archie moore vs roy jones jr lightheavy....

i agree. i also don't see jones getting hit as often as moore did. he was in range far more than jones and his defense was built more on technique and anticipation than reflexes.

 

You're not making sense as Archie Moore was a terrific defensive fighter, far more skilled and savy than Jones who simply had to rely on speed ... Moore would feint him out of his jock strap , catch him and take him out ... It would be an interesting fight until it was over ..

 

i think we're saying similar things. i agree that moore was a terrific defensive fighter and that jones relied on speed solely. against an opponent like durrelle, i just think jones would be less likely to engage and would constantly fight at range.

 

If the fight was for 15 rounds, Moore would catch Jones like he did Harold Johnson.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl classic stuff.

 

You're most welcome Sir :good

That's why I love the classic forum.

It's gentlemen discussing a gentlemen's sport in a gentlemanly manner.

 

...........mostly:rasta

 

Well the two extremes are a bit comical. On one side Roy Jones Jr is some media creation like Mickey Mouse. Does anyone actually have any proof that Roy Jones Jr exists? The other side claims Jones LHW record stacks up just as well as Harold Johnson's. Well, I do think we've covered the basis to such extremities. Little discernible discussion has actually taken place on the actual stylistic matchup of such a fight. Just a back and forth argument over the legitimacy of such a qualification. Even a lesser fighter can beat or have another man's number. Jones has more than a decent chance.

 

I'm not mad, only dissapointed that logic and reason are being brought into this argument:nono