archie moore vs roy jones jr lightheavy....

With that analogy you're embarrassing yourself and obviously know nothing about the division ... please tell me the three best light heavyweights Jones ever defeated ..

 

You CANNOT compare the fighters that roy jones beat as a lightheavyweight with the cream of the rich-laden crop of LHs that Archie Moore repeatedly fought. Lloyd Mardhall,jimmy Bivens,Bob Satterfield, Harold Johnson,Bert Lytell,Nate Bolden, Curtis Sheppard,Oakland Billy Smith, Clarence Henry, Joey Maxim...Forgosh sakes at the age of 42 Ole Archie gave a tough fight to Rocky Marciano,who would have sent any version of Roy Jones to the ER. Roy Jones was like a comet, but lacked whatb the oltimers called "bottom", as later events proved. Yes Roy Jones was beautiful to watch, because his opposition were far inferior to the
fighters of the 1940s that Archie Moore had to grapple with...Cheers...

 

This is laughable. Moore was the real deal and Jones a media creation who based his entire career on two wins. Moore would wipe his ass with Jones.

 

I happen to agree with 100% with you my friend.Well put:good

 

Roy Jones wouldnt fight Darius M. or Jirov, he wouldnt have gone anywhere near the same zip code as Marciano but hes gonna fight and beat Moore... YEAH RIGHT!

 

bb, i agree but you're comparing resumes not fighters

on resume:

douglas NEVER beats tyson
honeyghan NEVER beats curry
saddler NEVER beats pep
lamotta NEVER beats robinson
meehan NEVER beats dempsey

but they did. styles make fights. moore's accomplishments are greater but if jones fought in the 40s, archie would have at least one more loss on his record jones was too fast and the more i read this thread the more im comfortable with that pick

 

maybe. maybe he fights him. maybe he wins. i've yet to hear a compelling argument and analysis to the contrary.

saying moore fought better opponents is clear

saying moore wins is not

 

Tarver and Johnson at the bottom of that list is hilarious, you might as well stick in every half decent contender to pass through the division, because that's where they belong and you know fine well your historian ass wouldn't even consider them had they not actually fought and beat Jones.

btw no fighter is still prime at 35 after moving up roughly 4 weightclasses.Jones made a bad decision to cut back down to 175 and paid for it, though the Tarver KO could well have just been a chin issue all the same.

 

i like hegrant. he knows his boxing and makes good posts. sometimes he doesn't like a fighter. and posts like that are the result

 

J, What is a "resume", but the sum of the QUALITY of a fighters opposition
he had to OVERCOME. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. Of course aberrations occur as you cite above. But we are talking about who WE think was MORE LIKELY to win,between the prime Lightheavyweight Archie Moore
and the prime 175 pound Roy Jones . And in my opinion based on the quality of his victims, the crab-like wily defense, and the potent pin point
punching power and durability of Archie Moore,who somehow flattened
131 opponents,over a career with FOUR times the amount of bouts Roy Jones had,on this basis, I would be quite confident ,the old wily Moore
kos any version of the LH Roy Jones, fast as Jones was. And yes, my
intuition also sees Archie eventually stop Jones.
And by the way, the peak Harold Johnson would also decision Roy Jones in 15 rds. Take care J...

 

fair enough post bb. but a resume is determined by the quality of fighters in someone's era. jones tried to get the best fighters in the ring like nunn, jackson, benn, collins and eubank. no one wanted to fight him. he didn't have the fighters that moore had nor the willingness of fighters to get in the ring. jones isn't rewarded for that but nor should he be punished because he dominated the only era he had. all time p4p: moore probably places higher on every list. but based on this fight, moore likely loses. i think jones would have his number, even if he didn't have the same success that moore had in the same era. based on these two fighters h2h, i lean towards jones. but you still make a good arguement bb:thumbsup

 

J,I thought this thread was about Lightheavyweights,not MWs you cite above.If you are comparing the smaller men you cite,like Nunn, jackson, Benn, Collins etc, with the powerful LHs as Bivens, Marshall, Johnson, Sheppard, Bob Satterfield,etc, J, you are on shaky ground. Also as a middlewight Archie Moore was avoided like the plague for many years,
that Archie HAD to go to AUSTRALIA to earn a living koing such worthies as
Ron Richards, Fred Henneberry,both probably better than the guys you mention above. So Moore had a MUCH tougher road to hoe than Roy Jones had, before he got a break.MUCH tougher over many more years. Seeya...

 

well said and that list i made was definitely composed of middles/supermiddles. but it also accidentally reflects the weakness of jones' 175 era. the most "dominant" fighter at 175 available was an old virgil hill. DM wouldn't fight jones and he had little top opposition. moore had a wildly tough life and rumour has it that he's had upwards of 300 unsanctioned fights on the road over his career to make money and stay sharp. one of the best all time with the resume to prove it. i just wish jones lived in a golden era where he could show his stuff against (near) equals...

 

RJJ didn't try hard enough to get Eubank and co in the ring. Instead he chose to showcase his skills against tomato cans.

That is fine and dandy, but anyone who chooses Jones over Moore is speculating on what Jones never achieved. Conversely, Moore did achieve a LOT at light heavyweight.

Styles make fights: what a load of horse****. Sure it is possible for Jones to beat Moore, but what we are trying to establish is probablility, not what would happen if Moore was sick and RJJ happened to be on EPO or if RJJ's style just happened to befuddle Moore, who only KOed 131 men.

 

Moore wins this by late stoppage imo, but it is not a mismatch.