Thread: Doug Jones
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2009, 01:46 PM   #50
frankenfrank
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,516
vCash: 4710
Default Re: Doug Jones

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Next to Buckley's.
a realistic chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Comparing someone like Orlin Norris to Harold Johnson is the epitome of ridiculous. Who the **** did Orlin beat that could carry the jockstrap of the TEN best guys Harold beat?
the top ten wins of norris isn't much impressing h2h considering the way he beat them and his balance against each one of them.
but still more impressing than johnson.
mccall , tucker , greg page , nate miller to name some.
p4p ofcourse norris is much better.
do you think harold johnson would end 1:1 with tucker and 1(0):0 over mccall ? you think he'd end with a draw against jirov ?
if you do , then you are delusional.
but this is the delusional forum , so you fit here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
1. Being the best of all eras is a pretty high standard. If that's what greatness means then there's only a dozen or so great fighters, which of course is rubbish.
it is only part of the requirements for being an ATG.
if you lose for fighters of your time then how can you be considerred a favorite against fighters from all-time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
2. If you era is outstanding, as Johnson's obviously was, it matters little that you didn't dominate it or come out on top. Comparing it to Tarver's era of journeymen and washed up fighters is a disgrace.
so losing in that era makes you great ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Tarver fought in a shit era though. Beating a past prime Roy Jones and a past prime Reggie Johnson, Montell Griffin and prime journeyman Glen Johnson is not anything CLOSE to the level of fighters Harold beat.
not a shit era still.
far from it.
want a shit era ?
look at hopkins' time at 160 , pavlik's days at 160.
most of the 122 and below most of the time.
the 168 since about 1997/8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Unless he improves DRAMATICALLY there is no chance he will be an excellent fighter, let alone a great.
what is THAT bad about him ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Toney is a fat, undisciplined slob who would probably give Johnson 2 close fights in a series of 5 and get shut out three times when he Burger Kings it.
at 175 based on history you are true.
but this was the weakest weight for toney for some reason , undisclosed for me.
at any other weight 168 or 190 , toney would have destroyed him just like he did with others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
Such as? That he was an embarassment at middleweight? Shit that will carry a LOT of p4p weight for Glen. That should put him near Tarver for sure, my bad.
a well conditioned johnson was stopped by pre-prime as you say hopkins.
a heavily drained tarver still wasn't stopped and that was a still prime hopkins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
There.

There.
what you're doing is confusing reggie johnson with jorge castro and antonio tarver , h2h with p4p.
lets make it clear :
p4p jorge castro and reggie johnson were at least very good.
that despite h2h they weren't great at any weight.
tarver at 175 was great or at least near to it.
harold johnson wasn't great in any terms.
maybe he was tough , but so many where.
tough is not enough.
at 175 reggie johnson and jorge castro are undersized and probably would have lost to harold johnson. but they were smaller men.
castro came from 154. he should have never go beyond 168.
johnson came from 160 , he should have returned to 168 after his loss to jones but big money fights at 175 and the lack of them at 168 made his record look as it is.
it wasn't a shit era at 175 and that's part of the evidence.
that's also part of the evidence that it was indeed a shit era at 168.




Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
You see the whole problems stems from the fact that you haven't even seen enough of Johnson, Charles, Moore etc to form a proper opinion. Placing the resume's of Tarver and Johnson on a par is just an example of that. They are NOT on a par. Anyone with a full historical perspective, or even a half assed one, would tell you that.
tarver was a better 175 than harold johnson.
i don't say he was better than charles and walcott but better than johnson.
i wonder if tarver would have gotten stopped against marciano at a 180 catchweight which would have been comfortable for both.
i really wonder , with all respect for marciano.
frankenfrank is offline  Top
Reply With Quote