You know, I have heard several hard-core DM fans turn to the argument that at least DM was the lineal champion, that is when some one points out all the other deficiencies in DM, like the very, very, very weak opposition he faced, that is when they turn to the lineal argument, well, like his weak opposition has been pointed out, it’s time to point out that DM was actually nothing but another of the many title holders and in no way the unified/lineal/linear champion. All DM has ever been is a solid light heavyweight, with a fairly exciting style, nothing special, just a B+ level fighter that could dominate C, D and F level opposition.
After all, to become the lineal champion, a fighter must, A. beat the man, who beat the man, or B. unify all the recognized titles, which were the WBA, IBF and WBC. Well Dariusz Michalczewski did neither A, or B. Firstly, he won the very weak and very lightly regarded WBO title, which he chose to defend throughout his career after abandoning the other two, more coveted titles. He then fought Virgil Hill and won the IBF and WBA titles to go along with his WBO title…but that’s where it stops…no WBC! Not only did he fail to unify the titles, but he chose to give up the IBF and WBA title because the requirements of those organizations would have required him to face an opponent that at least had a pulse, which he wasn’t willing to accept, so off with those titles and start a new campaign calling himself the unified WBO light heavyweight champion…only problem, he never unified the WBC title, which completely disqualifies his claim as linear/lineal champion and therefore the last leg has been kicked out from under the die-hard fans who grasped and polished that lie as it was the last token of worthy claim that they could praise upon DM…sorry, but reality is a bitch sometimes and now DM will go down in history as only a title holder…good thing Roy Jones came along and did what DM couldn’t and unified the three meaningful titles (WBA, WBC and IBF) that truly makes one a unified champion!
The last time DM was argued, someone wanted some sources, well, there is nothing but facts and the sources are very easy to find which prove my above argument that DM was in no way the lineal champion, so, will those same people that clamored for sources willingly accept the truth, or will they try to make excuses about it and deny it because bias is so very blinding?
Dariusz Michalczewski, Lineal/Linear Champ...Not Quite!
wasn't virgil hill the lineal champ when he beat maske?dm then beat hill so becomes the champ,regardless of whether he won the WBC title.you must really hate him barry.jones can have unified all the belts you want but sorry it doesn't make him the man that beat the man.just for example shannon briggs was the lineal heavyweight champ and he won no titles.
re
Hill had only won the IBF title by defeating Henry Maske, he already had the WBA title...Dennis Andries, Jeff Harding, Mike McCallum and Fabrice Tiozzo had been holders of the WBC title during that time, of which DM never went near.
Hate DM, no, but being a Jones fan, I am just pointing out yet another fact that brings actual proof, no matter how much some might wish otherwise, that it is in fact Roy Jones who unified the titles to become the true lineal/linear champion and not DM, as was proclaimed for several years...DM held a portion of the title, just like all the various title holders today, but he was never the true lineal/linear champion, because he failed to unify the titles, like the actual, true claim requires...but Roy Jones did!
Hate DM, no, but being a Jones fan, I am just pointing out yet another fact that brings actual proof, no matter how much some might wish otherwise, that it is in fact Roy Jones who unified the titles to become the true lineal/linear champion and not DM, as was proclaimed for several years...DM held a portion of the title, just like all the various title holders today, but he was never the true lineal/linear champion, because he failed to unify the titles, like the actual, true claim requires...but Roy Jones did!
i'm fairly certain that dm beating hill made him champ.dm held WBO,IBF and WBA titles.to suggest someone else was champ is not on.jones was gifted the WBC title if memory serves.until he fought dm he could not be champ.i don't think you'll find him listed anywhere as lineal champ,no matter how much you want it to be true.
re
Since when has only holding the WBA and IBF titles been consider the unified champion? I can tell you the answer...never...it never has and it doesn't count for DM just because some wish it to, sorry, things don't work that way...He was close to being the true, unified, undeniable champion, but he didn't cross that last hump, he fell short, dropped with the finish line in sight, or any other analogy. He had the better claim for a while, but he never was the true, legit light heavyweight champion and he lost the claim he had when he chose to instead of fighting the best out there, to face the weakest that he could possibly get by with and in refusing to face any decent light heavyweight, the claim dies and so does the hopes of a true unified champion...and then came Roy Jones...the gifted, the great, the unifier, the true champion...I don't think you will find Jones listed in any publication as any thing but the true light heavyweight champion of the world, with DM as always coming in second!
Barry
It's always good to get these issues cleared up and what you say about DM not getting a hold of the WBC belt is fair enough. BUT still, DM had 2 of the 3 and that must count for something. Now if Roy then wins DM's old WBA and IBF titles and the WBC as well he can call himself the unified title holder but it doesn't really carry the same weight as if he'd have beaten DM.
It feels like we are discussibng technicalities here.
DM getting 2 of the 3 is a good achievement. If you say he needs all 3 to be lineal champion then I will go with that, but 2 of 3 is a commitment beyond what most fighters are willing to make and he deserves credit for that. If DM then does not lsoe those titles in the ring it seems absurd that Roy can then win all 3 and claim legitimacy as the lineal champion.
My conclusion is that alphabet spaghetti shapes are to blame. These 2 guys should have fought one another and with Roy's skill he should have been prepared to fight in DM's front room...
It's always good to get these issues cleared up and what you say about DM not getting a hold of the WBC belt is fair enough. BUT still, DM had 2 of the 3 and that must count for something. Now if Roy then wins DM's old WBA and IBF titles and the WBC as well he can call himself the unified title holder but it doesn't really carry the same weight as if he'd have beaten DM.
It feels like we are discussibng technicalities here.
DM getting 2 of the 3 is a good achievement. If you say he needs all 3 to be lineal champion then I will go with that, but 2 of 3 is a commitment beyond what most fighters are willing to make and he deserves credit for that. If DM then does not lsoe those titles in the ring it seems absurd that Roy can then win all 3 and claim legitimacy as the lineal champion.
My conclusion is that alphabet spaghetti shapes are to blame. These 2 guys should have fought one another and with Roy's skill he should have been prepared to fight in DM's front room...
I'm not a great Jones fan for various reasons, but even being objective I must say that being a fighter as talented as he claimed its inexcusable really that Jones never fought DM... for so gifted a fighter not to have fought the main rival of his era is a big blot on Jones record IMO and the upshot really is that neither DM or Jones can claim to have been undisputed champion simply because they never fought eachother.
While I think Jones would probably have won anyway I also think that DM had the style and toughness to stretch Jones and as we have seen latterly Jones doesn't like to go to war, which he probably would have had to do against DM....
While I think Jones would probably have won anyway I also think that DM had the style and toughness to stretch Jones and as we have seen latterly Jones doesn't like to go to war, which he probably would have had to do against DM....
re
I agree that the two should have done whatever it took to make the bout happen, but neither man did that and both actually went out of their ways to make sure the bout did not happen and for that they both deserve equal blame, but as it is when determining a true world champion ever since the advent of all the bullshit organizations the only way to determine such was for one fighter to unify the three titles that were mentioned, or beat the man who beat the man, but in cases where the "man" was no longer around, then unification of the titles is the only way to determine such. That is exactly what all the clamour is about in boxing today for every division, the need for one fighter to step up and unify the titles. That is a topic that we are always talking about and it's a topic that pretty much all are in agreement about, Kostya Tszyu was not the true champion until he unified the three titles...Bernard Hopkins was not the true champion until he unified the three titles...Corey Spinks was not the true champion until he unified the three titles, so why should DM be called that when he most certainly was not and why is it hard to say that Jones is not the true champion because after all he did exactly what a man is suppose to do in order to become the man, the true undisputed champion. Sure, he and DM never fought, but it most certainly is not the only time that the two supposed top fighters of a weight class failed to face one another!
Like I say, DM deserves some applause for getting 2 out fo 3. Jones deserves a bit more because he got 3 of the 3. BUT making the jump from unified champ to linear champ is a hard call in this example because of the fact that DM didn't lose them in the ring.
Barry, DM would have been a test for Roy but I think it's safe to say that Roy would have been a big favourite. Why didn't the fight happen in your opinion? I read the threads regarding the offer of a fight in Germany. I'm not trying to aportion blame here (like you say they are both at fault) but surely Roy fancied that this was a fight he would win. I understand DM's motivations: he was going in with a very dominant fighter and wanted every possible advantage he could get. But from Roy's POV I don't get it?!?!?
Barry, DM would have been a test for Roy but I think it's safe to say that Roy would have been a big favourite. Why didn't the fight happen in your opinion? I read the threads regarding the offer of a fight in Germany. I'm not trying to aportion blame here (like you say they are both at fault) but surely Roy fancied that this was a fight he would win. I understand DM's motivations: he was going in with a very dominant fighter and wanted every possible advantage he could get. But from Roy's POV I don't get it?!?!?
DM had the style to bother Jones and basically Jones didn't want to put it on the line with him. In many ways its a simular scenerio to when Steve Collins tried to get a fight with Jones... people will say that Jones would have beaten Collins, which he probably would have but Collins would have been a tough fight and have had a chance in there and Jones didn't fancy it. Had Jones taken fights like this and fought abroad a few times then he would have gained a lot more respect and attention. There are a few areas of Jones where I have some doubts and this is connected to his reluctance to fight abroad...Ezzard wrote:Like I say, DM deserves some applause for getting 2 out fo 3. Jones deserves a bit more because he got 3 of the 3. BUT making the jump from unified champ to linear champ is a hard call in this example because of the fact that DM didn't lose them in the ring.
Barry, DM would have been a test for Roy but I think it's safe to say that Roy would have been a big favourite. Why didn't the fight happen in your opinion? I read the threads regarding the offer of a fight in Germany. I'm not trying to aportion blame here (like you say they are both at fault) but surely Roy fancied that this was a fight he would win. I understand DM's motivations: he was going in with a very dominant fighter and wanted every possible advantage he could get. But from Roy's POV I don't get it?!?!?
-
Brett Paul Dunbar
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 22 Jan 2002, 20:00
Re: re
Hill became the linear champion in November 1996 by beating Maske and Tiozzo chosing to vacate. Hill held 2 of the 3 titles and the third was vacant, so he qualified on the last man standing principle, he was the only man left in the divison with any of the big three titles. The WBO belt not having much credibility at the timebarry wrote:Hill had only won the IBF title by defeating Henry Maske, he already had the WBA title...Dennis Andries, Jeff Harding, Mike McCallum and Fabrice Tiozzo had been holders of the WBC title during that time, of which DM never went near.
Re: re
Decagon wrote:When Hill beat Henry Maske, Tiozzo had already vacated the WBC title, leaving Hill the sole World Light Heavyweight Champion. And let's not forget that Roy Jones technically wasn't the WBC World Heavyweight Champion all those years, because the title was illegally stripped from Gracciano Roccighiani. Technically, Michalczewski should have won the WBC title with his win over Roccighiani. The WBC lost $30 million on this technicality.barry wrote:Hill had only won the IBF title by defeating Henry Maske, he already had the WBA title...Dennis Andries, Jeff Harding, Mike McCallum and Fabrice Tiozzo had been holders of the WBC title during that time, of which DM never went near.
interesting. i was thinking DM beat him before he went for Nunn...ps, anyone seen Rocchi-Nunn? i hear it was a pretty good fight
re
I'm not going to let this turn into a bullshit argument, so if you don't have anthing to add to the debate, then don't say anything at all because I will delete any nonsense...if you want to counter the debate then do so, but do so like a grown-up!
Wilverine, since you went ahead and copied this very thread and took it over to the current scene and pasted it there, then I'm just going to delete any response that you make on this thread because other than you already having the thread to play with over at the current scene, you have nothing to offer on this one. Go ahead and flash another news bulletin over at the "current scene."
Wilverine, since you went ahead and copied this very thread and took it over to the current scene and pasted it there, then I'm just going to delete any response that you make on this thread because other than you already having the thread to play with over at the current scene, you have nothing to offer on this one. Go ahead and flash another news bulletin over at the "current scene."
re
As to why Jones did not do what he could to make the fight happen, well I would say that it was because he felt that he had the right to call the shots for such a bout, while DM thought he did and neither man was willing to give the other the advantage. I don't think for one minute that Jones was the least bit concerned about DM, though I'm sure he was concerned about fighting in Germany as he no doubt felt that he could not have gotten a fair shake from the judges, and I'm sure that he wouldn't have. A lot of DM fans like to throw up the Gonzalez bout in response to that, but guess what, Gonzalez is not Roy Jones and the feelings that people have for the two are vastly different. As far as lineal, well there are no true lineal champions in any division today as the true lineal/linear is the man who beat the man and that claim died in every division at some time, or another so all there is today is the unified champ. The alphabet titles have made boxing such a mess that it's ridiculous. They have cheapened the meaning of both champion and contender.
As to the debate about the WBC and that DM earned claim to the title when he won by DQ over Rocchigiani in 1996, well it’s incorrect. Rocchigiani was not even ranked at the time by the WBC; Rocchigiani’s claim did not come into effect until 1998.. I’m pretty sure that Tiozzo did not even vacate the title until he got a shot at the cruiserweight title, which was in 1997, and it was in late 1996 Jones and McCallum fought for the interim title, and the interim label was not dropped until after 1997 when Jones was now the WBC title holder. DM never had any connection whatsoever to the WBC title.
People would still be saying the same thing about Jones even if he would have fought and beat fighters like Steve Collins...after all, he dominated a fighter that out-pointed Collins will relative ease in Reggie Johnson, yet a lot of people don't recognize Johnson for being the excellent fighter he was.
As to the debate about the WBC and that DM earned claim to the title when he won by DQ over Rocchigiani in 1996, well it’s incorrect. Rocchigiani was not even ranked at the time by the WBC; Rocchigiani’s claim did not come into effect until 1998.. I’m pretty sure that Tiozzo did not even vacate the title until he got a shot at the cruiserweight title, which was in 1997, and it was in late 1996 Jones and McCallum fought for the interim title, and the interim label was not dropped until after 1997 when Jones was now the WBC title holder. DM never had any connection whatsoever to the WBC title.
People would still be saying the same thing about Jones even if he would have fought and beat fighters like Steve Collins...after all, he dominated a fighter that out-pointed Collins will relative ease in Reggie Johnson, yet a lot of people don't recognize Johnson for being the excellent fighter he was.
Re: re
Barry, it's you who's bringing other people into it and reviving debates i started weeks ago, debates that you have nothing to add to.barry wrote:I'm not going to let this turn into a bullshit argument, so if you don't have anthing to add to the debate, then don't say anything at all because I will delete any nonsense...if you want to counter the debate then do so, but do so like a grown-up!
Wilverine, since you went ahead and copied this very thread and took it over to the current scene and pasted it there, then I'm just going to delete any response that you make on this thread because other than you already having the thread to play with over at the current scene, you have nothing to offer on this one. Go ahead and flash another news bulletin over at the "current scene."
if you wanted to undermine DM, the best time would've been the 2 yrs after the barber win. that was the time he faced the dreck and almost got stopped by the good fighter Rocchi. but then he beat The Man at the weight, Hill, in a great display, and he would demolish Rocchi in a rematch and beat a good few solid and good fighters.
ultimately, Jones and DM were both outstanding champs, but i don't think there's much more point talking about a fight that never happened!
re
So you're the only person that can start a thread about DM, or revive a debate? I'm sure if anyone typed DM into a search engine that anything you stated in your thread weeks ago has already been covered by someone else on numerous occasions!
Also, I don't recall where this debate was brought up before, so yes there is plenty to add, some things you might not like, or want to hear, but there is more to add!
Also, I don't recall where this debate was brought up before, so yes there is plenty to add, some things you might not like, or want to hear, but there is more to add!
you should try not to bring too many ppl down to your bitching level. which is what you do, as when you admitted to 'baiting' wolverine. i doubt everything i said can be found on search engines barry, as i actually bother to watch the fights.
well, i've countered a lot of your previous arguments pretty well:
your view that barber's no good// my opinion that Barber was a bold, durable guy who took his show on the road (Italy, China, Wales, England, Germany), developed his skills and showed a formidable punch - but didn't reach his full potential as he had 2 yrs off after the DM loss. plus, the DM-Barber fight was one fougth at a fine pace, with beautiful, clean punching, and a high level of skill
your view that Jones was superior, and thus the real champ, for beating Harmon, hall (better) and Gonzales (actually winning). my point that DM had slowed down, was struggling with his mandatories as most old champs do, and also that DM appeared to beat Gonzales.
your view that DM scraped the bottom of the barrel, and faced virtually no one but bums// my point that Piper, Prince, Girard, Thadzi, were better than average, capable guys. that Griffin was good, and Rocchi, Hill, and barber were Very good fighters. of course, the rest had No right challenging for a title, but at least i make the distinction!
jones was given a pretty much free pass to 175 'supremacy'. heck, i'm sure he should've been given a free pass at cruiser as well. i'm sure we should assume that Jones would've beaten everyone. he didn't even need to fight Buster Douglas, Corrie Sanders, or defend his WBA title vs Rahman or Tua
it doesn't mean anything to me as to who would've won, or whose fault it was that the fight didn't happen.
well, i've countered a lot of your previous arguments pretty well:
your view that barber's no good// my opinion that Barber was a bold, durable guy who took his show on the road (Italy, China, Wales, England, Germany), developed his skills and showed a formidable punch - but didn't reach his full potential as he had 2 yrs off after the DM loss. plus, the DM-Barber fight was one fougth at a fine pace, with beautiful, clean punching, and a high level of skill
your view that Jones was superior, and thus the real champ, for beating Harmon, hall (better) and Gonzales (actually winning). my point that DM had slowed down, was struggling with his mandatories as most old champs do, and also that DM appeared to beat Gonzales.
your view that DM scraped the bottom of the barrel, and faced virtually no one but bums// my point that Piper, Prince, Girard, Thadzi, were better than average, capable guys. that Griffin was good, and Rocchi, Hill, and barber were Very good fighters. of course, the rest had No right challenging for a title, but at least i make the distinction!
jones was given a pretty much free pass to 175 'supremacy'. heck, i'm sure he should've been given a free pass at cruiser as well. i'm sure we should assume that Jones would've beaten everyone. he didn't even need to fight Buster Douglas, Corrie Sanders, or defend his WBA title vs Rahman or Tua
it doesn't mean anything to me as to who would've won, or whose fault it was that the fight didn't happen.
re
You're the only one that has been bitching. And I wasn't talking about things that you had previously said could be found on a search engine, but that any argument that you have tried to make about DM has already been covered in the past...plenty!
>>>it doesn't mean anything to me as to who would've won, or whose fault it was that the fight didn't happen.<<<
It doesn't, then what are you bitching about? As to your counters, they are the typical overly-bias responses that I have heard from every other die-hard DM fan...never willing to admit any thing negative...You present arguments where DM earned everything while Roy Jones was given his...do you really believe that bullshit?
>>>it doesn't mean anything to me as to who would've won, or whose fault it was that the fight didn't happen.<<<
It doesn't, then what are you bitching about? As to your counters, they are the typical overly-bias responses that I have heard from every other die-hard DM fan...never willing to admit any thing negative...You present arguments where DM earned everything while Roy Jones was given his...do you really believe that bullshit?
i admit the shite level fighters he defended, how is that typically biased? but at least i'm productive enought to see the good with the bad. and i don't think i've repeated anyone. if so, bring up the evidence. something you couldn't do with the last little 'episode', which kept you quiet for a good week or two.
affirming that Leeonzer Barber is good isn't to prop up DM on a pedestal. my saying he was a good fighter therefore isn't biased. i like watching Barber fight and think he was an underrated titlist. even when past it he had a couple of memorable brawls with abdul aziz.
he had a good, cute defense that we often see with classy detroit guys like Toney and Byrd. admiring his ability to defend around the world, to fight a simialr level of guys that Moorer and PC Williams fought, and rallying through a horrific eye injury (vs Piper) Is Not bias. Barber-Piper was a dramatic fight; no one who saw it will forget. because LB fought away so much not many have seen him in action! IMO it's tragic he took 2 yrs off after DM - he was improving into a well rounded fighter and didn't lose by much!
this isn't even coming from a 'bias DM fan'. i'm simply saying that he was indeed a champion and not a titlist. that was the opinion i was trying to gauge with the previous threads i started. if i think a fighter is getting a raw deal then i'll speak up against it. DM is Not God.
your view is a very restrictive one. it doesn't acknowledge the qualities that other fighters possess. the point you make about DM being merely 'solid' or whatever. i think DM is overlooked for not being flashy, as Jones was. often he could look slow, as he was often a) getting his body in position and b) waiting for the openings. when he found his range, he was usually a formidable guy who broke ppl down with heavy shots, and when he accelarated he was very hard to deny
btw, is any title worse than another out of the big 4? look at the fight that won DM the WBO title. it was an outstanding battle, beautiful to watch for its poise, class and intensity. someting that, say, Maske-Hill lacked! you ought to watch it and enjoy it! a modern classic. look how crap an undisputed title fight can be
affirming that Leeonzer Barber is good isn't to prop up DM on a pedestal. my saying he was a good fighter therefore isn't biased. i like watching Barber fight and think he was an underrated titlist. even when past it he had a couple of memorable brawls with abdul aziz.
he had a good, cute defense that we often see with classy detroit guys like Toney and Byrd. admiring his ability to defend around the world, to fight a simialr level of guys that Moorer and PC Williams fought, and rallying through a horrific eye injury (vs Piper) Is Not bias. Barber-Piper was a dramatic fight; no one who saw it will forget. because LB fought away so much not many have seen him in action! IMO it's tragic he took 2 yrs off after DM - he was improving into a well rounded fighter and didn't lose by much!
this isn't even coming from a 'bias DM fan'. i'm simply saying that he was indeed a champion and not a titlist. that was the opinion i was trying to gauge with the previous threads i started. if i think a fighter is getting a raw deal then i'll speak up against it. DM is Not God.
your view is a very restrictive one. it doesn't acknowledge the qualities that other fighters possess. the point you make about DM being merely 'solid' or whatever. i think DM is overlooked for not being flashy, as Jones was. often he could look slow, as he was often a) getting his body in position and b) waiting for the openings. when he found his range, he was usually a formidable guy who broke ppl down with heavy shots, and when he accelarated he was very hard to deny
btw, is any title worse than another out of the big 4? look at the fight that won DM the WBO title. it was an outstanding battle, beautiful to watch for its poise, class and intensity. someting that, say, Maske-Hill lacked! you ought to watch it and enjoy it! a modern classic. look how crap an undisputed title fight can be
re
Kept me quite...check the posts, nothing has keep me quite, and if I had been it wouldn't have been from anything you did...as I remember all you did was continue to ask me to search for a source...that was the depth of your argument, so you haven't presented much of anything. I've seen several of DM's bouts and like I have said, pretty exciting style and he looks real good dominating low-level competition and I have made no bones about the fact that I prefer to watch Dm style as opposed to Jones. You keep harping on Barber like he was a pound-for-pound entrant, or something, but he was nothing more than a B level fighter.
How do you rank the opponents that Roy Jones faced, not counting Richard Frazier, which is one fight that people try to mention, but his other title bouts, do you know anything about any of his opponents, have you seen them fight?
How do you rank the opponents that Roy Jones faced, not counting Richard Frazier, which is one fight that people try to mention, but his other title bouts, do you know anything about any of his opponents, have you seen them fight?
Re: re
actually that was someone else! you were locked in some nasty debate with someone else, not mebarry wrote:Kept me quite...check the posts, nothing has keep me quite, and if I had been it wouldn't have been from anything you did...as I remember all you did was continue to ask me to search for a source...that was the depth of your argument, so you haven't presented much of anything. I've seen several of DM's bouts and like I have said, pretty exciting style and he looks real good dominating low-level competition. You keep harping on Barber like he was a pound-for-pound entrant, or something, but he was nothing more than a B level fighter.
How do you rank the opponents that Roy Jones faced, not counting Richard Frazier, which is one fight that people try to mention, but his other title bouts, do you know anything about any of his opponents, have you seen them fight?