Roy Jones Jr cheated out of gold

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/feb/15/olympic-moments-roy-jones-jr

Just an interesting piece I picked up on the train on the way home yesterday and I thought I'd share it.

I'd only read snippets of the story of his Olympic silver before, but this piece made me watch the fight and see what a barefaced robbery it was, on (perhaps) the grandest stage, and one that trades off of it's 'fairness'.

I love the excuse of one of the judges interviewed though..."didn't want to embarrass the host nation!". Don't worry about actually doing your job. Some guys are all compassion.

Unfortunately like its professional counterpart, Im not sure amateur boxing is always as fair and on the level as it should be. I lost alot of interest in it for this reason and also the fact that the USA/Cuba/Soviet boycotts tended to deny us the top contests and devalue the gold in many ways. This year the Azarbaijanis were reported to have bribed some boxing medals and the whole Iraqi boxing scenario in Athens in 2004 also left a bit of a sour taste.

It does seem boxing is specifically targeted by some nations, I suppose because there is a level of subjectivity to the judging and the best won't automatically win (where as in an athletics event, if you aren't the fastest you can't win by a SD...). But when it is so barefaced, how can the people involved possibly believe that they get any benefit from it? Everyone will dismiss the clear robberies as cheating and it will simply devalue any value the medal had in the first place!

To be honest, whilst I don't want to come across as unsympathetic because an Olympic gold is a once i in a lifetime thing, but do feel Jones got more than his money's worth out of this screw job. The robbery was so blatant there is probably not a boxing fan in the world who is not aware of it and aware of how deserving he was of the victory. Would guess outside of Degale many of us could not name more than 2 gold medallists from the last Olympics but to a man we all know of Jones Silver.

Also think to a degree he hid behind this, could never get on the plane to smack Dariusz around because he got screwed out of olympic gold 10 years previous. Shameful result but get over it.

sodhat wrote:It does seem boxing is specifically targeted by some nations, I suppose because there is a level of subjectivity to the judging and the best won't automatically win (where as in an athletics event, if you aren't the fastest you can't win by a SD...). But when it is so barefaced, how can the people involved possibly believe that they get any benefit from it? Everyone will dismiss the clear robberies as cheating and it will simply devalue any value the medal had in the first place!

You may be right. Although I havent seen the fight, I beleive Holyfield was disqualified in his Olympic bout under pretty suspicious circumstances also. It seems almost every Olympics there is some scandal/controvesy with the boxing on some level.

Leonard said he was molested by his olympic trainer but that might just be the ramblings of a cocaine runined mind. Sodhat - did you see him at the end mouthing - I wuz robbed, robbed. hahah caricature. Watched it - saw the injustice then laughed at his expression.

manos de piedra wrote:Unfortunately like its professional counterpart, Im not sure amateur boxing is always as fair and on the level as it should be. I lost alot of interest in it for this reason and also the fact that the USA/Cuba/Soviet boycotts tended to deny us the top contests and devalue the gold in many ways. This year the Azarbaijanis were reported to have bribed some boxing medals and the whole Iraqi boxing scenario in Athens in 2004 also left a bit of a sour taste.

What happened in 2004 Manos?

Scandalously unjust decision - not that it actually was a 'decision' in the proper sense of the word, as blatant larceny meant that the corrupted judges had little to decide on given the total irrelevance of the fight itself. If I remember rightly, Vincenzo Nardiello suffered a similar shafting at the hands of the Korean 'gold medallist' earlier on in the competition, too.

ShahenshahG wrote:Leonard said he was molested by his olympic trainer but that might just be the ramblings of a cocaine runined mind. Sodhat - did you see him at the end mouthing - I wuz robbed, robbed. hahah caricature. Watched it - saw the injustice then laughed at his expression.

Why would Leonard lie about that?

You'd have to have both a seriously screwed mind or coke that is a whole different level to anything I've ever heard about to get something like that wrong. Maybe if he ate in entire field of magic mushrooms whilst he was in his teens he would have had those sort of visions but personally I don't think this should be questioned.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Unfortunately like its professional counterpart, Im not sure amateur boxing is always as fair and on the level as it should be. I lost alot of interest in it for this reason and also the fact that the USA/Cuba/Soviet boycotts tended to deny us the top contests and devalue the gold in many ways. This year the Azarbaijanis were reported to have bribed some boxing medals and the whole Iraqi boxing scenario in Athens in 2004 also left a bit of a sour taste.

What happened in 2004 Manos?

Basically the Iraqi boxing team were kind of turned into a political statement regarding the "war on terror". The United States sent over training and equipment and a coach for the team (Maurice Watkins I think) but the Iraqi team began wearing jackets sporting slogans like "Iraq is Back" and the Olympics have one more free nation competing in it and propoganda of this nature. None of the Iraqi boxers ended up qualifying of course but the Olympic committee under pressure from the U.S extended a "special invitation" allowing them to enter a boxer in any case. They ended up entering a flyweight who had gone 0-3 in his amateur qualifiers and who suspiciously ended up drawing possibly the only other boxer worse than him in the first round allowing him to progress. But the whole thing became a bit of side issue that was exploited as propoganda by the media for justifying the war and occupation. Whether or not one agreed with it or not wasnt really the issue but just the way it became a big political statement about a country that effectively hadnt even qualified. There was alot written about the coach of the team aswell who gave off the impression he was working miracles turning these hopeless Iraqi boxers into Olympic athletes while training in gyms surrounded by explosions and gunfire which was more or less exposed a being overly imaginative at best and downright lies at worst.

Ah, ok, thanks Manos. Tried googling it but nothing came up - certainly nothing as good as that!

manos de piedra wrote:

sodhat wrote:It does seem boxing is specifically targeted by some nations, I suppose because there is a level of subjectivity to the judging and the best won't automatically win (where as in an athletics event, if you aren't the fastest you can't win by a SD...). But when it is so barefaced, how can the people involved possibly believe that they get any benefit from it? Everyone will dismiss the clear robberies as cheating and it will simply devalue any value the medal had in the first place!

You may be right. Although I havent seen the fight, I beleive Holyfield was disqualified in his Olympic bout under pretty suspicious circumstances also. It seems almost every Olympics there is some scandal/controvesy with the boxing on some level.

Holy got the DQ for sparking out a New Zealand boxer after the ref had called break. Correct decision. The only controversy is because he was a hometown boxer (Atlanta) and he was by far the best.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

sodhat wrote:It does seem boxing is specifically targeted by some nations, I suppose because there is a level of subjectivity to the judging and the best won't automatically win (where as in an athletics event, if you aren't the fastest you can't win by a SD...). But when it is so barefaced, how can the people involved possibly believe that they get any benefit from it? Everyone will dismiss the clear robberies as cheating and it will simply devalue any value the medal had in the first place!

You may be right. Although I havent seen the fight, I beleive Holyfield was disqualified in his Olympic bout under pretty suspicious circumstances also. It seems almost every Olympics there is some scandal/controvesy with the boxing on some level.

Holy got the DQ for sparking out a New Zealand boxer after the ref had called break. Correct decision. The only controversy is because he was a hometown boxer (Atlanta) and he was by far the best.

Maybe so. I havent seen the fight. Im just going off what I read in Holyfields autobiography which may not be the most impartial source. But in it he insinuates the ref had an agenda against him from the start. The finalist he was scheduled to meet for the gold was a Yugoslav boxer and the ref in charge of his fight was, yep, a Yugoslavian ref. The account of the fight that I read independant of Holyfields book says that Holyfield dominated the first two rounds against the New Zealander and then landed a body head combination as the ref said break. Would seem that the combination landed pretty close to the refs instruction to break and was a harsh disqualification but having not seen it myself Im not too sure if thats correct or not. The ref also declared the New Zealender a KO victim which initiated a 28 day mandatory lay off meaning that the other Yugoslav finalist won the gold medal unapposed. Holyfield also claimed that the he met the ref in question years later and the guy had apologised to him.

I'd have apologised to Evander Holyfield too if I thought he might pop me one.

Actualy - remember that both fighters had been warned several times for hitting late and hitting low then the ref called break in the midst of a holyfield combo just before he landed a right - then barrys hands dropped ever so slightly and Holyfield finished him off with a left hook (part of the same combo). I imagine the drills he did in training took over andhe unleashed it. this happened very quickly so think it was a little unjust but they had been warned previously.

I doubt there were any consipracies. Shah alluded to the fact that there were both warned several times for punching after a 'break' call. Holy was called to break as he was about to throw a body/head combo. The other guy moved back a little allowingf Holy the space to throw a perfect combo and ended up sparking out the new Z guy.

As I said it was a correct decision.

Double standards much? It wasn't a correct decision when Khan was deducted points for breaching rules but it was a correct decision when Holyfield was harshly DQd for not being able to stop the moment the ref called break?

Read Holy's autobiog and he says he didn't really hear the guy - was too busy pulling the trigger. As RJJ's coach once said - when you jump off a bridge, you can't unjump half way down.

It was a harsh decision. Within the rules - as punches did land after break - but I haven't met a single person or read a single account that said it wasn't harsh.

It has also been pointed out that the Yugoslavian ref probably didn't mind DQing Holyfield much and was grateful for the opportunity.

oxring wrote:Double standards much? It wasn't a correct decision when Khan was deducted points for breaching rules but it was a correct decision when Holyfield was harshly DQd for not being able to stop the moment the ref called break?

Read Holy's autobiog and he says he didn't really hear the guy - was too busy pulling the trigger. As RJJ's coach once said - when you jump off a bridge, you can't unjump half way down.

It was a harsh decision. Within the rules - as punches did land after break - but I haven't met a single person or read a single account that said it wasn't harsh.

It has also been pointed out that the Yugoslavian ref probably didn't mind DQing Holyfield much and was grateful for the opportunity.

The guy was flat out Ox. A complete KO. The ref had no choice. He called break. The NZ guy lowered his guard as Holy was winging away and got caught. If it was a tap on the chin then no problem. Somewhat different when the guy is out cold via a foul punch.

In the fight that Holyfield was disqualified for hitting on the break his opponent was Kevin Barry who went on to manage David Tua. I think the Yugoslav boxer who got the Gold later commited suicide and Holyfield was voted best boxer of the Games as was Roy Jones in 1988.

rapidringsroad wrote:In the fight that Holyfield was disqualified for hitting on the break his opponent was Kevin Barry who went on to manage David Tua. I think the Yugoslav boxer who got the Gold later commited suicide and Holyfield was voted best boxer of the Games as was Roy Jones in 1988.

The DQ was still justified. Hitting on the break if your opponent is ok is one thing. Rendering your opponent unable to continue is something entirely different.

Not really any difference is there?

Not much.

You have ultimately done exactly the same thing have you not?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You have ultimately done exactly the same thing have you not?

Done what?

Hit on the break.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hit on the break.

What are you on about?

My god.

A punch on the break is exactly what it says it is, the result of that action shouldn't be the determining factor.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Double standards much? It wasn't a correct decision when Khan was deducted points for breaching rules but it was a correct decision when Holyfield was harshly DQd for not being able to stop the moment the ref called break?

Read Holy's autobiog and he says he didn't really hear the guy - was too busy pulling the trigger. As RJJ's coach once said - when you jump off a bridge, you can't unjump half way down.

It was a harsh decision. Within the rules - as punches did land after break - but I haven't met a single person or read a single account that said it wasn't harsh.

It has also been pointed out that the Yugoslavian ref probably didn't mind DQing Holyfield much and was grateful for the opportunity.

The guy was flat out Ox. A complete KO. The ref had no choice. He called break. The NZ guy lowered his guard as Holy was winging away and got caught. If it was a tap on the chin then no problem. Somewhat different when the guy is out cold via a foul punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLnoZrxe5qo

Thats by a fraction of a second, hardly hitting the guy when he was walking away defenceless, it was mid-flurry. Think I'm with Holy on this, another Olympic boxing embarrassment.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A punch on the break is exactly what it says it is, the result of that action shouldn't be the determining factor.

So what do you mean by You have ultimately done exactly the same thing have you not?

Whether you knock them out or not you have hit on the break, it really is that straight forward, not sure what's so difficult to understand about that sentence?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Double standards much? It wasn't a correct decision when Khan was deducted points for breaching rules but it was a correct decision when Holyfield was harshly DQd for not being able to stop the moment the ref called break?

Read Holy's autobiog and he says he didn't really hear the guy - was too busy pulling the trigger. As RJJ's coach once said - when you jump off a bridge, you can't unjump half way down.

It was a harsh decision. Within the rules - as punches did land after break - but I haven't met a single person or read a single account that said it wasn't harsh.

It has also been pointed out that the Yugoslavian ref probably didn't mind DQing Holyfield much and was grateful for the opportunity.

The guy was flat out Ox. A complete KO. The ref had no choice. He called break. The NZ guy lowered his guard as Holy was winging away and got caught. If it was a tap on the chin then no problem. Somewhat different when the guy is out cold via a foul punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLnoZrxe5qo

Thats by a fraction of a second, hardly hitting the guy when he was walking away defenceless, it was mid-flurry. Think I'm with Holy on this, another Olympic boxing embarrassment.

The ref called #break'. One guy relaxed and dropped his guard. Holy was in mid flow and Ko'd the guy. What option did the ref have? Howard Cossell was always prone to the flag wavers USA USA chanting muppets.

When have I hit anyone on the break?

I give up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I give up.

Thankfully

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Double standards much? It wasn't a correct decision when Khan was deducted points for breaching rules but it was a correct decision when Holyfield was harshly DQd for not being able to stop the moment the ref called break?

Read Holy's autobiog and he says he didn't really hear the guy - was too busy pulling the trigger. As RJJ's coach once said - when you jump off a bridge, you can't unjump half way down.

It was a harsh decision. Within the rules - as punches did land after break - but I haven't met a single person or read a single account that said it wasn't harsh.

It has also been pointed out that the Yugoslavian ref probably didn't mind DQing Holyfield much and was grateful for the opportunity.

The guy was flat out Ox. A complete KO. The ref had no choice. He called break. The NZ guy lowered his guard as Holy was winging away and got caught. If it was a tap on the chin then no problem. Somewhat different when the guy is out cold via a foul punch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLnoZrxe5qo

Thats by a fraction of a second, hardly hitting the guy when he was walking away defenceless, it was mid-flurry. Think I'm with Holy on this, another Olympic boxing embarrassment.

The ref called #break'. One guy relaxed and dropped his guard. Holy was in mid flow and Ko'd the guy. What option did the ref have? Howard Cossell was always prone to the flag wavers USA USA chanting muppets.

If a ref wants them to stop whilst they're fighting and throwing punches he needs to chuck himself in the middle so it's unequivocal, not stand several feet away and say it, apparently not very loudly.

Az - stop being deliberately dense. You know it pushes buttons.

Ghosty is saying that whether the guy is lying on his back counting stars - or the guy is bouncing on his toes with rage - should make no difference to the referee's decision - which should be determined by the offense - in this case - punching on the break and that alone.

Ergo - calling a DQ - harsh (very very harsh in my opinion).

If the guy was ok to continue Holy should have been docked a point. But the guy was unable to continue. Its a massive difference.

Where the ref is is not the issue. OPne guy heard him and the other didnt. Good call. Reminds me of when RJJ was DQd against griffin. Threw on instinct. Good call also.

See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

oxring wrote:See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

Usually hitting on the break is frowned upon. Knocking out another guy on the break deserved a DQ whether accidental or not.

Pushing is something every boxer does and has done since the start of the sport.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

Usually hitting on the break is frowned upon. Knocking out another guy on the break deserved a DQ whether accidental or not.

Pushing is something every boxer does and has done since the start of the sport.

But it's the same foul...?!

So you're showing deliberate muddled thinking then?

I can understand your position Az and it makes some sense. But it still isn't logically consistent. Holyfield broke rules and deserved punishment. ERGO Khan broke rules and also deserved punishment.

OR - "Holyfield could have been let off - the ref needed to appreciate that he didn't handle the situation very well - and maybe the ref should have handled the Khan thing better as well"

Either of those options.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

Usually hitting on the break is frowned upon. Knocking out another guy on the break deserved a DQ whether accidental or not.

Pushing is something every boxer does and has done since the start of the sport.

But it's the same foul...?!

The fight os over by foul means. Why should the victim be punished twice?

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

Usually hitting on the break is frowned upon. Knocking out another guy on the break deserved a DQ whether accidental or not.

Pushing is something every boxer does and has done since the start of the sport.

But it's the same foul...?!

The fight os over by foul means. Why should the victim be punished twice?

Same with fights stopped by cuts due to clash of heads.

No matter whether the headbutt was ruled accidental or deliberate. If deliberate - the ref deducts a point and if the fighter is unable to continue, things go to the cards.

If accidental, the ref doesn't deduct a point and the fight goes to the cards.

The victim isn't punished twice there - he's assessed upon what he has offered thus far.

Why should this be any different?

oxring wrote:So you're showing deliberate muddled thinking then?

I can understand your position Az and it makes some sense. But it still isn't logically consistent. Holyfield broke rules and deserved punishment. ERGO Khan broke rules and also deserved punishment.

OR - "Holyfield could have been let off - the ref needed to appreciate that he didn't handle the situation very well - and maybe the ref should have handled the Khan thing better as well"

Either of those options.

If we apply the letter of the law and penalise every incident as the law states, then all fights will end up with minus points. Much of it is a judgement call and descretion is applied. But when you KO an opponent using foul means (whether deliberate or not) then you should get DQ'd.

Abrahams got DQ for clocking Dirrell, RJJ for hitting a downed opponent. Discretion was applied whe nRocky deliberately hit JJW when he was on his knee.

Yes Khan broke the rules. But those rules are hardly applied. Moreover he didn;t KO Peterson or change the course of the fight to his advantage.


What part of every boxer pushes dont you understand? Are you suggesting that whenever a boxer pushes or does a minor infringement, he should have points deducted or get DQ'd?

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:See - at least you're being consistent with your DQs on the break.

You're not being consistent with your implementation of the rules across the board however.

Pushing is a rule that isn't universally enforced but IS a rule.

Hitting on the break when the combo is already started is also a rule that is almost never enforced - certainly not to DQ someone.

Either both right, or both wrong - otherwise its muddled thinking.

Usually hitting on the break is frowned upon. Knocking out another guy on the break deserved a DQ whether accidental or not.

Pushing is something every boxer does and has done since the start of the sport.

But it's the same foul...?!

The fight os over by foul means. Why should the victim be punished twice?

Same with fights stopped by cuts due to clash of heads.

No matter whether the headbutt was ruled accidental or deliberate. If deliberate - the ref deducts a point and if the fighter is unable to continue, things go to the cards.

If accidental, the ref doesn't deduct a point and the fight goes to the cards.

The victim isn't punished twice there - he's assessed upon what he has offered thus far.

Why should this be any different?

Splitting hairs once again oxy. Are they allowed to go to the cards in amateur boxing when the opponent had been KO'd by a clear foul?

You've got me on one point - I'm not certain they're allowed to go to the cards after a stoppage by a questionable foul in amateur boxing. I believe they are - but I'm not certain.

My point is to do with logical consistency, az - which is something (please don't take this as offensive - its not meant to be) that you have always lacked. You are mostly a tolerable fellow - and you try to judge each case on its merits. However - once you form your opinion, often on slightly shaky logical footing - you entrench yourself and will not shift.

Your positions are not logically consistent. Either you feel that people should be punished by the letter of the law for offences as observed by the referee - or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

BTW - its not necessarily a bad thing not to be logically consistent all the time. Utilitarians do it all the time, on the basis of consistency to the greater good. And no-one thinks ill of them (too often). They're meant to be very nice people.

Wouldn't say it was a clear foul, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Who's to say that Khans pushing didn't change the course of the fight?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Who's to say that Khans pushing didn't change the course of the fight?

As it happens - it clearly did - as it stopped Peterson getting close and unloading the overhand right/left hook with more frequency. I'm sure we can all agree that Khan would not have been helped by receiving more punches - and in fact, I would go one step further and say I am sure that we all agree Khan would have been quite hindered by receiving more punches.