Thread: Doug Jones
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2009, 11:39 PM   #51
My2Sense
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,971
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Doug Jones

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
you extend the 'top mix' too much.
the top mix at 175 back then was only : walcott , charles , moore and maybe maxim also.
I asked you for YOUR definition of "quality fights". This is what you told me:
Quote:
fights against very good fighters that are on a winning streak or at least after a controversial/competent loss.
if they have physical advantage - it just adds to the quality.
and most preferably - fighters that are at the mix of the top of your division on top i mean the beaters of the beaters of such , etc.
EVERY fighter I listed falls under one or more of these "categories" you gave.

If you want to change your definition of "quality fights" to only include the "top mix", then your list needs to be shortened as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
not for every fighter's loss.
see Wlad's losses.
see lewis vs. mccall 1.
see leon spinks vs. qawi.
see foreman vs. ali.
too many more to mention.
SPINKS was grossly weight drained for the Qawi fight, the exact same excuse you use for Tarver against Hopkins (that's in addition to being past his prime anyway). If you don't think Spinks has an excuse for losing that fight, then no fighter does (and certainly not Tarver).

Aside from that, yes you can make excuses for any of those fights you mentioned, anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
what i said earlier was about Reggie Johnson , not about Tarver.
No, it wasn't. Here's the exact chain of conversation:


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
Terver beat every top 175 of his time except michalczewski (who didn't face roy either , so maybe it's michalczewski's fault) , you have boxrec too , you don't need that long list from me .
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatA View Post
He also lost to most of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Sense View Post
His losses to Hopkins, Harding, and Dawson were neither controversial nor close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
again , don't let me repeat the hopkins and dawson stories.
tarver's stoppage of harding was more decisive than harding's points victory over him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Sense View Post
So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.
--------------------


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
the stats 2(1):1(0) , for Tarver , with the loss a close MD , although Roy has a good excuse , not good as tarver's though , while the stoppage a 2nd rd TKO is still better than 1(1) for johnson .
No it isn't. Whupping a guy the first time is better than LOSING to him and needing to avenge the loss in a rematch. On top of that, you've admitted yourself that Jones was weight drained for the first Tarver fight, which makes Tarver look even worse for losing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
you also don't know what would happen if they fought another time.
Neither do you, nor is it relevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
i think you do know what would happen if they'd fought at roy's peak - see hopkins-johnson , only roy would have done it alittle quicker.
And if Tarver fought Roy at his peak, would that look like Hopkins-Tarver?
My2Sense is offline  Top
Reply With Quote