archie moore vs roy jones jr lightheavy....

The 15 round distance would be Moore's ace in the hole.

 

Roy Jones was in excellent shape for Johnson and still in his physical prime.... he had next to zero wear and tear on his body ... in addition, Johnson was the same age. The difference was that Johnson was talented unlike the vast majority of stiffs Jones fought at light heavy ...

 

Moore had good power but most of his knockouts (131 total) were due to him breaking his opponent down. He may stop RJJ but I doubt it would be with one shot. This is Jones at his best we are talking about, not the guy who was stopped in 2 by Tarver.

 

I think it's a toss up. Assuming both are at their absolute best... I'll be the ******* who takes Jones by decision. I couldn't stand the guy when he was in his prime but he was a great fighter.

 

Archie Moore was a devastating puncher. He could crush a man with a punch ... he dropped Rocky Marciano for God's sake ... what more can you say than that ?

 

full stop: moore was a great puncher. in his prime (which the johnson fight wasn't) jones didn't get hit clean often. almost never. when he did (as against toney) he took it well. moore is WAY better a hitter than toney so I expect him to hurt jones when he does hit him. the question is how often does he do it? jones would never be in range, moving in and out and potshotting the whole night.

btw: you have a very solid argument for moore winning. however, implying that jones was peak for the johnson fight makes people doubt every valid point you may make. you have good reasons for moore winning: jones being at his best for glen isn't one of them

 

I appreciate your point but disagree. Jones was on top of the world after defeating John Ruiz ... he never looked better and was being hailed as one of the best pound for pound fighters that ever lived. He then came down in weight too fast and had a tough bout with Tarver. Up to that point Roy never looked like he lost a fraction of a step. The story post fight was too much weight too quickly and over confident .... he trained hard for the rematch and looked terrific in the opening round. Lightning fast and landing very hard shots ... ZERO sign of losing a step. In round two he got hit and it was over ... he did not take a beating ... he simply got hit .... Then months later in his big comeback fight he fights a tough, strong guy and got his ass kicked ... granted Jones was 35 but he was an exceptionally well conditioned 35 who was almost never in a tough fight in his whole career and rarely took punishment of any sort, much like Mayweather today ... what happened was he finally went up against a higher caliber of fighter at 175 and his lack of strength and his inability to take punishment was exposed.

Post Hopkins and Toney JOnes fought no one till Ruiz, no one .. he was long critized for refusing to give Hopkins a rematch or for not fighting McCellum, Benn, Michalczewski and numerous others ... he fought a very poor selection of fighters at light heavy ...

That said, he was not in Moore's class at light heavy ...

 

i'm with you: i respectfully disagree. there is no comparison between moore's resume and jones' resume. none. speculating based on accomplishments will get jones no where but based on skills and styles, jones is a very live underdog here.

i also think there are many ways to look at jones' loss to johnson. one way, is that he finally stepped up in competition. another way, is that age and weight manipulation caught up with him. a natural super middle jumped up to 175 and dominated, then jumped up to heavy and realized his ceiling. he was too old to come back down and when he did he looked vulnerable. i agree he was top of the world and looked incredible beating ruiz. but you mention he didn't look like he lost a step until tarver...in that fight he lost about 10 steps and looked like a different fighter.

it would be tough to say that he looked the same fighter from clinton woods/john ruiz as he did against tarver. level of competition be damned, tarver aint that good. a lot of things seemed to catch up to him at once and in tarver 1, he wasn't roy jones. in tarver 2, he wasn't roy jones and it only went downhill from there

again, his resume can't compare to moore but his talent can. in fact i would say that he's more talented: moore is just vastly more crafty and a better hitter

 

Moore might be a bit overrated H2H. I think almost everyone here is dead wrong. All analysis about chins and Moore's power and trap-smithing ability are almost all thrown out the window for the simple fact that Moore has serious issues with speed. Jones, not only possess hand speed but has top-notch power himself. Forget about his ridiculous reflexes to boot. Moore won't even be able to uncoil Jones into a trap. Besides, Jones isn't stupid enough to fall into a trap. Every time Jones has been sparked (After draining back to LHW after the Ruiz fight, which likely hindered his durability) a fighter was attacking him in the process. Jones in his prime will prove to be far too mobile and fast for Moore, who will helplessly turtle and infrequently punch out hard snapping shots that could land, but never cleanly nor powerfully enough because of his inability to truly commit due to worrying about Jones own speed, power, and ability to get away from punches. Bad style matchup for Moore in my view. I'd rather have a technical, classic boxer like Charles than a cerebral, turtle-like trap-smith in Moore to face Roy Jones Jr. If not that, then at least a forward moving hard hitting durable opponent like Sam Langford.

 

Agreed. While Burley was probably a better fighter than Jones in my view. At least more proven. They both shared a similar, unique-like, improvisational kind of a style. Although Burley was far more conventional in his frequency of the jab and a bit more technical in rooted in his boxing fundamentals. I also think Burley was a bigger genius, better at initiating and setting up traps. This type of fighting may have troubled Moore. But what really troubles him is the speed and unpredictability of such an opponent. Patterson wasn't unpredictable but his speed seriously troubled Moore. Burley and Jones Jr have both speed and unpredictability to their benefit in such a match. Moore would be in serious trouble, and it would look like he had lost control.

 

Exactly why they called him "The Ole Mongoose!"

As for the question in the thread? It depends which Archie Moore is used. The younger version who was repeatedly denied title shots or the older version who challenged Marciano, Patterson and Ali. I think the younger Archie feels his way through the first couple of rounds and loses them on the score cards. In the middle rounds, Archie starts setting up his punches and flattens Roy much like Walcott did to Charles with the sneaky uppercut. Roy would see boxing skills from an opponent that he would never have seen with any of the opponents he's fought in his career. Not even an older wiser Hopkins has the bag of tricks that Archie has. Older Archie seriously struggles with the younger Jones. He's not getting stopped but loses a clear UD.

Prime for prime, Moore by late KO around the 9th or 10th round. Scorecards up to the stoppage? Roy leads 5 rounds to 3.

 

I would without question pick the following light heavyweights over JOnes:

Dillon
Langford
Greb
Tunney
Charles
Johnson
Foster
Spinks
Qwai
Mustafa Muhammad
Tarver
JOhnson

I would consider Galindez, Saad Muhammad, Marvin Johnson, Conteh and possibly Yaqi Lopez ...

JOnes was a great middleweight ... not a great light heavyweight ...

 

jesus christ, yauqi lopez?? just admit you don't like jones. you're embarrassing yourself. prime for prime, charles stands the best chance. spinks and foster would give him trouble as well and that's because they are much bigger. you using the glen johnson fight as a reason jones would be beaten by all the fighters you listed is equivalent to someone saying ezzard charles wasn't a great fighter because he got ko'ed by donnie fleeman.

 

yes, prime moore beats a post-heavy jones but prime for prime i'll take jones. your using the end of jones' career to say he'd be ko'ed. we can say the same about ezzard charles. 25 losses and ko'ed 7 times. by your logic, moore would beat charles as well but we know he was 0-3 vs charles. jones was an incredible fighter at his peak and anyone thinking this is a mismatch is fooling themselves.