Doug Jones

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

like what ?

Dude, you are like King Midas, nearly everything you touch here is (comedic) gold. Let's start with these gems:

- Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver have a good chance of beating Archie Moore.

- Harold Johnson is below the level of Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver.

- Chris Byrd, Orlin Norris and Jorge Castro are great but Harold Johnson isn't.

- If you don't prove yourself the best in your era you are not great. (Which carries the hilarious implication that you can be great if you are the best in your era, irrespective of how shit that era is. I mean, the fact you think Chad Dawson is better than Harold Johnson is so beyond the pale of rationality to be comedically absurd).

- James Toney is great despite losing EVERY round to Roy Jones and getting beat by Drake Thadzi, Dave Tiberi and Montell Griffin, but Johnson isn't great because he lost a series to Archie Moore and also lost to Jersey Joe Walcott when he had a back seizure, lol. The split decision win against Ezzard Charles seals the deal.

- Antotnio Tarver's resume is on par with Harold Johnson's and if we are talking quality wins, Tarver's resume is better.

- Glen Johnson is no where near Antonio Tarver in terms of p4p ranking.

- It's near impossible for Harold Johnson to go the distance with Vasilly Jirov, Paul Briggs, Roy Jones, Sebastiaan Rothman to say nothing of stopping Derrick Harmon and Imamu Mayfield.

- It's unclear whether Archie Moore is greater than Reggie Johnson.

- Harold Johnson is not better than Reggie Johnson.

- Wins against Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz and Leonard Morrow are meaningless compared to wins against Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

- Your claims are based on a full historical perspective

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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?

Frank's got more important fights to watch, like Orlin Norris vs. Arthur Williams and Chris Byrd vs. Fres Oquendo. How else is he to get that full historical perspective of his?

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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 .

Dawson? Hopkins? Adamek? Calzaghe? In each case he either lost clearly to them or didn't fight them.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.

What do you define as "quality fights"?

Johnson had a total of nine fights against Charles, Moore, Walcott, Bivins, and Pastrano - and that's just counting the Hall of Famers, not the host of other top contenders he beat.

What do you consider Tarver's "quality fights"?

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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

His losses to Hopkins, Harding, and Dawson were neither controversial nor close.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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

Because you said you care about guys like Woods, Griffin, Harmon, "Benguesmia", etc., who were no better than that bunch.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

their records prove what i said.

Their records show that Johnson did better against Roy, Dawson, and Harding than Tarver did, in addition to being 1-1 against him. So no, their records do not prove what you said.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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?

if there was anything controversial about that stoppage you'd say it already , but you didn't. so i was not wrong , you didn't correct me and a stoppage is a stoppage and a REAL win.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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.

i said already that tarver was drained for the hopkins fight.
another thing you should understand is that 1(1):1(0) is most of times
more than 1(0):0.
but tarver has 2(1):1(0) over roy and 1(1):1(0) over harding.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Because they were good fighters.

who did they beat ? each other ?
and don't give me a fluke decision win over HOF (that are too many)
and then ignore their long series of losses.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Hopkins was 40+ years old.

so was tarver for the dawson fights.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

[IMG]********graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/21/movies/21rocky.533.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]***********.hbo.com/boxing/img/events/2003/0301_ruiz_jones/482x246/action_03.jpg[/IMG]


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

roy was almost the same muscular at 175.
the difference is that he didn't have to make weight for the ruiz fight.
roy doesn't walk at street at 175 , he lives closer to 193 than to 175.
tarver doesn't look fat in this picture.
archie moore well over 200 in his 175 days ? really ?
i won't believe he was 175 in his 175 days , but WELL over 200 ?
what is that 'well'?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Tell me about all the fighters Hopkins avoided at 160.

where did i say he avoided ?
he had no one to avoid in his day's 160.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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.

good to know harding came from an injury.
also defeated roy in a rubbermatch.
his win over johnson was clear , his 'loss' wasn't.
against dawson he was 40 and then 41 yo.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

moore's losses at HW were to 175 fighters like him.
smaller than him if anything.
especially if you are true about moore going down from well over 200
to 175 in his 175 days.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

and 12 losses and 2 draws to .. check boxrec and spare it from me.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

twice over jones.
you forgot mohamed benguesmia.
and if those unknown guys you mentioned count , then so is ernest mateen.
again for about the fourth time : he was 40 and 41 for the dawson fights.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Their records prove what I said.

now you they don't.
they still prove what I said.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

records.
i did see tarver , glen johnson , reggie johnson , jones fight.
and others also.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

but when a stoppage is not controversial , it counts much more.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

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

true. but that's better than being the champion of bums like hopkins was at 160 (and there are and were more like him).
even calzaghe's reign at 168 is more impressing than hopkins' at 160.
but not by far.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Dude, you are like King Midas, nearly everything you touch here is (comedic) gold. Let's start with these gems:

- Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver have a good chance of beating Archie Moore.

they have a chance , don't know how good.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Harold Johnson is below the level of Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver.

true.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Chris Byrd, Orlin Norris and Jorge Castro are great but Harold Johnson isn't.

p4p they are , and harold johnson not even a great 175.
they just didn't fight in their appropriate divisions.
maybe byrd's success was because of him fighting much less mobile
HWs and SHWs.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- If you don't prove yourself the best in your era you are not great.

true most of times. it is a criterion.
if you are not the best of your era , how are you best of all eras ?

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

(Which carries the hilarious implication that you can be great if you are the best in your era, irrespective of how shit that era is.

this is not something i said. never.
it is something that hopkins , calzaghe and holmes lovers say.
and the klitschko lovers also , and many more.
especially what the old timers say.
they just don't recognize shit eras as such.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

I mean, the fact you think Chad Dawson is better than Harold Johnson is so beyond the pale of rationality to be comedically absurd).

you haven't seen the best of chad dawson yet.
he is 27. and already achieved what he did.
i am not saying he is already proven ATG , but he may be.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- James Toney is great despite losing EVERY round to Roy Jones and getting beat by Drake Thadzi, Dave Tiberi and Montell Griffin, but Johnson isn't great because he lost a series to Archie Moore and also lost to Jersey Joe Walcott when he had a back seizure, lol. The split decision win against Ezzard Charles seals the deal.

toney was drained for the jones fight.
that's why roy picked him then.
he wasn't beaten by roy in a series of matches.
roy wanted none of him before or since their fight.
for thadzi and tiberi he was also drained.
the griffin fights were close and griffin also beat roy , don't forget.
if roy wouldn't have fouled he would have lost a decision just like james did. and for Griffin-Jones 2 Griffin was not allowed enough time to warm. griffin is underestimated himself.
i didn't know his back was broken for the walcott fight.
but he did lose perenially to moore.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Antotnio Tarver's resume is on par with Harold Johnson's and if we are talking quality wins, Tarver's resume is better.

true.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Glen Johnson is no where near Antonio Tarver in terms of p4p ranking.

when did I say it ?
tarver is better h2h 175 , that's true.
didn't compare them p4p.
johnson's loss to hopkins is embarassing , however , it has big p4p implications.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- It's near impossible for Harold Johnson to go the distance with Vasilly Jirov, Paul Briggs, Roy Jones, Sebastiaan Rothman to say nothing of stopping Derrick Harmon and Imamu Mayfield.

when did I say it ? #2

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- It's unclear whether Archie Moore is greater than Reggie Johnson.

when did I say it ? #3
at 175 ofcourse he is.
p4p is another story.
still didn't claim anything about that either.
possibly moore is greater p4p also , but i am not sure.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Harold Johnson is not better than Reggie Johnson.

maybe at 175 he is.
p4p no.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Wins against Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz and Leonard Morrow are meaningless compared to wins against Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

when did I say it ? #4
don't know those forgotten ranked contenders that probably beat only each other and maybe a couple of them even succeeded to snitch some
controversial SD or MD over an ATG.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

- Your claims are based on a full historical perspective

quite full.
didn't know harding's injury for tarver and johnson's for walcott.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

don't know those forgotten ranked contenders that probably beat only each other and maybe a couple of them even succeeded to snitch some
controversial SD or MD over an ATG.

If you "don't know" them, then how can you even begin to judge them??

[TheGreatA]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

if there was anything controversial about that stoppage you'd say it already , but you didn't. so i was not wrong , you didn't correct me and a stoppage is a stoppage and a REAL win.

The point is that you haven't even seen these men fight. How could you possibly know anything about the greatness of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson?

i said already that tarver was drained for the hopkins fight.
another thing you should understand is that 1(1):1(0) is most of times
more than 1(0):0.
but tarver has 2(1):1(0) over roy and 1(1):1(0) over harding.

In my opinion the schooling Harding gave to Tarver is better than the comeback TKO win that Tarver scored over a recently injured Harding.

Tarver got the best of Roy Jones but he didn't get the best Roy Jones. He even managed to lose the first fight.

who did they beat ? each other ?
and don't give me a fluke decision win over HOF (that are too many)
and then ignore their long series of losses.

Henry Hall defeated Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Bob Satterfield and John Holman.

Slade beat Lytell, Don ****ell, Clarence Henry, Yvon Durelle, Hurricane Jackson, Doc Williams.

Paul Andrews beat Billy Smith, Slade, Durelle, Danny Nardico.

Bethea beat Ernie Terrell, Paul Andrews, Jimmy Slade, Joe Bygraves, Ezzard Charles, had close fights with Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and Nino Valdes.

Arturo Godoy went to a SD against Joe Louis and was a heavyweight contender for many years.

Who did Reggie Johnson ever beat? Steve Collins?

so was tarver for the dawson fights.

Then don't bring up Hopkins's losses past 40 if you don't want me to bring up the Dawson fights.

roy was almost the same muscular at 175.
the difference is that he didn't have to make weight for the ruiz fight.
roy doesn't walk at street at 175 , he lives closer to 193 than to 175.
tarver doesn't look fat in this picture.
archie moore well over 200 in his 175 days ? really ?
i won't believe he was 175 in his 175 days , but WELL over 200 ?
what is that 'well'?

[IMG]***********.fightfarm.com/shop/images/jones5.jpg[/IMG]

Archie weighed around or more than 200 pounds to his heavyweight fights.

He weighed 197 against Valdes and the next month fought Bobo Olson at 175. 206 against Hans Kalbfell, 175 in his title defense against Tony Anthony.

where did i say he avoided ?
he had no one to avoid in his day's 160.

You said Hopkins picks fights and was not a great fighter.

"tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it. "

Does this statement not ring true for Hopkins? He fought the best at 160 and avoided no one. Except Hopkins proved his superiority for decades while Tarver's reign at the top lasted about the time he played Mason Dixon in a Rocky movie.

good to know harding came from an injury.
also defeated roy in a rubbermatch.
his win over johnson was clear , his 'loss' wasn't.
against dawson he was 40 and then 41 yo.

Tarver was 39 and then 40. He still hasn't turned 41.

moore's losses at HW were to 175 fighters like him.
smaller than him if anything.
especially if you are true about moore going down from well over 200
to 175 in his 175 days.

Marciano wasn't a 175 fighter. Patterson may have been but how old was Moore when he fought Patterson?

and 12 losses and 2 draws to .. check boxrec and spare it from me.

Tarver has half the amount of fights and 6 losses. How many times did Glen Johnson get robbed?

twice over jones.
you forgot mohamed benguesmia.
and if those unknown guys you mentioned count , then so is ernest mateen.
again for about the fourth time : he was 40 and 41 for the dawson fights.

Benguesmia who?

now you they don't.
they still prove what I said.

I'm afraid they don't. Both have a similar record of wins.

records.
i did see tarver , glen johnson , reggie johnson , jones fight.
and others also.

Did you ever see Archie Moore and Harold Johnson fight? That's what I was asking.

but when a stoppage is not controversial , it counts much more.

What if Johnson injured his back and was stopped? Or when he collapsed without being hit due to being drugged?

The stoppage against Moore wasn't controversial but there were others that were.

true. but that's better than being the champion of bums like hopkins was at 160 (and there are and were more like him).
even calzaghe's reign at 168 is more impressing than hopkins' at 160.
but not by far.

The champion of bums went up in weight and dominated Tarver.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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

beat charles by a SD , and won one out of five losing four , once by TKO.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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

by SD.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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

against moore they'd have a fair chance.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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

again : marciano was GREAT , louis , walcott , charles somewhat less
and moore and maxim furthermore less
but didn't claim they were not good.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

No, it isn't.

so an SD over charles and 1(0):4(1) to moore makes one awesome.
some long list of awesomes you have.
so montell griffin must be awesome too.
and so is fabrice tiozzo !

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.

just holyfield , toney and pac.
and tarver , dawson , roy jones too.
and tua , and who knows how many i forgot.
and that's just today.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

they have a chance , don't know how good.

Next to Buckley's.

p4p they are , and harold johnson not even a great 175.
they just didn't fight in their appropriate divisions.
maybe byrd's success was because of him fighting much less mobile
HWs and SHWs.

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?

true most of times. it is a criterion.
if you are not the best of your era , how are you best of all eras ?

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.

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.

this is not something i said. never.
it is something that hopkins , calzaghe and holmes lovers say.
and the klitschko lovers also , and many more.
especially what the old timers say.
they just don't recognize shit eras as such.

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.

you haven't seen the best of chad dawson yet.
he is 27. and already achieved what he did.
i am not saying he is already proven ATG , but he may be.

Unless he improves DRAMATICALLY there is no chance he will be an excellent fighter, let alone a great.

toney was drained for the jones fight.
that's why roy picked him then.
he wasn't beaten by roy in a series of matches.
roy wanted none of him before or since their fight.
for thadzi and tiberi he was also drained.
the griffin fights were close and griffin also beat roy , don't forget.
if roy wouldn't have fouled he would have lost a decision just like james did. and for Griffin-Jones 2 Griffin was not allowed enough time to warm. griffin is underestimated himself.
i didn't know his back was broken for the walcott fight.
but he did lose perenially to moore.

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.

when did I say it ?
tarver is better h2h 175 , that's true.
didn't compare them p4p.
johnson's loss to hopkins is embarassing , however , it has big p4p implications.

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.

when did I say it ? #2

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

There.

when did I say it ? #3
at 175 ofcourse he is.
p4p is another story.
still didn't claim anything about that either.
possibly moore is greater p4p also , but i am not sure.


maybe at 175 he is.
p4p no.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

There.

when did I say it ? #4
don't know those forgotten ranked contenders that probably beat only each other and maybe a couple of them even succeeded to snitch some
controversial SD or MD over an ATG.

Which is pretty much a problem when it comes to judging them isn't it? THey only snitched the odd ATG win hey? As opposed to Reggie Johnson, Orlin Norris and Jorge Castro who had a bag full of them

quite full.
didn't know harding's injury for tarver and johnson's for walcott.

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.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

beat charles by a SD , and won one out of five losing four , once by TKO.

So what? You said he "perennially lost" to Charles/Moore/Walcott. He never lost to Charles, ever.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

by SD.

Meaning what?

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

against moore they'd have a fair chance.

...of having more success than Johnson did? No.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

again : marciano was GREAT , louis , walcott , charles somewhat less
and moore and maxim furthermore less
but didn't claim they were not good.

ALL of those fighters except maybe Maxim were great, period.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

so an SD over charles and 1(0):4(1) to moore makes one awesome.
some long list of awesomes you have.
so montell griffin must be awesome too.
and so is fabrice tiozzo !

Why, when did they ever beat Charles and Moore?

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

just holyfield , toney and pac.
and tarver , dawson , roy jones too.
and tua , and who knows how many i forgot.
and that's just today.

No, Johnson's resume is at least comparable to any of those fighters, and in most cases better. And I don't know why Tua is even getting mentioned in a discussion about greatness.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Dawson? Hopkins? Adamek? Calzaghe? In each case he either lost clearly to them or didn't fight them.

again : don't make me grind the dawson and hopkins things more than i did. see my other posts.
when adamek was at 175 , i don't think adamek wanted anything with tarver + adamek was not a money fight then.
fact is : he fought dawson (who beat adamek) twice.
calzaghe - i think tarver would have loved to fight him.
but not vice-versa.
calzaghe was 168 , don't forget and even when he stepped up it was to 170.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

What do you define as "quality fights"?

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.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Johnson had a total of nine fights against Charles, Moore, Walcott, Bivins, and Pastrano - and that's just counting the Hall of Famers, not the host of other top contenders he beat.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

What do you consider Tarver's "quality fights"?

jonesX3 , JohnsonX2,DawsonX2,HardingX2 ,reggie johnson , griffin , woods (even , because he is part of the mix of tarver's time and younger than tarver , and not smaller ) , benguesmia - stopped o'neil bell , Hopkins

Originally Posted by My2Sense

His losses to Hopkins, Harding, and Dawson were neither controversial nor close.

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.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Because you said you care about guys like Woods, Griffin, Harmon, "Benguesmia", etc., who were no better than that bunch.

says who ? fleaman ?

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Their records show that Johnson did better against Roy, Dawson, and Harding than Tarver did, in addition to being 1-1 against him. So no, their records do not prove what you said.

Johnson fought jones only once he didn't do better than tarver cause tarver stopped roy much quicker , and also beat him on another ocasion

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

If you "don't know" them, then how can you even begin to judge them??

that's what the judgement based upon.
if these names are not remembered as the best of their time at their weight. because the best then were : marciano , charles , walcott , louis , moore , maxim maybe burley can be added too.
the fighters you mentioned may have been good , i can believe that better than glen johnson , woods , harmon , gonzalez but i'm not sure if better than : telesco (maybe better than him) , reggie johnson , montell griffin.
infact , p4p reggie johnson was better than them.
i will agree that maybe not as a 175.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

The point is that you haven't even seen these men fight. How could you possibly know anything about the greatness of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson?

about moore's quality , his record says it. lets consider him one of the best of his time - not the best even. about johnson , he was even not the #2 of his time at his weight , again , by his record.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

In my opinion the schooling Harding gave to Tarver is better than the comeback TKO win that Tarver scored over a recently injured Harding.

because i didn't know of that injury , maybe it's true , but what injury was it ?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Tarver got the best of Roy Jones but he didn't get the best Roy Jones. He even managed to lose the first fight.

by a close MD. he played safe because he was prepared for the 'old roy'
, you see , unlike hopkins and roy , and many more , he doesn't pick his oponents , he really thought he was going to fight the 'old roy'.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Henry Hall defeated Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Bob Satterfield and John Holman.

Slade beat Lytell, Don ****ell, Clarence Henry, Yvon Durelle, Hurricane Jackson, Doc Williams.

Paul Andrews beat Billy Smith, Slade, Durelle, Danny Nardico.

Bethea beat Ernie Terrell, Paul Andrews, Jimmy Slade, Joe Bygraves, Ezzard Charles, had close fights with Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and Nino Valdes.

Arturo Godoy went to a SD against Joe Louis and was a heavyweight contender for many years.

you just exampled my claim about these guys now , that's what you did.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Who did Reggie Johnson ever beat? Steve Collins?

also stopped Ralph Ward in 7 rounds. that Ralph Ward WON a close decision over McClellan over 8 rounds.
also Sanderline Williams , Julio Gonzalez , by the time he was 42 !
i don't know about lamar parks but who knows what he'd accomplish without his HIV , he stopped baptist , johnson was his only defeat .
also some of johnson 4-5 close defeats (4 SDs) may just should be regarded as wins.
he fought an unpopular percentage of quality fights.
jumped 2 divisions , continued with his quality fights , and has yet to be stopped.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Then don't bring up Hopkins's losses past 40 if you don't want me to bring up the Dawson fights.

tarver deserves respect for the dawson fights.
hopkins picks his oponents in one of the most clear and dirty manners ever. and still manages to lose. fighting dawson is not a pick.
it's a very brave choice , especially for man tarver's age.
dawson is actually taller than tarver. and don't start saying it doesn't matter. also much younger. also was at the weight some 2.5 years before their fight.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

[IMG]***********.fightfarm.com/shop/images/jones5.jpg[/IMG]

i said almost the same muscular , not that i see a big difference here.
why does it prove me wrong ?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Archie weighed around or more than 200 pounds to his heavyweight fights.

He weighed 197 against Valdes and the next month fought Bobo Olson at 175. 206 against Hans Kalbfell, 175 in his title defense against Tony Anthony.

why does it prove me wrong ? #2

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

You said Hopkins picks fights and was not a great fighter.

at 160 he didn't have to pick , because there was no one there.
at 170 , 175 he did pick and still does. why doesn't he fight dawson ?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

"tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it. "

Does this statement not ring true for Hopkins? He fought the best at 160 and avoided no one. Except Hopkins proved his superiority for decades while Tarver's reign at the top lasted about the time he played Mason Dixon in a Rocky movie.

the best at 160 of his time was shit.
hoya and trinidad were not shit , but then again they , were not legit 160 at that time. trinidad also not so brilliant he used his hand wraps cheating technique untill richardson exposed it and avoided its use.
and true hopkins is not a great fighter.
he is (1) a picker at 170+ (2) chapion of the sewage at 160
(3) a dirty fighter whenever needed.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Tarver was 39 and then 40. He still hasn't turned 41.

that was genius , he was 39.5 and then 40.5 , with your fighters one can't even know such things. maybe they were all 1 year younger (and sometimes more) than indicated - see moore,walcott,liston.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Marciano wasn't a 175 fighter. Patterson may have been but how old was Moore when he fought Patterson?

if tarver can make 175 , so could marciano.
Moore and Walcott were bigger than marciano , and they were 175.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Tarver has half the amount of fights and 6 losses. How many times did Glen Johnson get robbed?

possibly some , but if so , then so did tarver in the johnson fight , and
of course so did reggie johnson .
that's why in such fights i say close decision , close fights , etc ,
and not mentining who 'won'. close distance fight - that's enough for me.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Benguesmia who?

the one who stopped O'neil Bell.
another underestimated fighter here.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

I'm afraid they don't. Both have a similar record of wins.

as i said before.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

Did you ever see Archie Moore and Harold Johnson fight? That's what I was asking.

the answer is still no.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

What if Johnson injured his back and was stopped? Or when he collapsed without being hit due to being drugged?

i already said i didn't know about it.

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

The stoppage against Moore wasn't controversial but there were others that were.

like which ?

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

The champion of bums went up in weight and dominated Tarver.

a drained tarver. 220 to 175. drainer than roy. again.

[Bummy Davis]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Which goes to show just how fkkn awesome Johnson was.

That was a masterpiece of a performance by Johnson, despite him being "old" (according to the numbers at least) then.

True....and Archie was a beast at that point in time as well

[Russell]

frankenfrank, you are one dense cunt.