Roy Jones Jr is the first MW champion in over 100 years to win a HW title

[HOUDINI563]

Hey Queen remember when I beat your ass every night on aol boxing? Your were a Jack Johnson hating racist with amateur level boxing knowledge then and you’re exactly the same today. Not one iota of improvement.

[HOUDINI563]

What was your screen name on aol boxing? Mine is the same. Yours was some embarrassing gay reference if I remember correctly.

[BattlingNelson]

Stick to the subject guys. No more personal attacks.

[Granath]

Oh BTW you also have amateur level understanding of the lineal (worlds hwt championship) title. Lineal does not always mean you beat the previous title holder. It usually does but the exception is when a true hwt champion retires. Sharkey and Sharkey were well understood as the two best after Tunney retired. Moore and Patterson were considered the two best when Marciano retired. Both Schmeling and Patterson as such were the new lineal and true champion. Holmes beat the universal No 1 and UNCROWNED champion in Norton, beat leading contender Shavers and to add icing on the cake the unretired Ali. Holmes was universally considered the best hwt and the rightful new lineal champion. The hwt tournament that eventually crowned John Tate new champion was a sham who no one considered valid. It spawned the long list of paper champions Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Berbick, Witherspoon, Thomas, Smith. None of which had any historical claim to the worlds hwt championship. A title is only as valid as the history behind it.

When RJJ beat Ruiz, Lewis was worlds hwt champion. Ruiz was a contender who happen to hold a paper political title without any historical merit.

That’s boxing history 101. Study up you need it!

Except it doesn't work that way. The champ is the guy who holds the belt(s). That's it, no more, thank you for playing. Bless your little heart. So now that we've established that in your mind a title is subjective and prone to redefinition to fit whatever criteria you want it to, I'm very curious....who in your current HW title holder and why?


----

As for boxing history, let's stop with the revisionist bullhockey. Norton wasn't the uncrowned Champ. He was the very definition of a paper champ. 10-3 over his last 13 with 2 losses to Ali and getting flattened by Foreman, he barely squeaks by Jimmy Young in an eliminator.

Ali had won 14 in a row, including 2 wins over Norton, when he lost a SD to Spinks. The WBC, because they were corrupt, made Norton the #1 challenger over Ali. Who else would not allow the champ another shot at the title in such circumstances over a guy who was beaten by that very champ twice in the previous 4 years? So Spinks fought the REAL champ - Ali - and lost. Norton was handed a belt without fighting for it and then promptly lost it. That, my boy, is again the definition of a paper champ. And in your feeble mind that somehow lands Norton as the lineal champ and therefore Holmes? Oh my, that is funny.

------

Note that I never have argued that RJJ beat some all-time great to win the title. I think Ruiz was a lousy fighter and I hated watching him. But the simple fact is that RJJ started his career as a junior middleweight,won the middleweight title and won the HW title. And nothing you can say will make that any less of a fact.

[HOUDINI563]

Again you need to better understand boxing history. Right now you have very cursory understanding.

Winning a political belt is meaningless. A title is only as good as its history. Lewis was the hwt champion when Jones beat Ruiz. That’s all anyone needs to know. Ruiz was at no time worlds hwt champion.

Norton was considered UNCROWNED champion since his loss to Ali in 76 which most everyone believed he won. It had nothing to do with Norton being given a paper title which most knowledgeable historians including me ignored. (fans like you knew no better). He was also universally considered No 1 contender.

Holmes beating Norton, Shavers and Ali gave him the worlds hwt championship and indeed he is today considered so.

Study up. I’m growing tired of being the professor to ******ed students!

[Granath]

Again you need to better understand boxing history. Right now you have very cursory understanding.

Winning a political belt is meaningless. A title is only as good as its history. Lewis was the hwt champion when Jones beat Ruiz. That’s all anyone needs to know. Ruiz was at no time worlds hwt champion.

Norton was considered UNCROWNED champion since his loss to Ali in 76 which most everyone believed he won. It had nothing to do with Norton being given a paper title which most knowledgeable historians including me ignored. (fans like you knew no better). He was also universally considered No 1 contender.

Holmes beating Norton, Shavers and Ali gave him the worlds hwt championship and indeed he is today considered so.

Study up. I’m growing tired of being the professor to ******ed students!

Ruiz was the hwt champ when Lewis beat Mike Tyson. See how easy it is if we just ignore truth and history? I love it. You can't justify your position at all yet you insist on repeating it.

Ali was universally considered the number 1 contender once he didn't have the belt. Norton was a paper champ. Ali had won the last two. No one thought Norton deserved the title shot until a rematch between Spinks/Ali, except for the WBC as they were paid off. Which is the reason 2 BILLION people watched that fight, far more than those who watched Norton/Holmes (though they missed a good fight). And NO ONE wanted Ali to come out at age 38, slurring his words, to fight Holmes. The prevailing sentiment at the time was that Larry Holmes was a bum because he couldn't even get Parkinson Ali out of there. Ali had to quit on his stool in the 10th. As Ferdie Pacheco said, that fight was an abomination. And you think Holmes deserves credit for it? Have you no shame at all?

Professor? You haven't even gotten out of kindergarten. You keep repeating the same line but you don't get how idiotic you come across. You've constantly shifted the definition of a paper champion. You can't define what makes the lineal champion because you keep changing the criteria. You can't even tell me who the "real" champion is today. You ignore the simple fact that, depending on if you ask the WBC, WBA or IBF you're going to get a different answer on who the champion really is in any given weight class. Despite your ego, you don't get to decide which one is the "true" champion according to your constantly shifting parameters - at least not for anyone else but you.

Roy Jones Jr., heavyweight champion of the world. And there's ****-all you can do about it.