Doug Jones

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

Then using these standards YOU've set up, fighters like Clarence Henry, Nino Valdez, Henry Hall, Paul Andrews, Billy Smith, Marty Marshall, Eddie Cotton, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Gustav Scholz, Lothar Stengel, Tommy Ruth and probably others ALL qualify as "quality" fights, contrary to your earlier statement.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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

Then on Johnson's side, you'd have Moore(x5), Charles, Bivins, Walcott, Pastrano, Satterfield(x3), Henry, Valdez, Hall(x3), Andrews(x2), Marshall, Cotton, Machen, Jones, Scholz, Stengel, and Ruth.

I'd say it's pretty clear Johnson had more quality fights and did better in them.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

again , don't let me repeat the hopkins and dawson stories.

Just because you can come up with an excuse for a fighter doesn't mean the loss(es) didn't happen. You can make an excuse for every loss a fighter ever had. If you wanted, you could make excuses for the fighters who lost to Tarver, and then where would his legacy be?

The fact still remains, he was a total of 0-3 against them, losing every fight by a wide margin.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

tarver's stoppage of harding was more decisive than harding's points victory over him.

So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

says who ? fleaman ?

Says most anyone who's actually studied those fighters - which you've admitted excludes you.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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

Johnson needed only one try to beat him and dominated him from the get-go. Tarver LOST the first time he fought Roy and needed a second fight before he could figure him out.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

Griffin, Harmon, Woods, Gonzales, Telesco, Johnson(Reggie) etc. are not remembered as the best of their era either. They were at least a notch or two below the best. Roy, Dariusz, Hill, Tarver, Adamek, Hopkins, Dawson, and even Glen Johnson are the best of that era.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Griffin, Harmon, Woods, Gonzales, Telesco, Johnson(Reggie) etc. are not remembered as the best of their era either. They were at least a notch or two below the best. Roy, Dariusz, Hill, Tarver, Adamek, Hopkins, Dawson, and even Glen Johnson are the best of that era.

not hill.
adamek was WBC for too short , and was defeated by dawson and didn't beat anyone significant there , so not him.
hopkins was never really 175 , except for tarver , and even then he just came up from 160 , tarver was drained there , and the rest of his wins were at 170 against smaller oponents. not hopkins also.
we were left with : Roy , Dariusz,Tarver,Dawson,Johnson.
while Dawson is also not from that era.
but the contenders you mentioned were still not bad , Griffin even good.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Then using these standards YOU've set up, fighters like Clarence Henry, Nino Valdez, Henry Hall, Paul Andrews, Billy Smith, Marty Marshall, Eddie Cotton, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Gustav Scholz, Lothar Stengel, Tommy Ruth and probably others ALL qualify as "quality" fights, contrary to your earlier statement.



Then on Johnson's side, you'd have Moore(x5), Charles, Bivins, Walcott, Pastrano, Satterfield(x3), Henry, Valdez, Hall(x3), Andrews(x2), Marshall, Cotton, Machen, Jones, Scholz, Stengel, and Ruth.

I'd say it's pretty clear Johnson had more quality fights and did better in them.

you extend the 'top mix' too much.
the top mix at 175 back then was only : walcott , charles , moore and maybe maxim also.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Just because you can come up with an excuse for a fighter doesn't mean the loss(es) didn't happen. You can make an excuse for every loss a fighter ever had. If you wanted, you could make excuses for the fighters who lost to Tarver, and then where would his legacy be?

The fact still remains, he was a total of 0-3 against them, losing every fight by a wide margin.

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.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.

what i said earlier was about Reggie Johnson , not about Tarver.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Johnson needed only one try to beat him and dominated him from the get-go. Tarver LOST the first time he fought Roy and needed a second fight before he could figure him out.

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 .
i wouldn't call most of johnson-jones fight domination.
you also don't know what would happen if they fought another time.
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.

[frankenfrank]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Next to Buckley's.

a realistic chance.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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 ?

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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

what is THAT bad about him ?

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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:

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.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

what i said earlier was about Reggie Johnson , not about Tarver.

No, it wasn't. Here's the exact chain of conversation:

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 .

Originally Posted by TheGreatA

He also lost to most of them.

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.

Originally Posted by My2Sense

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

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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

So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.

--------------------

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

you also don't know what would happen if they fought another time.

Neither do you, nor is it relevant.

Originally Posted by frankenfrank

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?