Doug Jones

[mcvey]

Bearing in mind Foster was a late sub ,and had not reached his peak,Jones still looks very good here.
The aggressor throughout, Jones looked to land his right over the top of Foster's low left,all his career Foster carried his left at hip level ,shooting his jab upwards from this position,and relying on his shoulder to shield his chin on that side.
Foster looked to begin to run down after the 6th round and Jones kept the pressure on ,very impressive performance.
Thanks for putting this up.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

johnson was not awesome. he perenially lost to the bunch of charles-walcott-moore on many ocasions.

No he didn't, he BEAT Charles and also won one of his fights with Moore.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

now you say that they ere great , but i am not that sure that after so many oppurtunities fighters like roy jones , tarver , dawson , glen johnson , would have ended with the same results like harlod johnson against his bunch.

He only had ONE fight each against Walcott and Charles, and still beat Charles.

And I don't see how any of those fighters you listed would've done any better against the likes of Charles/Moore/Walcott.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

charles , walcott were very good maxim , moore somewhat less but still very good.

No, Charles and Walcott were GREAT, Moore somewhat less but still GREAT.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

johnson was not awesome at all. i wonder if 'good' will be apropriate. somewhat/quite good is a good description to be exact.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

enough with the bias for the pre 1980's here.
people then were not better than today in the average.
there were exceptions , but just like today.
history , by its nature has a tendency to accumulate.
particularly , the number of great fighters throughout it accumulates.
so the number of great fighters is very big enough without counting wrong.

If you don't think Johnson's achievements are enough to be called great, then no fighter today has achieved enough to be called great.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

This should be good. Great in fact. It's going to be awesome.

[Longhhorn71]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Bearing in mind Foster was a late sub ,and had not reached his peak,Jones still looks very good here.
The aggressor throughout, Jones looked to land his right over the top of Foster's low left,all his career Foster carried his left at hip level ,shooting his jab upwards from this position,and relying on his shoulder to shield his chin on that side.
Foster looked to begin to run down after the 6th round and Jones kept the pressure on ,very impressive performance.
Thanks for putting this up.

I like Jones too.....but this was Bob's first 10 round fight.
Foster had 9 fights....Jones 23.

Foster was subbing for Zora Folley....a much better fighter at the time.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]174[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]18219-3-1





Madison Square Garden, New York, New York, United StatesLTKO810


~ time: 0:23 | referee: Teddy Martin ~
Foster was a substitute for Zora Folley, who pulled out with a virus. Foster was knocked down for a nine count in the 1st by a right hand. Foster was staggered badly in the 7th and 8th.
As he was staggering in the 8th round, referee Teddy Martin stopped the bout.

[john garfield]

Seein' Doug Jones' name brings a smile. Used to date the daughter of Jones' manager. She dropped me like a rock for spending more time at the fights with her dad.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

He never lost to Charles and he lost to Walcott one time when he fucked his back.

he even has an SD over charles.
but something like 1:4 vs. moore , while moore being older by 12 years.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

maybe about johnson you may be true , about the rest , they would have a good chance at least against moore and jones.
you are too effected by the drained tarver who came against hopkins and the old one that showed against dawson.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

glen and harold johnson are below the level of tarver and dawson.
losing by TKO to hopkins is a shame , it is a proof that he is not elite.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

it will still be a very long list :
p4p : langford , duran , pacquiao , ray leonard , qawi , marciano , toney , byrd , orlin norris , jorge castro (not a favorite here)
i may have forgot some .
marciano surely proved the upper hand over louis , charles , walcott , moore. he was the pacquiao of the 'hw' division back then.
by beating twice each one of the two of the reigning bunch , 3 times by stoppage , and stopping another two of that bunch ,
you clearly prove yourself as the best of your time at that weight.
but note : the best of (1) YOUR TIME (2) AT THAT WEIGHT
and that's only marciano.
there were many more bests of their time at their weight.
and louis , charles , walcott , moore , jones , johnson FAILED at achieving that status. maybe louis partially succeeded for a time -
he was 1:1 vs. schmelling who was not that briliant himself.
louis' 'reign' was on a weak era and its length benefited of the war.
tarver and dawson succeeded at being the BEST OF THEIR TIME AT THEIR WEIGHT , understand ?
and that's even h2h and not p4p.

you underestimate tarver , dawson , and for sure reggie johnson
they are yet to be stopped , and reggie johnson did move up in weight and faced great oposition in both 160 and 175.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

If you don't think Johnson's achievements are enough to be called great, then no fighter today has achieved enough to be called great.

today we still have holyfield , toney and pacquiao . these are greater.
and that's just today. not the whole history.
so lets just call them great and not overuse the word so will not need too many words.

[TheGreatA]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

he even has an SD over charles.
but something like 1:4 vs. moore , while moore being older by 12 years.

Moore was in his prime though, while Johnson was just 21-22 years old in most of those bouts.

In their last and most meaningful bout, Moore had to pull out a late round comeback win after being knocked down and outpointed for the 13 previous rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Moore was slightly greater but this doesn't mean Harold Johnson wasn't great.

maybe about johnson you may be true , about the rest , they would have a good chance at least against moore and jones.
you are too effected by the drained tarver who came against hopkins and the old one that showed against dawson.

When did Tarver ever truly impress? I was impressed by his KO win over Roy Jones but then Glen Johnson smashed Roy too. He has never been a dominant fighter of the era as you are making him out to be.

glen and harold johnson are below the level of tarver and dawson.
losing by TKO to hopkins is a shame , it is a proof that he is not elite.

Harold Johnson's resume makes Tarver look mediocre, not to mention Dawson's who hasn't achieved a whole lot at all.

Johnson was TKO'd by a prime Hopkins while he himself had not yet fought any notable opponents. He gave hell to Tarver and Dawson yet he doesn't rate anywhere near them?

it will still be a very long list :
p4p : langford , duran , pacquiao , ray leonard , qawi , marciano , toney , byrd , orlin norris , jorge castro (not a favorite here)
i may have forgot some .

Huh?

marciano surely proved the upper hand over louis , charles , walcott , moore. he was the pacquiao of the 'hw' division back then.
by beating twice each one of the two of the reigning bunch , 3 times by stoppage , and stopping another two of that bunch ,
you clearly prove yourself as the best of your time at that weight.
but note : the best of (1) YOUR TIME (2) AT THAT WEIGHT
and that's only marciano.

Marciano proved he was the best heavyweight of the bunch while Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis were older. But Moore and Charles had their most significant accomplishments as light heavyweights.

there were many more bests of their time at their weight.
and louis , charles , walcott , moore , jones , johnson FAILED at achieving that status. maybe louis partially succeeded for a time -
he was 1:1 vs. schmelling who was not that briliant himself.
louis' 'reign' was on a weak era and its length benefited of the war.
tarver and dawson succeeded at being the BEST OF THEIR TIME AT THEIR WEIGHT , understand ?
and that's even h2h and not p4p.

Neither Tarver nor Dawson have proved that they are the best of their era.

Tarver is 2-1 against Jones, 1-1 against Johnson, 0-2 against Dawson, 0-1 against Hopkins, 1-1 with Harding, hardly dominant.

Dawson has two wins over Tarver and a controversial decision win over Glen Johnson, both of whom are 40 years of age.

you underestimate tarver , dawson , and for sure reggie johnson
they are yet to be stopped , and reggie johnson did move up in weight and faced great oposition in both 160 and 175.

And lost more often than not. Yet you take down Moore and Harold Johnson for losing? Even though they accomplished twice or three times as much as Reggie Johnson.

[frankenfrank]

harold johnson was TKO'd by moore when he was 26. and of their 5 fights that's the most convincing defeat.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

When did Tarver ever truly impress? I was impressed by his KO win over Roy Jones but then Glen Johnson smashed Roy too. He has never been a dominant fighter of the era as you are making him out to be.

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 .

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Harold Johnson's resume makes Tarver look mediocre, not to mention Dawson's who hasn't achieved a whole lot at all.

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.
and his record in his quality fights was significantly worse than tarver's.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Johnson was TKO'd by a prime Hopkins while he himself had not yet fought any notable opponents. He gave hell to Tarver and Dawson yet he doesn't rate anywhere near them?

in his 32 first fights , the 'road warrior' fought nobody.
when he did face a still not prime hopkins , who had problems with baptist and lost to a still not peak roy , he was TKO'd , i saw that fight , johnson was shit there , hopkins also , that's not peak , that's just johnson was the shittier of the two , a boring fight , with no talent at all demostrated by any of the fighters. it's just that johnson was the worse of the two. hopkins was still not peak and was never a great fighter. just a smart picking one who fouls whenever his oposition's level of talent surpasses its size disadvantage compared to him.
johnson gave hell to a still unexperienced dawson.
in the 'hell' he gave to tarver , he was still outlanded and the less accurate.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Marciano proved he was the best heavyweight of the bunch while Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis were older. But Moore and Charles had their most significant accomplishments as light heavyweights.

charles was only 2 years older than marciano.
moore was older , which is true , but by that time , he STOPPED that harold johnson , and was still peak , at least according to you.
the walcott marciano beat was a reigning world champion , back in the days when being a 'world champion' really meant something.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Neither Tarver nor Dawson have proved that they are the best of their era.

Tarver is 2-1 against Jones, 1-1 against Johnson, 0-2 against Dawson, 0-1 against Hopkins, 1-1 with Harding, hardly dominant.

Dawson has two wins over Tarver and a controversial decision win over Glen Johnson, both of whom are 40 years of age.

johnson's SD over tarver , which i also saw , was a fight in which tarver had the better accuracy and landed more.
it is a controversial decision.
it can also be regarded as a 2:0 or a 1:0:1.
the 0-2 against Dawson means that tarver is really no longer the #1.
but he was untill 2005 and the rocky balboa movie.
the loss to hopkins was because he was drained coming down from the 220 he was for the movie.
and the points loss to harding was avenged by a 5th round TKO.
it's a 1(1):1(0). tarver proved the superiority again , like with every fighter he has ever fought.
he beat : Jones 2(1):1(0) , while the loss was close and controversial.
Glen Johnson 1:1 while johnson's win a controversial SD , another tarver's win over him in fact , Reggie Johnson 1:0 Woods 1:0 , Griffin 1:0 , harding 1(1):1(0) , Benguesmia 1(1):0 .
what can you ask more ?
that's the best 175 of HIS TIME.
dawson also beat adamek , another reigning world champion and also harding.
he had already surpassed calzaghe legacy-wise.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

And lost more often than not. Yet you take down Moore and Harold Johnson for losing? Even though they accomplished twice or three times as much as Reggie Johnson.

reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 but went to 175 from career/political reasons. that explains his losses at 175 who despite the HIGH-LEVEL oposition he faced were never by stoppage.
harold johnson was somewhat bigger than reggie johnson and for sure bigger than jorge castro and fitted 175 much better than them.
can you see him going the distance with jirov , paul briggs , roy jones , sebastiaan rothman.
stopping derrick harmon and imamu mayfield.
AND THAT's A 154 FIGHTER , NEVER FORGET IT.
if he wanted he could have stayed 160 and below for the whole of his career.
moore was a better 175 for sure than reggie johnson because he was a natural such if not even slightly bigger than 175.
he should have been anorectic to make 175.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 , hence the reason why moore a better 175 than him. but p4p is another story with an unclear answer. maybe moore better p4p than reggie johnson.
but harold johnson was not better p4p. as a 175 he was somewhat better , again , because he was somewhat bigger and fitted there better.

[Bummy Davis]

When he beat Foster he could have made 175lbs...Jones was underated, he had decent power and good skills and lets face it he gave Ali a scrap...better than Liston in 2 fights....Jones never got a title but he was a strong fighter

[TheGreatA]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

harold johnson was TKO'd by moore when he was 26. and of their 5 fights that's the most convincing defeat.

Did you not watch the fight I posted? Harold Johnson was having the better of the action until Moore pulled out a late round comeback win. Both of them were very equal skill-wise.

Moore being 4-1 with Johnson is deceiving. All of the fights were close and only the 5th one ended in decisive fashion and in that fight Johnson was winning until being stopped.

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 .

He also lost to most of them.

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.
and his record in his quality fights was significantly worse than tarver's.

This clearly displays your lack of knowledge about Harold Johnson's era of boxing. He had wins over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (though Moore got the best of their series), Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Machen, Bert Lytell, Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes, Doug Jones, Eddie Cotton, Henry Hank, Clarence Henry, Marty Marshall, Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc.

A much more extensive record than Tarver's, who only has wins over Roy Jones (2-1), Glen Johnson (1-1), Eric Harding (1-1), Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

in his 32 first fights , the 'road warrior' fought nobody.
when he did face a still not prime hopkins , who had problems with baptist and lost to a still not peak roy , he was TKO'd , i saw that fight , johnson was shit there , hopkins also , that's not peak , that's just johnson was the shittier of the two , a boring fight , with no talent at all demostrated by any of the fighters. it's just that johnson was the worse of the two. hopkins was still not peak and was never a great fighter. just a smart picking one who fouls whenever his oposition's level of talent surpasses its size disadvantage compared to him.
johnson gave hell to a still unexperienced dawson.
in the 'hell' he gave to tarver , he was still outlanded and the less accurate

That was a peak Bernard Hopkins. He had been having problems with Roy and Baptist 5 years earlier, not relevant when Hopkins fought Johnson. It was a great display of skills by Hopkins which made an impression on Gil Clancy the great boxing trainer.

If Hopkins wasn't great, then Tarver isn't either. Hopkins schooled the much bigger man in very one-sided fashion and all the excuses about Tarver being weight-drained are utterly ridiculous. If Tarver was weight-drained, then so was Roy when he fought Tarver. "What are your excuses tonight Roy?", might as well ask that from Tarver.

Tarver threw a lot of pitter-pat punches at Johnson but it was obvious who was the stronger of the two.

charles was only 2 years older than marciano.
moore was older , which is true , but by that time , he STOPPED that harold johnson , and was still peak , at least according to you.
the walcott marciano beat was a reigning world champion , back in the days when being a 'world champion' really meant something.

Charles had also fought 100 times and had started his career when Rocky hadn't even thought about boxing. When did Marciano retire? Two years later, when he felt his body was breaking down.

Moore was a great light heavyweight, not a heavyweight. Do you think Tarver could have beaten the heavyweight champion? Or even a cruiserweight title? He certainly never tried.

johnson's SD over tarver , which i also saw , was a fight in which tarver had the better accuracy and landed more.
it is a controversial decision.
it can also be regarded as a 2:0 or a 1:0:1.
the 0-2 against Dawson means that tarver is really no longer the #1.
but he was untill 2005 and the rocky balboa movie.
the loss to hopkins was because he was drained coming down from the 220 he was for the movie.
and the points loss to harding was avenged by a 5th round TKO.
it's a 1(1):1(0). tarver proved the superiority again , like with every fighter he has ever fought.
he beat : Jones 2(1):1(0) , while the loss was close and controversial.
Glen Johnson 1:1 while johnson's win a controversial SD , another tarver's win over him in fact , Reggie Johnson 1:0 Woods 1:0 , Griffin 1:0 , harding 1(1):1(0) , Benguesmia 1(1):0 .
what can you ask more ?
that's the best 175 of HIS TIME.
dawson also beat adamek , another reigning world champion and also harding.
he had already surpassed calzaghe legacy-wise.

Johnson's win over Tarver may have been close but he gave Tarver a beating at times. Johnson was certainly not a class below him as you say.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
4:20

Tarver was simply the best light heavyweight for a very short time, maybe from 2004 to 2006 and even that's debatable, much like Harold Johnson was in the early 1960's.

reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 but went to 175 from career/political reasons. that explains his losses at 175 who despite the HIGH-LEVEL oposition he faced were never by stoppage.
harold johnson was somewhat bigger than reggie johnson and for sure bigger than jorge castro and fitted 175 much better than them.
can you see him going the distance with jirov , paul briggs , roy jones , sebastiaan rothman.
stopping derrick harmon and imamu mayfield.
AND THAT's A 154 FIGHTER , NEVER FORGET IT.
if he wanted he could have stayed 160 and below for the whole of his career.
moore was a better 175 for sure than reggie johnson because he was a natural such if not even slightly bigger than 175.
he should have been anorectic to make 175.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 , hence the reason why moore a better 175 than him. but p4p is another story with an unclear answer. maybe moore better p4p than reggie johnson.
but harold johnson was not better p4p. as a 175 he was somewhat better , again , because he was somewhat bigger and fitted there better.

[/quote]

Harold Johnson fought and beat numerous top 5, top 3, even number 1 ranked heavyweight contenders and rarely lost at that weight, so yes he could go up in weight and be effective.

Moore actually went up from welterweight, to being the number 1 ranked middleweight contender, to being the light heavyweight champion and the number 1 heavyweight contender.

Reggie also lost 4 times at 160 pounds, controversial or not, a lot of Harold Johnson's losses were. The only thing he ever did at 175 was to expose the chin of the grossly overhyped William Guthrie who didn't go onto accomplish anything. His best wins are over Steve Collins and Lamar Parks, hardly an ATG resume, especially compared to Harold Johnson's. Does it matter that he wasn't stopped? A loss is a loss, especially a whitewash in which you are knocked down several times like his loss against Roy Jones.

I can very well see Harold Johnson going the distance with Sebastian Rothman, Paul Briggs, Vassiliy Jirov and Roy Jones and actually beating 3 out of 4 of them with the Jones fight being close. Castro was tough as nails but that doesn't make him a great fighter.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Did you not watch the fight I posted? Harold Johnson was having the better of the action until Moore pulled out a late round comeback win. Both of them were very equal skill-wise.

Moore being 4-1 with Johnson is deceiving. All of the fights were close and only the 5th one ended in decisive fashion and in that fight Johnson was winning until being stopped.

he was STOPPED. that's the important thing here.
no i didn't watch that fight.
there are still many more interesting fights that i still haven't seen.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

He also lost to most of them.

his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

This clearly displays your lack of knowledge about Harold Johnson's era of boxing. He had wins over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (though Moore got the best of their series), Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Machen, Bert Lytell, Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes, Doug Jones, Eddie Cotton, Henry Hank, Clarence Henry, Marty Marshall, Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc.

A much more extensive record than Tarver's, who only has wins over Roy Jones (2-1), Glen Johnson (1-1), Eric Harding (1-1), Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

why should i care about Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc. ?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

That was a peak Bernard Hopkins. He had been having problems with Roy and Baptist 5 years earlier, not relevant when Hopkins fought Johnson. It was a great display of skills by Hopkins which made an impression on Gil Clancy the great boxing trainer.

hopkins also had problems with wright so many years later.
that's why the headbutt for. also with calzaghe.
also with jermain taylor twice.
we later saw taylor's worth against spinks , pavlik, froch .
hopkins is overrated. tarver underrated.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

If Hopkins wasn't great, then Tarver isn't either. Hopkins schooled the much bigger man in very one-sided fashion and all the excuses about Tarver being weight-drained are utterly ridiculous. If Tarver was weight-drained, then so was Roy when he fought Tarver. "What are your excuses tonight Roy?", might as well ask that from Tarver.

Tarver threw a lot of pitter-pat punches at Johnson but it was obvious who was the stronger of the two.

roy had HIS best outcome against tarver when he (roy) was the most drained.
roy got from 193 to 175 , tarver 220 to 175 , i see a difference.
hopkins is an american version of calzaghe , but even worse , because his losses came against fighters calzaghe wouldn't have lost to.
maybe except roy. calzaghe is certainly better than hopkins when thinking about it.
tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it.
you keep ignoring the comparison between tarver's 'losses' to his wins.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Moore was a great light heavyweight, not a heavyweight. Do you think Tarver could have beaten the heavyweight champion? Or even a cruiserweight title? He certainly never tried.

i didn't claim tarver a great p4p.
just a great 175 that's all.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Johnson's win over Tarver may have been close but he gave Tarver a beating at times. Johnson was certainly not a class below him as you say.

i told you i have seen that entire fight.
their records prove what i said.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Harold Johnson fought and beat numerous top 5, top 3, even number 1 ranked heavyweight contenders and rarely lost at that weight, so yes he could go up in weight and be effective.

i don't care about the ranking of contenders today and care even less about then. my claims are based on full historical perspective.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Moore actually went up from welterweight, to being the number 1 ranked middleweight contender, to being the light heavyweight champion and the number 1 heavyweight contender.

again about the ranking of contenders :
who cares ?
p4p moore was better than tarver , i agree.
at 175 maybe also , but i didn't compare them. and didn't claim the oposite.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Reggie also lost 4 times at 160 pounds, controversial or not, a lot of Harold Johnson's losses were. The only thing he ever did at 175 was to expose the chin of the grossly overhyped William Guthrie who didn't go onto accomplish anything. His best wins are over Steve Collins and Lamar Parks, hardly an ATG resume, especially compared to Harold Johnson's. Does it matter that he wasn't stopped? A loss is a loss, especially a whitewash in which you are knocked down several times like his loss against Roy Jones.

it really does matter , controversial or not. matters alot.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

I can very well see Harold Johnson going the distance with Sebastian Rothman, Paul Briggs, Vassiliy Jirov and Roy Jones and actually beating 3 out of 4 of them with the Jones fight being close. Castro was tough as nails but that doesn't make him a great fighter.

you are comparing the 154 castro to harold johnson based on h2h ?

that's not what i did.

the mentioning of castro's oposition at 175 and above was to demonstrate his greatness p4p , and to example p4p greatness.
never claimed castro was a great 175 or 190.

[sweet_scientist]

Thank you for sparing me the task TGA.

Some of the ideas Frank has espoused are down right luancy.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Thank you for sparing me the task TGA.

Some of the ideas Frank has espoused are down right luancy.

like what ?

[TheGreatA]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

he was STOPPED. that's the important thing here.
no i didn't watch that fight.
there are still many more interesting fights that i still haven't seen.

Perhaps you shouldn't talk then. You haven't even seen Archie Moore vs Harold Johnson? What kind of an authority are you to tell people of their skills and resume when you haven't even seen them fight?

his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.

His loss to Harding was decisive, he lost the fight to Jones in rounds quite clearly, Johnson fight may have gone his way, Hopkins dominated him.

He may have been good in rematches but he lost to top fighters about the same amount that he won. He hardly established his dominance.

why should i care about Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc. ?

Because they were good fighters.

hopkins also had problems with wright so many years later.
that's why the headbutt for. also with calzaghe.
also with jermain taylor twice.
we later saw taylor's worth against spinks , pavlik, froch .
hopkins is overrated. tarver underrated.

Hopkins was 40+ years old.

roy had HIS best outcome against tarver when he (roy) was the most drained.
roy got from 193 to 175 , tarver 220 to 175 , i see a difference.
hopkins is an american version of calzaghe , but even worse , because his losses came against fighters calzaghe wouldn't have lost to.
maybe except roy. calzaghe is certainly better than hopkins when thinking about it.
tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it.
you keep ignoring the comparison between tarver's 'losses' to his wins.

Tarver lost fat, Roy lost muscle. Roy was also weighed in at 200+ lbs on the documentary about the fight.






Archie Moore lost weight to make 175 (during same day weigh ins) from well over 200 lbs numerous times yet he had no excuses.

Tell me about all the fighters Hopkins avoided at 160.

Tarver lost decisively to Harding, caught him in a rematch when Harding was coming off an injury, lost a close decision to Roy, caught him in a rematch, lost a close decision to Johnson, won a close but clear decision in the rematch, was dominated by Hopkins and beaten clearly twice by Dawson.

i didn't claim tarver a great p4p.
just a great 175 that's all.

Why would you bring up Moore's losses at HW then? 175 is what we are talking about.

i told you i have seen that entire fight.
their records prove what i said.

Johnson has wins over Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Clinton Woods, Richard Hall, controversial loss to Dawson.

Tarver has wins over Roy Jones, Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Clinton Woods, two clear losses to Dawson.

Their records prove what I said.

i don't care about the ranking of contenders today and care even less about then. my claims are based on full historical perspective.

What historical perspective when you haven't even seen these people fight?

again about the ranking of contenders :
who cares ?
p4p moore was better than tarver , i agree.
at 175 maybe also , but i didn't compare them. and didn't claim the oposite.

Atleast you admit that.

it really does matter , controversial or not. matters alot.

Then again you could also say the same about Harold Johnson who suffered many controversial decision losses.

you are comparing the 154 castro to harold johnson based on h2h ?

that's not what i did.
the mentioning of castro's oposition at 175 and above was to demonstrate his greatness p4p , and to example p4p greatness.
never claimed castro was a great 175 or 190.

What was so spectacular about Castro's accomplishments at 154/160? He wasn't great at any weight.