prime archie moore vs prime roy jones jr

like i said.... charles had better career, but jones was better.
we both know that jones would be harold,bivins or maxin any day of the week.
marciano had better career than mike tyson, but tyson in his prime was better than rocky...

 

Yes, because it´s clearly so that a fighter who looks impressive largely against bums is better than a fighter who looks a bit less impressive against atgs.

But anyway you proved before you are not much more than a troll.

 

Nothing has been mentioned about Jones' reluctance to engage and being too safety-first...

Moore could punch, had great timing (the remedy for speed), and wouldn't stop; sure, he would get hit. He would count on that. Jones would go to the ropes like he always does, and find a guy unlike he ever encountered in his career: someone who doesn't get intimidated or discouraged and keeps punching, finding holes, finding a way.

That's how you get 144 (or 141) KO's...

 

ignored

 

1. You've just listed Maxim as being better than Jones :-(

2. If you were referring to then no Maxim isn't a particularly great scalp, Hill, Tarver are both better and only Charles is rating over TOney and Hopkins

 

i understand your points, but i want to say that the old school is absolutely overrated here, and the modern fighters are criminally underrated.
many idiots are saying "moore or charles would win because they are charles or moore" ridiculous

 

while i agree with most of your posts, this statement is a little ridiculous and like comparing charles and jones' resume

jones' reflexes were better than both, much better imo than moore's. what moore had, as mcgrain and others said, was craftiness, traps and timing to offset jones speed and reflexes

but jones was MUCH faster and had better reflexes than moore

 

Another thread that proves certain fighters can´t be discussed objectivly ´cause their fanboys will twist arguments and facts around like politicians.

 

You are neglecting the fact that Charles and Moore are Charles and Moore because they are Charles and Moore...

They got the notoriety for a reason.

 

I don´t know if his reflexes were much faster but his reactions certainly were.

 

agree with you on this one i have to say

it's like saying ike williams beats jimmy carter cause he's ike williams...only he didn't

or that armstrong would never lose to a man with 60+ loses...only he did.

styles, opponents and intangibles often make fights. just cause moore has a better resume (he does) against better opponents (he does) doesn't mean he definitely wins. apologies to whoever brought up patterson i forgot but that's a great point. yes, archie was ****ing 100 by that point but moore had some trouble with speed. even in his prime, he seemed to be troubled by guys with jones' abilities and style

 

And he´s ignoring that those match-ups have been discussed to death already and people are tired of it.

 

thanks for agreeing to most of them, anyway:goodpoint taken about jones' reflexes, his speed as i have stated is lightning.

 

interesting post, what do you see as the key difference between the two?