barry wrote:Axe is a hardcore DM fan! I didn't say you were, but you act like it.
No matter what kind of excuses you guys try to make for DM, or the reason why he didn't get such and such belt, or that he defeated a one time holder of the belt, none of it is fact and no manner of excuses will change the fact of the matter...
There is a big difference between fact and opinion...mine is fact as it is plainly backed up by actual happenings, or non-happenings that occured in the ring, you guys give your opinions, which is backed up by nothing except your own words, which most certainly do not pass as fact, even if you wish it did.
Why is it so hard to accept the true facts? I'll tell you why, because hardcore DM fans cannot do it, which is why many of you are lumped into that category of "Hardcore DM fan." Is that explained plain enough for you?
what a cop out.
Barry lectures us on the ethics of his being correct instead of putting up an actual argument. funny how making a case for DM is lumped by Barry into the "hardcore fan" category.
so, if the WBO belt is "worthless" why did Mr Jones turn his back on a fight with Corrie Sanders, when he found that his WBO heavyweight belt wouldn't be on the line?
and now that we're talking "facts", isn't it a fact that Jones was given the WBC title, costing the WBCorrupt $30m? Or is that only "an opinion"
Thing is that neither Jones nor DM can truly claim to have been 'the man' at 175 becuase they didnot fight eachother... it doesn't matter how many belts you hold, if you don't face your main rival at your weight then you can't claim to have been truly the best. This is one of the big blots against Jones, at a time where there was little opposition at the weight Jones chose or allowed the chance of a fight with DM to pass by and therefore didn't face the main challenger of that time at his weight, ...which either way you look at is pretty poor really... as a fighter who was regarded as p4p the best in the world at the time, its extremely disapointing that Jones didn't feel moved to take the DM fight no matter where it was in order to prove his fistic superiority....
the sad truth is, the next fighters who bothered to settle the 'Best' issue were the less than outstanding Tarver and Johnson, who have us two very sloppy fights indeed.
silkov wrote:Thing is that neither Jones nor DM can truly claim to have been 'the man' at 175 becuase they didnot fight eachother... it doesn't matter how many belts you hold, if you don't face your main rival at your weight then you can't claim to have been truly the best. This is one of the big blots against Jones, at a time where there was little opposition at the weight Jones chose or allowed the chance of a fight with DM to pass by and therefore didn't face the main challenger of that time at his weight, ...which either way you look at is pretty poor really... as a fighter who was regarded as p4p the best in the world at the time, its extremely disapointing that Jones didn't feel moved to take the DM fight no matter where it was in order to prove his fistic superiority....
This is what I don't get. RJ looked way above everyone else. Why didn't he fight DM in his own front room? i really can't imagine why he didn't take the fight.
Well I thought their first fight was very good, the second not quite so but respect to them both for fighting eachother like real champions should... for me Tarver is the first 'undisputed' 175 champ since Micheal Spinks... doesn't matter if all the damn bodies strip him, he's proved himself the best... he beat Jones in their first fight too though he didn't get the verdict...
silkov wrote:Thing is that neither Jones nor DM can truly claim to have been 'the man' at 175 becuase they didnot fight eachother... it doesn't matter how many belts you hold, if you don't face your main rival at your weight then you can't claim to have been truly the best. This is one of the big blots against Jones, at a time where there was little opposition at the weight Jones chose or allowed the chance of a fight with DM to pass by and therefore didn't face the main challenger of that time at his weight, ...which either way you look at is pretty poor really... as a fighter who was regarded as p4p the best in the world at the time, its extremely disapointing that Jones didn't feel moved to take the DM fight no matter where it was in order to prove his fistic superiority....
This is what I don't get. RJ looked way above everyone else. Why didn't he fight DM in his own front room? i really can't imagine why he didn't take the fight.
silkov wrote:Well I thought their first fight was very good, the second not quite so but respect to them both for fighting eachother like real champions should... for me Tarver is the first 'undisputed' 175 champ since Micheal Spinks... doesn't matter if all the damn bodies strip him, he's proved himself the best... he beat Jones in their first fight too though he didn't get the verdict...
i thought both the AT-GJ fights, both men looked exhausted relatively early and their technique - especially tarver's - was horrible and sloppy. AT's beat a lot of good fighters, but the factt hat he calls Tyson out shows he's longer willing to face serious opposition - just when guys like Adamek might get him
i thought AT beat Jones in fight 1, but Jones was in terrible shape and AT was very reluctant
Fact...Jones won probably around 50 total belts at 160, 168, 175 and heavyweight...never once did he fight for a WBO title...see, that's just more of the fiction that some of you cats try to spin, Jones covets the WBO title...yeah, and Battling Nelson was a finesse fighter!
Fact...Roy Jones fought Mike McCallum for the WBC light heavyweight title, it wasn't given to him, it was won in the ring! Fact, Jones intended to vacate the WBC 175 title, along with the WBA and IBF when he moved up to heavyweight, but he chose instead to stay at 175, so he was still the champ and reclaimed the belts instead of vacating them, yet some of you try to argue that Rocchigiani was champ...now if that had been the case then Rocchigiani would certainly have been given the title...no Jones won all of the belts that he had in the ring, none was given to him!
I have always said in the past that no one has true claim, neither Jones, nor DM, but if there was an argument to make, then Jones has better credentials than DM...and that is fact. Actually Jones is champion as he did exactly what is expected of fighters to become the man, he unified the belts. Why should it be different for Jones, yet fighters like Cory Spinks, Tszyu and Winky Wright unify the three and they are called the man…there have been several true champions that failed to face the best opponent available, yet it did not diminish their claim of being unified/lineal/linear champion, so why should it be different for Jones…because he failed to fight DM? Jones did everything that is expected of a fighter to be called the true champion.
Hell, DM was never the top contender as he never would fight and top fighters, or eliminator bouts against the top opponents at 175…he never went in a faced the likes of Antonio Tarver, but Eric Harding did and defeated Tarver and then fought Jones because he was the top contender and of course Jones did his usual and dominated Harding. No, while Tarver, Harding and Jones were fighting one another, DM was fighting the likes of Ka-dy King, and old Rocchigiani and Alexander Lakatus, or other 175 pounders that Jones had already dismantled…aside from Virgil Hill, DM failed to face much of anyone of note and it took him until 1997 before he would get in the ring with Hill after 33 bouts against the weakest of opponents, which is standard procedure by the WBO…see Joe Calzaghe!
Some of you cats, all you do is talk about the arguments that I have made! I have yet to see anything else in the manner of a legitimate argument. You make ridiculous claims, like Jones covets the WBO title, but that is nothing but silly bullshit, it doesn't even qualify in the realm of opinion as there is no, and I do mean no fact to back it up, it is plain false, or else Jones would have certainly held a WBO title at some point, but like other fighters trying to make a name, they all know that the WBO is the weakest of the four.
Also, being right has nothing to do with my ethics, but that is the usual argument that I hear from people that cannot match my arguments with any actual facts, and that is not meant as an "in your face" statement, again, it is simply the truth! You cannot counter the facts that I state because there is nothing to counter them with, so like usual, you fall back on the tired, old rant about my ethics, or morals…it’s really pathetic! But if you can provide an argument that is the least bit steeped in fact instead of opinion, then I'll agree with it, but you have failed miserably in doing that so far, but I tell you what viciousmassua, or axe…
If either of you guys can take any of the above arguments about Jones that I have made, and prove that they are honestly wrong with actual facts, instead of your usual opinion, then I will gladly shut up about it, but you have to actually use some facts! Guessing what might have been, or what you wish would have been don’t count…you’ll actually have to provide honest facts…no half-facts loaded with opinion…solid, true-to-the-gill facts…and if you can prove me wrong about it, then I’ll never mention the topic ever again!
viciousmoussa---when you start with the delebirate insults, I'll delete it. Now if you can actually come up with an actual argument about the topic fine, but if you can't, then shut up about it, but calling people idiots, or things of that sort will be deleted...just because you fail in your argument doesn't mean you can start call calling names!
barry wrote:viciousmoussa---when you start with the delebirate insults, I'll delete it. Now if you can actually come up with an actual argument about the topic fine, but if you can't, then shut up about it, but calling people idiots, or things of that sort will be deleted...just because you fail in your argument doesn't mean you can start call calling names!
ah, disagree with Powerful Barry and get deleted. Heil Barry, and his monopoly on fact! you also managed to delete my whole argument, giving yourself the chance to sidestep my points, AND proclaim some sort of ridiculous "victory". sorry for calling you an idiot, but you are starting to look very silly.
all you've done so far is evade my arguments and come up with some half hearted "I'm right cos I have all the facts" lecture.
problem is Barry, you fail to look into the context of how things happen and you're not one for fine details. I mean if Rocchi wins a wbc title vs Nunn, how can Jones have won the same belt against McCallum, when that was only the halfway belt? the WBC paid GR $30m so he wouldn't take them down for their illegal injustice. Jones was given the champion's distinction, after GR won it in a hard fought fight. The wbc sanctioned GR-MN, as a full on title fight, no?
and you are guilty of overlooking fine details. I've seen you write that DM beat nothing but C / D level opponents aside from Hill. Now, if you'd followed L Barber's career you wouldn't diss him. This guy had no real promoters behind him, so he toughened up on trips to Leeds (England), China, Italy, Germany, Wales. He had an amazing punch and a good defense. That is most definitely not a C level opponent. and if you'd seen DM v LB, the class that it was fought at, you'd have to say it was fought at a higher level of skill an dintensity than, say, Hill-Maske.
So, Barry The Non Idiot, do you know for a FACT that barber was no good? or is that just your OPINION?
i certainly wouldn't call Drake Thadzi, Nicky Piper, Mark Prince and Christophe Girard useless. Thadzi had beaten Toney and was a tough nut to crack. Piper barely lost to Crawford Ashley - Ashley was robbed v Rocchi and was giving Hill hell over the late rounds. also, Piper was beating barber until his head was nearly burst open with a left hook and right hand...No one who say Prince's come from behind KO of Michael Gale would've called him a bum.
have you ever seen these men fight? are you qualified to comment on them?
do we know for sure that Giovanini and Magi were no good? anyone seen 'em fight?
Griffin and Rocchi were certainly good fighters. let me ask, if DM knocked them out, doesn't that make him a VERY GOOD fighter?
Last edited by Autobarn on 16 Dec 2005, 10:30, edited 1 time in total.
If anyone will believe I am non bias in this I'll give my take.
Barry is overbearing at times in his use of "editing" power. At least to my way of thinking. But I know what subjectivity is and my opinion is certainly that. Somebody has to call the shots and it's barry.
If he has chosen to draw the line at direct personal insult so be it. One lives by the laws of those who determine the standards. So..for those of us just reading the info I would say that Barry has made a pretty good case. Will someone just engage him on the facts and the facts alone?
I think he may have made his case...limited as that case is.
John L. you disagree can you at least tell me where the specific disagreement is? Purely on the point barry is trying to make? For the moment set style and anomocity aside. I'm sort of interested in the point itself since it always seemed convoluded and I never made up my mind on the subject.
As things stand barry seems to have the stronger case as to who should be considered the legit champion in a time of ambiguity.
Or have I missed the point? I'm serious here I'm just trying to sort the facts. During the time that Jones had us all mystified with his mystiqe no one was claiming that DM was a pound for pound serious threat were they?
BoxBuzz wrote:If anyone will believe I am non bias in this I'll give my take.
Barry is overbearing at times in his use of "editing" power. At least to my way of thinking. But I know what subjectivity is and my opinion is certainly that. Somebody has to call the shots and it's barry.
If he has chosen to draw the line at direct personal insult so be it. One lives by the laws of those who determine the standards. So..for those of us just reading the info I would say that Barry has made a pretty good case. Will someone just engage him on the facts and the facts alone?
I think he may have made his case...limited as that case is.
John L. you disagree can you at least tell me where the specific disagreement is? Purely on the point barry is trying to make? For the moment set style and anomocity aside. I'm sort of interested in the point itself since it always seemed convoluded and I never made up my mind on the subject.
As things stand barry seems to have the stronger case as to who should be considered the legit champion in a time of ambiguity.
Or have I missed the point? I'm serious here I'm just trying to sort the facts. During the time that Jones had us all mystified with his mystiqe no one was claiming that DM was a pound for pound serious threat were they?
Buzz, I'm not even debating who was the main champ. My case is that DM was a champ, not a titlist, and that he beat plenty of good fighters, not just bums. For that I get jibes like "Hardcore DM fan". I don;t care who was linear or 'undisputed'
two champs can coexist, like sal sanchez and pedrosa, brian mitchell and azumah nelson. but it's not nice to totally dismiss the less flashy, less popular guy...notice my involvement in the Mitchell-Azumah debate. i'm only giving guys a fair shake, not propping up my heroes
You can certainly make a case for both men. Jones held the WBA, WBC and IBF. But the WBA and IBF were stripped from DM almost immediately. IBF said he had to face Guthrie in 30 days, WBA stripped him for wearing the WBO belt alongside the WBA. Now the point is that Jones didn't beat DM, who was considered the man for beating Hill and Barber.
and the biggest point of contention, perhaps, is that Graciano Rochigiani won the WBC title in March 98. This title was then given to Jones, who didn't have to face another tough cookie. This was illegal, and Rocchi almost took the WBC down with a $100m lawsuit. the wbc and rocchi made an out of court settlement.
guess who KO'd Rocchi when he got back in the ring...DM did
now it's worth consdering, what dangerous fighter did Jones beat for a title? DM beat a dangerman in Barber, and a fine boxer still capable, in Hill
(besides, how does beating a shot Mike McCallum warrant a vacant title shot?)
You can whine all you want, but anytime you, or anyone else resorts to name calling in this forum, if I see it I will delete it, whether it is directed toward me, or whoever, so whining about that will do you no good at all.
I've seen all of those guys fight, several times each. Not only that, but I followed their careers in all the various boxing magazines and all the various websites reading article after article after article...have you? I'm guessing no, or else you would not be trying to say that "maybe" the opponents weren't so bad because "yes" they were so bad and none were ranked by legit rankings orgs. The only org to rank most of the fighters DM fought was the WBO...very convenient I might add.
You haven't made any arguments for me to ignore. You make ridiculous claims about Jones not fighting Corrie Sanders, but that is just someone reaching and not wanting to give up the battle, it's a last ditch efforts by mentioning things that are so irrelevant that they were not worth my response...but Jones also refused to fight Buster Douglas and a couple of other heavyweights, but this discussion is not about the heavyweights!
Roccigiani won the WBC 175 title from Nunn in 1998, Jones won it in 1996, yet you try to argue that Rocchigiani had better claim to it...are you kidding...you talk about missing fine points, hell you have been blind to huge points.
Like Leeonzer Barber, I would about gurantee that I was watching and following his career before you ever heard of him and Barber was never anything higher than a B level fighter and if you want to talk about weak title claims, Barber won the vacant WBO title by beating very old and often beat Tom Collins, hell Barber fought weaker opposition than DM, though DM did go on to face a few of the very same opponents that Barber had already defeated, which DM would later do with opponents that Jones had beat...so you see, not only was it weak opposition that DM faced, but they were opponents that DM knew he had virtually 0% chance to lose against.
Sure it is my opinion that 90% of the opponents that DM faced were weak, but it also the opinion of pretty much everyone else that knows anything about boxing for that time frame. I always keep my opinion seperate from the facts that are presented, I just wish other people could do the same!
>>>Buzz, I'm not even debating who was the main champ. My case is that DM was a champ, not a titlist, and that he beat plenty of good fighters, not just bums. For that I get jibes like "Hardcore DM fan". I don;t care who was linear or 'undisputed'<<<
Jesus...that is what the whole discussion is about and don't try to back track now because your wrong. You have been trying to argue that DM is the man over Roy Jones...either pick up the debate and provide something solid facts, or admit that you were wrong, but don't try to slide away and try to pretend that you were arguing about something else, you'll lose a lot of respect by doing that! I usually admit when I wrong.
Quick question barry, right here in public im not big on pm's (and this has nothing to do with this particular thread but with some inuendos that seem to be floating about)
If I say "fighter A" is the best on earth and I throw out my reasons why and they are weak as hell. or if I claim that said figther really was better than fighter b...and here is why...but you don't agree with my arguments
my post will be safe and sound and you will take no action against me or my comments. Nor will you take a personal stab at me for my thoughts. Other than to perhaps suggest I "read up" a bit more on the subject. Where we may find ourselves in further disagreement in the future. But no harm no foul.
However if I say "fighter A" is the best thing since sliced bread, then make my arguements AND call you the lowest form of life that has ever crawled upon the face of god's blessed planet for believing that "fighterB" could have had a chance against my hero. And in addition if you think what you think about fighter b I then call into question your brain capacity, your ethics and morals as well as your heritage, race religion and political standings and maybe a few derogatory comments about your mother.....
You might find reason to "eliminate" my post from said thread.
BBuzz---Personally, as I have said many, many times, I think all the alphabet orgs are bullshit...they have played a huge role in making boxing the not too popular sport that it is by adding all the weight classes and having three, or four champions to every division...it's almost killed boxing, but one thing that has been consistent over the last couple of decades in trying to keep what little integrity the term world champion has left is for a fighter to unify the titles in a division.
It is a feat that everyone in the boxing community talks about, a fighter unifying the three main titles (WBA, WBC and IBF...the WBO has never been considered part of the argument for anyone), thats what we all want to see with every division, one man unify the titles so that we have one solid champion, one man to hold all the belts...not one belt, not two belts, but all three and if it was a matter of just two belts then the two oldest should have precident, and the two oldest are the WBC and WBA, but that's not the case and holding only two falls short of what we all have always asked of a fighter.
Roy Jones accomplished that feat of winning the three titles...all of which he won in the ring, none was given to him...yet some people have a hard time saying that Jones was the man. They didn't have a problem with calling Cory Spinks champion, or any of the others that I mentioned earlier, but they do Jones...why? Simple...they don't like Jones, which is perfectly fine, but it is not cause for his accomplishment to be lesser than the others...why should Roy Jones not receive the exact same treatment that we give to other fighters who accomplish the exact same thing?
no i don't live in the US. what does that have to do with anything? i hope that you're not going to insinuate that because i'm not american, i know nothing, or haven't seen American fighters fight. because then i could definitely accuse you of "reaching". or maybe you think I'm Polish or German...wrong again!
Jones did call out Sanders. but he faked a motorbike accident when he learned the coveted WBO wasn't on the line, and to his credit he did take a more meaningful fight instead - Tarver! although i wonder how he took on as good a fighter as AT with a broken hand. this was in the news snippets of major sites in 2003. i'm sure there are other ppl aware of this. since you live in the US of A there's no way you shouldn't know this!
the point is, RJ wanted the WBO heavy title at one point.
anyhow, look at it this way. for the third time i will ask, IS LAMON BREWSTER LESS A CHAMP THAN CHRIS BYRD? furthermore, IS ZSOLT ERDEI LESS THAN CLINTON WOODS? zsolt certainly handled J Gonzales, whereas Clinton struggled...WAS MARCO ANTONIO BARRERA LESS THAN DANIEL ZARAGOZA/VUYANI BUNGU. WAS NAZ HAMED LESS THAN TOM JOHNSON - no, as he spanked him!
ok, Barber's a bum. sure, he's a bum for beating the same guys Jeff harding, Virgil Hill, PC Williams and Moorer were beating. he's a bum for rallying to KO Piper when he had a terrible eye injury. he's a bum for retaining his power late in a hard fight. for risking his title on the road. for defending a championship belt honorably, and definitely a bum for locking DM into one of the classiest, most gruelling light heavy battles in the last 15 yrs!
don't read TOO MUCH into things. i was asking you about Giovanini and Magi because I haven't seen them and was wondering if they were as bad as you say they are. please enlighten me, i would welcome it! if they are bad there's no point me adding these guys to my fight collection, LOL
well, I think Piper, Prince and Girard were solid fighters. they were recognisable names also.
Last edited by Autobarn on 16 Dec 2005, 11:30, edited 2 times in total.
no barry, don't think you can tell me what i've said. if you haven't been reading propery that's your problem. have i once said that DM was the man over Jones? no, so stop reaching. i'm simply reacting to your dismissive and derogatory comments of a fine fighter (DM) and pointing out the suspect means that RJ came to be 'undisputed' champ - or maybe "disputed champ"...you know, the man you are championing.
if you can't tell by now that i take issue with the 'DM only fought bums', the 'Jones was the only proper champ', the 'DM was a mere titlist', the 'anyone who speaks up for DM is a Hardcore Fan', then you most certainly are an i...
Buzz---People can debate all they want. Any good argument about boxing has no reason to be deleted. The only way that I will delete anything is when someone starts throwing personal insults around...anyone can suggest to someone else to read up on something, but coming out and saying something like "you're an idiot," well that I will delete as soon as I see it. I haven't deleted much at all since I have been moderating and what I have deleted has been either direct insults from the likes of Rubio, or threads that have deterioated into nothing but flame wars, but I would never just delete something because someone disagreed with me about a topic and only twice, that I can remember, did I suggest that someone be banned from the site. I try to be as fair as possible, but I do expect some respect, no more so than anyone else, I just expect the same respect anyone else would expect.
Well I have joined the bandwagon of "piling on" when it comes to Roy. I prefer the style of a guy like Tszyu. If you are a powerful person and good at fighting make it about something more than yourself if you can. And have the grace to give others respect when your time is up.
Roy ended up having a rep like Hamed because of all the self promotion that ultimately did not allow him to move on with grace. Though lately I think I have seen some humility from the guy.
However that should take NOTHING away from his actual accomplishments. He was what he was, and if he would have had the ability to absorb punishment he could have been a top 5 or 10 all timer. That is an amazing feat and should get respect. But there are many below the top 40 of all time who have the same big IF in their resume.
But nothing has changed that should make us go back and doubt that he was the man at 175 during his reign. DM was just an asterisk albeit a very interesting and fascinationg one.
No doubt Jones was a braggart of enourmous proportions, which did not endear him to a lot of fans. His style of fighting was unique though I would certainly prefer to watch someone like Trinidad, or even someone with the style of DM as oppopsed to Jones, but no matter how big of an asshole he was, it should never take away what he accomplished. Some will even argue that he was the greatest light heavyweight ever, though I won't go that far, but I do have him in the top ten:
1. Sam Langford
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Gene Tunney
5. Archie Moore
6. Bob Foster
7. Michael Spinks
8. Roy Jones
barry I would consider him in the top 20 of LH's pretty easy and maybe in the top 10. My references were in the p4p greatest of all time. Which some people place him.
Oh and your top 8 look pretty good, you could afford to move archie up a few but I think I see the method to your madness and my guess is your not budging on that LH list of yours.
Last edited by BoxBuzz on 16 Dec 2005, 11:49, edited 1 time in total.
About DM and Jones, for several years I considered DM the true light heavyweight champion, but that just was not correct. No matter how you look at it, DM fell short of unifying the titles and there just is no way that anyone can honestly claim him to be the true lineal/linear champion at 175 and people can say that Jones was not, but the actual facts say otherwise!
