemed to have thinly-veiled attacks in his responses.

I agree, Tarver tried to win the majority of rounds by about thirty seconds, and his idle streak cost him the fight.

Explain to me this thing about "championship rounds" though... what difference would that make to an overall score?

[bsrizpac]

Maybe I was thinking of the other guy then, who seemed to have thinly-veiled attacks in his responses.

I agree, Tarver tried to win the majority of rounds by about thirty seconds, and his idle streak cost him the fight.

Explain to me this thing about "championship rounds" though... what difference would that make to an overall score?

Sarcasm noted. I suppose it'd be easier to be overbearing and act like your opinion is somehow better than everyone elses. But I can't think of anyone like that. Funny you should say that when about three posts above you go

----------------
Oh... and I could give two ****s what Lederman thinks. And OBVIOUSLY the judges had Roy winning... otherwise we wouldn't be talking about the decision in the first place.


---------------

I guess thinly veiled attacks are much worse than thinly veiled intelluctual elitism.



As for Championship rounds, they make a difference as to the terms of the "fight" which is what you are talking about instead of the score. If one guy is "out on his feet" and getting his ass kicked pulling out the championship rounds would help to show that he's at least in the fight and not getting this epic ass kicking that Tarver fans or anti-Roy people claim is occuring.

I would if I were you, go ahead as you yourself suggested, and go watch this fight again.

[Guest]

Sarcasm noted. I suppose it'd be easier to be overbearing and act like your opinion is somehow better than everyone elses. But I can't think of anyone like that. Funny you should say that when about three posts above you go

I guess thinly veiled attacks are much worse than thinly veiled intelluctual elitism.

There was no "sarcasm", I don't know what you're talking about.

And there is no intellectual elitism, I'm just trying to have a decent ****ing conversation without pricks going "LMAO, you're wrong, pwned" or putting words into my mouth.

Considering you've only just starting posting here you've got a BIG mouth.