The Rationaliszations of the Anti-Jones Brigade

By Andreas Stavros

31.03 - Those of us who consider ourselves to be relatively sane people will surely concur that we share the world with some very peculiar individuals indeed. Some folks believe that Elvis Lives! and that the Fox News channel is indeed "fair and balanced." Others believe that the world is flat, or that Winona Ryder should be imprisoned for stealing Gucci handbags - presumably so that the executives of Enron might walk the streets safely.

As a boxing obsessive, my favourite looney-tune on the Hit Parade is the one insisting that Roy Jones Jr. is a) A charlatan who's never fought anybody; b)Over-rated; and/or c) A coward. all three of these claims are absurd, yet remain an inexplicable mantra to many otherwise intelligent lovers of the sport. Perfectly reasonable, decent people will frequent any number of boxing web-sites to froth and bubble with the most appalling vitriol at the mere mention of Jones' name. There isn't another fighter this side of Mike Tyson who provokes such passions, and my question is simple: What are the core reasons for such unbridled hatred?

Let's begin with a frequent criticism of Jones: He's never fought anybody really good. Those who make this claim are usually confusing their arguments. What they really mean is that Jones hasn't fought anyone good RECENTLY, and on this point they may have a case. I say "may" because although Derrick Harmon and Glenn Kelly aren't getting into anyone's Hall of Fame, Eric Harding and Julio Gonzalez were both worthy challengers who'd earned the right to fight Jones by working their way to the top of the (admittedly thin) light-heavyweight division. The previously unbeaten Harding was coming off a career-best win over Antonio Tarver, another undefeated fighter, while Gonzalez warmed up for Jones with a pulsating five knock-down thriller against the big banging and unbeaten, Julian Letterlough. These are good opponents by anyone's criteria, but herein lies the problem: Roy Jones is unquestionably held to a different standard than any other fighter.

Is this fair? Not in my opinion. The anti-Jones brigade rationalize this double-standard by claiming that Jones SHOULD be judged differently because he's clearly so vastly talented; yet all such "logic" really illustrates is personal prejudice and a subconscious, begrudging respect for Jones' abilities. Let's not forget that Jones has also beaten James Toney, Virgil Hill and Bernard Hopkins, to name but three. The previously untouchable Toney was considered by some at the time to be boxing's best fighter, Hill was a former, long-reigning, light-heavy champ who would go on to win a version of the cruiserweight championship, and Hopkins is currently the boxing media's darling and top of many respected journalists' pound-for-pound lists. Poor opposition? Hardly. It's also worth mentioning that Hill was KO-ed by the Pensacola native with a single body shot, while Hopkins was outfoxed and outboxed by a man with a broken hand.

Another old standard is that Jones "won't fight anyone," and from here it's a short step to, "Jones is a coward." Some will swear blind that Roy is ducking a Hopkins re-match, yet fail to explain why anyone might be scared of a man they've already decisively beaten; others repeat the name of Darius Michalczewski, the Polish-German who has apparently been anointed as the messiah sent to save us from Jones-Hell. Michalczewski's supporters insist Jones is reluctant to fight the adopted Germman in Germany, and interpret this as fear. They also seek to further cement this view by citing Darius' claim to the "linear" title - the invisible but tradional claim to the true championship of the world that can only be made by "the man who beat the man who beat the man..."

On this latter point, Michalczewski's believers have a solid case. Darius did indeed beat Virgil Hill, who had previously won a partial unification bout with another German, Henry Maske. Several of the belts that Jones now owns are, in a sense, stolen property, as they were taken from Michalczewski in the board-rooms of the ruling bodies, and were never lost in the ring. I'm not about to defend the existence of the "alphabet slop" (dis)organizations, much less their policies, but this issue is really a moot point as it cannot be used as evidence against Jones' skills, heart, or the quality of his opposition. The argument as to who is the "true" champion is a different issue altogether.

As for Jones ducking Michalczewski, there is no more evidence for this than there is for Michalczewski ducking Jones. Considering the glaring discrepancy in talent levels between the two fighters, does anybody seriously think that Roy fears Darius? Jones probably IS cautious of traveling to Europe, but this almost certainly has nothing to do with the opponent, and everything to do with avoiding a repeat of the 1988 Olympic final in which the American was the victim of the worst amateur decision in recorded history. In Saoul, Roy did not lose a single second of any of the three rounds, yet saw his gold medal stolen from him and awarded to his Korean opponent. Germany, with its reputation for protecting fistic geese that lay golden promotional eggs, has understandably made Jones wary. He does not want to be a victim of incompetent or corrupt judging, and justifiably feels that it is Michalczewski who should come to him, rather than vice versa. After all, is it not J! ones who owns the HBO contract? Where else can Michalczewski (or anyone else), earn anything like the money a fight against Roy would bring? Roy is the cash cow, and it's up to all the others - Hopkins, Michalczewski, Joe Calzaghe or Vasilli Jirov - to step up to the plate, especially if they're as desperate as they say they are to score the win they know will give them indisputable respect within the boxing world.

Perhaps the manufactured contempt directed at Jones is simply the residue of Roy's arrogance. Despite constantly trumpeting that he's the world's best fighter, Jones seeks to satisfy himself alone, and makes no apology for sending his career on a safety first route. If others like what he does, fine: If not, fine. There are no slugfests in Roy Jones' contests because the opponents - even the good ones - are almost always several leagues beneath Roy in terms of ability. Jones therefore wins as he pleases, refusing to give his victim the remotest chance to even compete, and all the while refusing to tone down his vocal assertions of greatness. It's not difficult to dislike Jones' bluster and swagger - a lack of humility is always unattractive, especially from those who're pointlessly stating the obvious - but that should NOT influence anybody's judgment of his skills, courage, or legacy.

So, the next time you meet an anti-Jones zealot, have sympathy for them, rather than rolling your eyes into separate orbits at whatever twisted viewpoint they're espousing. After all, they're probably the sort of peculiar people who'll argue that the grass is blue and the sky is green, or that the son of God was born to a virgin, impregnated by a ghost.

Hmm...Hold on a second...

COPYRIGHT: Andreas Stavros 2002