In an ideal world, in an ideal sport, the subject would never even arise. But the world is no more ideal than boxing?
Watching the dismantling of Roy Jones Jr. is not a pretty sight. People have been begging him to retire for years. Some of them are intimates, others are total strangers, but the message, and the response, is always the same.
Boxing is a young man?s game and at 47 Jones is not a young man. He isn?t a senior citizen, except in boxing terms, and those terms are as unforgiving as they are nonnegotiable.
One man who has watched the decline of Roy Jones with dismay is former super middleweight champion Carl Froch.
After watching the 46-year-old Jones get starched by Enzo Maccarinelli last month in Russia, Froch has seen enough and wants to do something about it.
?That was terrible to see that, upsetting,? Froch told the Daily Mail. ?I watched that fight with David Haye and Johnny Nelson, because Big Josh (Anthony Joshua) was fighting that night and Roy Jones boxed Enzo Maccarinelli and got knocked out?terrible.?
It was terrible, even more terrible than the knockouts that preceded it. Roy?s punch resistance has gone the way of his reflexes, and the direction is due south.
?Roy Jones Jr. is one of the best fighters that ever lived,? said Froch, ?and Maccarinelli is a limited, domestic-level fighter and he is knocking out Roy Jones. If I was Maccarinelli, I would not have taken the fight. I would not have fought Roy Jones. I would have refused to fight him. He has gone there and knocked him out and I would take no credit for that, but each to their own.?
Maccarinelli can?t be faulted for earning a living. He was offered a payday to fight Jones and he accepted the offer and will deal with the consequences. The fault, such as it is, and there?s plenty of fault to go around, lies with Jones himself, and Russian promoter Vlad Hrunov.
If Jones had beaten Maccarinelli the details wouldn?t matter. But then again, if Jones had retired in a timely matter, they would matter even less.
?Boxing is a hurt game,? Froch continued. ?If you can?t be at your best, can?t be 100 percent mentally and physically switched on to performing, to win titles, defend yourself in the correct fashion, then I don?t think you should fight.?
Froch is right. In an ideal world, in an ideal sport, the subject would never even arise. But the world is no more ideal than boxing, and young men beating old men is part and parcel of the sweet science of bruising.
?Boxing is not like any other sport. You have to weigh up the risk and reward. Things like playing football, tennis, you might be three sets to love down, but boxing you?re going to the hospital on a stretcher and you know potentially you are going to get an injury you can?t walk away from. I don?t know whether they can bring different rules in on the licensing to stop people from coming back into the sport that have been retired a long time or past a certain age. There is an age limit of 35 on amateur boxing. They should consider putting an age limit on professional boxing. I boxed till my late 30s, so 47, that?s impossible really to be at your best and if you aren?t at your best you shouldn?t be boxing.?
There?s no arguing with Carl Froch. His reasoning is sound. His heart and head are in the right place.
Men like Archie Moore and Bernard Hopkins are the exceptions. The fate of Sugar Ray Robinson, and possibly Roy Jones Jr., is less the exception than the rule.
