It's nothing to do with the Jones in his name that makes me such a big fan. it's simply down to him having had a career that means he's head and shoulders above the best of the rest in his field and in a sporting league to rival Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Michael Johnson.

His development seems to be of the harsh father type where his success is down to the strict regime and pressures put on by his dad.

The fighter once described his childhood as being one of constant physical and emotional pain, one where he lived in constant fear of his father who ran the boxing establishment where he grew up.

Looking back, it is not known whether the treatment he suffered as a child is partly attributable to the success he has had as a professional boxer.

In his career, Jones has amassed a remarkable record of being the IBF champion at middleweight, super-middleweight and light-eavyweight as well as once holding the WBC, WBA, IBF, IBO, NABF, WBF and IBA light-heavyweight championships at the same time.

I have often watched videos of Jones as a method of inspiration and motivation in my own sporting life.

The big downfall at the end of the day, though, is that – despite being a sporting master – the guy is still an American. I don't care if he has been a motivational sporting hero, when it comes down to putting on the loyalty jacket at Madison Square Gardens in New York on September 20 I'm always going to back Calzaghe.

It's an exciting prospect because both boxers have done it alone to promote the fight, dropping Don King and Frank Warren respectively.

It is set to be Calzaghe's career-ending fight and if I was in his shoes I couldn't think of a better way of finishing such a dominating career.

Others have described it as a lose-lose situation for Joe because if he wins critics will say that he has beaten a boxer way past his best, and if he loses they will say that it has ruined the end of a fantastic career.

Equally, had he not finished with a legendary boxer like Jones the cynics would say that he never fought a big name.

Personally, I think he's got it bang on and the best bit is it's only a couple of months down the line. I can't wait.

******
The Yorkshire cricket fans seem to have been knocked for six at what looks like an administrative error in the Azeem Rafiq affair.

On Thursday, the club were thrown out of the Twenty20 Cup for fielding an ineligible "overseas" player with an invalid British passport.

The headache, though, is that this case is swamped in the political red tape that is slowly consuming this country both in and outside of sport.

Rafiq – a Pakistan-born 17-year-old – has captained England at under-15 level and played a negligible part in the win over Nottinghamshire, the match which led to Yorkshire's expulsion from the competition.

I'm no cricket expert but how can an officiating body like the England and Wales Cricket board be behind an England under-15s team captained by a player whom they later class as ineligible for a Twenty20 fixture? There's an error of their own here somewhere.

I respect the fact that there are rules to be followed and as a result Yorkshire should be judged on them, but for an incident which the board themselves accepted that there was no deliberate flouting of the regulations, the decision is well wide of the wicket.

The harsh penalty of throwing Yorkshire out of the competition could have major consequences for the gutted Yorkshire followers and Yorkshire players who could suffer financially.

Even Durham, who probably thought they would get through with a bye after their match with Yorkshire was called off on Monday, are moaning at the possibility of now having to face reinstated Nottinghamshire.

Throwing Yorkshire out of the competition and imposing a disproportionate amount of grief because of some unsigned and posted papers in nit-picking circumstances, just isn't cricket.


********

I WAS amazed at the comments made by FIFA president Sepp Blatter about players – and Manchester United's Cristiano Ronaldo in particular – having the right to leave if they are unhappy at their clubs.

Blatter insists players should be free to play where they want, describing transfer trends as "modern slavery".

If getting £120,000-plus per week is modern-day slavery then shackle me, throw me a pen and show me the dotted line.

I can't agree with Blatter's words, his description is a load of waffle, but I do, however, think that Manchester United should consider his plea about Ronaldo.

Given his extraordinary ability, young age and value from a commercial perspective, it makes it hard to fit Ronaldo into the old saying that a player isn't as big as the club.

But even in this case I think that cliche is still true. If a player no longer wishes to play for a club and begins to stir up unrest then I believe it eventually causes more bad than good for the club to keep him. So they should either lay down the law or call it a day and let him go because while all the hype inflates the player in question it surely deflates the rest of the squad, the supporters and other parties involved with the club.

I think Manchester United, of all the clubs in the world, have the power to say that this unrest is against the policy of their organisation and should release the player, even one of Ronaldo's calibre. I believe that this is the best solution for both the player and the club.