Roy Jones Jr. Defends Himself Against Errol Spence Criticism: 'I Don’t Hate Nobody'

[Ruthless-RKO]

Roy Jones Jr. Defends Himself Against Errol Spence Criticism: 'I Don’t Hate Nobody'

Roy Jones Jr. doesn’t understand why certain people accuse him of “hating on” welterweight champion Errol Spence Jr.

In the past, the Hall of Fame boxer has criticized Spence, who holds the IBF and WBC welterweight belts, for not pushing harder for a showdown against WBO titleholder and rival Terence Crawford. But that does not stem from any personal bias against Spence, says Jones, who only wants to see the so-called best prove their case inside the ring.

“I love the state of boxing, but I keep getting accused of not liking Errol Spence,” Jones told Brian Custer on a recent episode of The Last Stand podcast. “I really like Errol Spence. I think Errol Spence is a great talent and a great fighter. It’s just [that] when you get two fighters to rise to the top, the east and the west, you want to see who’s best. The only problem I have is that he’s the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”

In other words, hate the game, not the player.

“I’m like a boxing fan, when one gets hot over here and one gets hot over there, we want to see who’s the best,” Jones continued. “That’s what boxing has lost nowadays. So what Josh Taylor did [against Jose Ramirez] that was really good for boxing because that’s all we’re trying to find out, who’s the best? Why you talking about hatin’. I don’t hate nobody. I don’t really have time. I love the sport too much to hate people.”

Taylor, the Scotland native, became the undisputed junior welterweight champion after beating Jose Ramirez in Las Vegas on May 22. Jones wants to see the same dynamic play out between Crawford and Spence.

“I was always used to the Michael Jordan era,” Jones said. “The Michael Jordan way. The heart...The main thing about the old school was that we wanted to know who was the best. We couldn’t put two best together and y’all go play the rest. No, no, no, no. We want to know who the best [is]. You get you and your squad and [I’ll] get my squad and we’re gonna find out who’s the best.”

Jones says he is undecided on who would win in a potential Crawford-Spence superfight.

“I’m not saying that I give Earl the advantage,” said Jones. “I think Terence has a little more experience but that don’t mean Terence is going to beat Errol [even though] he has the experience factor going in.”

“So now go find out who’s the best,” he added. “That’s all I’m asking.”

Spence (27-0, 21 KOs) is preparing for a pay-per-view fight against Manny Pacquiao (62-7-2, 39 KOs) on Aug. 21 in Las Vegas.

Crawford (37-0, 28 KOs) currently does not have a scheduled fight. His last appearance was in November, a stoppage over Kell Brook.

[Onetimeonly]

Lol, from the guy who missed more big fights than anyone in history.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Lol, from the guy who missed more big fights than anyone in history.

[Bard of Boxrec]

At least Roy has the Hopkins /Toney fights and a range of other respectable fights, these guys still haven’t reached his level of opposition .

[Ruthless-RKO]

At least Roy has the Hopkins /Toney fights and a range of other respectable fights, these guys still haven’t reached his level of opposition .

And at an early stage of his career..

[Enlightened-One]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”

Roy seems biased.

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining out on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight on the planet, based solely on his victories over men that competed in lower weight divisions.

[Ruthless-RKO]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”[/i]

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight in the planet, based on his victories over men that competed in lower weight classes.

Why do you always mention TC's resume at WW?

I think we're all aware that it's weak, but he's talking about how TC has proven himself more, which HE HAS. Maybe not at WW, but in his career he has. or has he not?

[Enlightened-One]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”[/i]

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight in the planet, based on his victories over men that competed in lower weight classes.

Why do you always mention TC's resume at WW?

I think we're all aware that it's weak, but he's talking about how TC has proven himself more, which HE HAS. Maybe not at WW, but in his career he has. or has he not?

Time doesn’t stand still.

Terence Crawford hasn’t competed in a lighter weight class since he was in his twenties.

However, Bud is in his mid-thirties and Roy’s referring to a time period that is literally ancient history.

Four years is a very long time in boxing.

And Terence Crawford has been competing at 147lbs for four years, but his resume is weak in his current weight class.

Crawford’s resume at 140lbs and below is fantastic, but that was a very long time ago, which means I can’t award him any kudos for engaging in mismatches for the last four years.

I believe in expiry dates when evaluating a fighter’s resume to determine their CURRENT status in the sport.

However, Roy Jones Jr. clearly believes otherwise, hence his comments.

Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, but I really can’t help the way I feel.

For me, Terence Crawford is already a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer, but his accomplishments at 147lbs are terribly dire in comparison to his feats at 140lbs and below.

Terence Crawford has been competing as a welterweight for a very long time. I can only evaluate his ability at 147lbs based on who he’s fought over the last four years, which is basically no one noteworthy.

[Monzon83]

Crawford definitely hasn't proven himself at WW more than Spence has. Not sure what Roy is on about here.

But they should both fight each other, it's boxing shooting itself in the foot again with a fight that should be made not getting done because of the usual political bullshit.

[Onetimeonly]

Crawford is a better fighter than Roy. If they were the same size he would eat Roy alive.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”

Roy seems biased.

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining out on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight on the planet, based solely on his victories over men that competed in lower weight divisions.

I bet if you sent this to roy hed change his mind

[Enlightened-One]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”

Roy seems biased.

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining out on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight on the planet, based solely on his victories over men that competed in lower weight divisions.

I bet if you sent this to roy hed change his mind

Of course not, but time in the real-world doesn’t stand still, does it?

Muhammad Ali stopped George Foreman in 1974, but 3½ years later he ends up losing to a six win novice.

Sugar Ray Leonard defeats Marvin Hagler in 1987, but less than four years later he suffers an embarrassingly one-sided defeat to Terry Norris.

Father Time is a story that’s been told thousands of times in the sport of boxing.

And for the record, I’m not suggesting that Crawford is shot, but time really does matter. Feats have expiry dates when we’re evaluating TODAY’s top-dogs in boxing.

But Roy is delusional and clearly disagrees, hence the reason why he kept fighting and losing after the first Tarver defeat.

Out of curiosity, has Terence Crawford achieved anything remotely impressive at welterweight since August 2017?

The answer is obvious, but I need you to say it.

[margaret thatcher]

neither spence nor craw really seem that eager to fight each other tbh, which is disappointing

[Enlightened-One]

neither spence nor craw really seem that eager to fight each other tbh, which is disappointing

To be fair, Spence has options, whereas Crawford doesn’t.

And Spence will earn more money facing Pacquiao than Crawford.

I’m not taking sides here, because I’m only stating the obvious.

Crawford extended his deal with Top Rank to secure the $3m per bout guaranteed minimum.

So he’s solely responsible for his own predicament.

Rightly or wrongly, he chose the pay cheque over sporting legacy.

Blaming both fighters is inappropriate, based of Crawford’s career choices.

[margaret thatcher]

neither really seem to want it that much unfortunetly

[gregregegg]

The only problem I have is that [Spence Jr. is] the other top welterweight next to Terence Crawford who has probably proven himself a lot more than Errol has, so it’s, like, I don’t see the big dog fight.”[/i]

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight in the planet, based on his victories over men that competed in lower weight classes.

Why do you always mention TC's resume at WW?

I think we're all aware that it's weak, but he's talking about how TC has proven himself more, which HE HAS. Maybe not at WW, but in his career he has. or has he not?

Current Crawford is hardly proven. What has he proven, that 6 or 7 years ago as a massive weight bully he could beat up some good 135s, That 5 years ago he was a good enough 140 to beat postol, ... Thats only a nice proof for the fact that he was good when he was younger and clearly the bigger man.
But when talking about the present all he has proven recently is he is better than a very weathered horn, kahn and brook. or do you like his Egidijus Kavaliauskas win? which is nice but who had just drawn with a gatekeeper levle guy.

Its not just the fact he hasnt got a top win at 147. its the fact that his only top wins are postol, and gamboa, 5 and 7 years ago. I have a problem with any supposedly proven p4p great that hasnt had a top fight in 5 years regardless of weight.

[lazboy]

The Spence Crawford situation - including fans squabbling about contracts and networks, etc is everything that is wrong with boxing.

[margaret thatcher]

some fans are as enthusiastic about them fighting each other as the fighters themselves are.....in other words not very....for them its a victory when craw fights another weak opponent or spence talks about pursuing other options instead

there are ppl like this for fury-aj too......the party poopers

[Enlightened-One]

The Spence Crawford situation - including fans squabbling about contracts and networks, etc is everything that is wrong with boxing.

The business politic barriers currently preventing the Crawford-Spence Jr. bout is a real-world issue that deserves to be talked about.

This forum and the media discussed the rather obvious consequences of Crawford’s decision to extend his contract with Top Rank nine months prior to Bud actually signing Bob Arum’s contract

And everything that was predicted came to fruition.

[Ruthless-RKO]

neither really seem to want it that much unfortunetly

You said this before above.

But was told Spence has options.

Which is not what you meant by your statement.

I agree with that you’re saying though.

[margaret thatcher]

neither really seem to want it that much unfortunetly

You said this before above.

But was told Spence has options.

Which is not what you meant by your statement.

I agree with that you’re saying though.

ya you just dont get the sense that either of these cats is really super pumped to fight the other, whatever the other options are

[Thomastearns]

The Spence Crawford situation - including fans squabbling about contracts and networks, etc is everything that is wrong with boxing.

That's how I see it but maybe there's more to it.

For most of boxing's history it was fairly obvious that fighters would naturally seek the biggest money fights they could sign up for. Managers permitting of course, but they usually came round eventually in the way that D'Amato did in allowing Patterson to face Liston.

Maybe today's boxers have evolved into smarter businessmen and are content to take the safest risk/reward path to riches?

In some cases the champions seem extremely content to fight as little as possible.

As things stand belts and titles are almost arbitrarily held and protected in a form of an organised rocket that is endemic with organised corruption.

Therefore until boxing is brought under some form of regulation (tournaments, competitions with league or knockout format eg Super 6) this situation can only get worse.

Is boxing, with its convoluted path to a title shot even a sport?

Or is it merely a money transferral scheme that doesn't care where the dollars come from, as long as they keep coming?

What should we expect to see in the future? Even more YouTube 'boxers' getting paid by their YouTube followers?

Until 1948 chess was run along similar lines with the champion usually picking and choosing his challengers.

Thankfully nowadays the title is no longer the sole property of the champion. Since 2014 it has to now be defended against the strongest rival every 2 years.

There is no such clause in boxing.

Ultimately the power to change things lies in the hands (or bank accounts) of the viewers.

If you don't want to see boxing regularly making a spectacle of itself the best thing you can do is to ignore those that do and concentrate on real fights. At least until some form of regulation that gives equal chances to all boxers appears.

They might not be the matchups many want but Pacquiao v Spence and Fury v Wilder are real fights.

[Bandog]

I think the fact they haven't fought is more on Crawford than Spence. You can blame Arum too, but no reason Crawford couldn't have fought Porter, D. Garcia, Thurman, Ennis, etc to help build their fight. Or, agree to a lesser ppv %. 50-50 fight, but I slightly favor Spence because of his workrate, better tested chin, and under-rated skills. Crawford may gave a bigger toolbox, but hasn't had a hard test at welter yet.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Roy seems biased.

Crawford is unproven at welterweight, he’s in his mid-thirties, but hasn’t achieved anything noteworthy since he was in his twenties (within the last four years).

Spence Jr’s resume at welterweight over the same timeframe is vastly superior.

Crawford can’t keep dining out on his accomplishments at 140lbs and below, because it’s ancient history.

He can’t be regarded as the very best welterweight on the planet, based solely on his victories over men that competed in lower weight divisions.

I bet if you sent this to roy hed change his mind

Of course not, but time in the real-world doesn’t stand still, does it?

Muhammad Ali stopped George Foreman in 1974, but 3½ years later he ends up losing to a six win novice.

Sugar Ray Leonard defeats Marvin Hagler in 1987, but less than four years later he suffers an embarrassingly one-sided defeat to Terry Norris.

Father Time is a story that’s been told thousands of times in the sport of boxing.

And for the record, I’m not suggesting that Crawford is shot, but time really does matter. Feats have expiry dates when we’re evaluating TODAY’s top-dogs in boxing.

But Roy is delusional and clearly disagrees, hence the reason why he kept fighting and losing after the first Tarver defeat.

Out of curiosity, has Terence Crawford achieved anything remotely impressive at welterweight since August 2017?

The answer is obvious, but I need you to say it.

Is this a new opinion of yours? Could have swore you were a crawford fan.

[Enlightened-One]

I bet if you sent this to roy hed change his mind

Of course not, but time in the real-world doesn’t stand still, does it?

Muhammad Ali stopped George Foreman in 1974, but 3½ years later he ends up losing to a six win novice.

Sugar Ray Leonard defeats Marvin Hagler in 1987, but less than four years later he suffers an embarrassingly one-sided defeat to Terry Norris.

Father Time is a story that’s been told thousands of times in the sport of boxing.

And for the record, I’m not suggesting that Crawford is shot, but time really does matter. Feats have expiry dates when we’re evaluating TODAY’s top-dogs in boxing.

But Roy is delusional and clearly disagrees, hence the reason why he kept fighting and losing after the first Tarver defeat.

Out of curiosity, has Terence Crawford achieved anything remotely impressive at welterweight since August 2017?

The answer is obvious, but I need you to say it.

Is this a new opinion of yours? Could have swore you were a crawford fan.

I’m a huge fan of everything Crawford achieved up to August 2017.

He’s already a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer in my eyes.

However, let’s face it, he’s achieved nothing noteworthy at welterweight.