Doug Jones

agree that jones is underrated as a LHW at this forum , especially after what i saw lately about the overrating of bob foster here.

 

Probably among the best LHWs never to win the title.

 

In the fights I've seen of Doug Jones, he has shown solid technical skills and an even more solid chin as well as good punching power. He may not be among the most naturally talented fighters that I've seen but a good fighter nonetheless.

Unfortunately he ran into a still competent Harold Johnson in his light heavyweight title challenge.

Here's Doug Jones KO'ing a young Bob Foster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbD0g3b3VDc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6A58l_TFdc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG--ajwNHVw

 

He slowed down in the second part of the Clay fight and lost it.

I had him winning threw 6.

 

The version of Doug Jones that got owned by Harold Johnson would still beat the best at 175 today imo.

 

Which goes to show just how fkkn awesome Johnson was.

That was a masterpiece of a performance by Johnson, despite him being "old" (according to the numbers at least) then.

 

Harold Johnson came to Europe at nearly 40 years of age and gave a beating to Finland's best ever light heavyweight contender Pekka Kokkonen in a thoroughly one-sided 10 round schooling. He definitely gets the respect he deserves from me.

 

Pretty sure Foster beat him in the Ams and took the pro fight on short notice. Jones was pretty highly rated at heavyweight at the time too i think.

 

Foster was also pretty inexperienced at the time, with only a handful of fights.

It actually was considered an accomplishment for Foster to have lasted as long as he did and given Jones a respectable fight.

 

Johnson was just a great technician boxer.

I thought he out-boxed Ezzard Charles with room to spare too.

 

Yeah, I had him winning that clearly too. I was always surprised so many people found that decision "questionable".

 

johnson was not awesome. he perenially lost to the bunch of charles-walcott-moore on many ocasions. now you say that they ere great , but i am not that sure that after so many oppurtunities fighters like roy jones , tarver , dawson , glen johnson , would have ended with the same results like harlod johnson against his bunch.
calling him awesome causes 2 things :
(1) overuse and decrease of the value of the word 'awesome'.
(2) overrating the past fighters.
charles , walcott were very good maxim , moore somewhat less but still very good. johnson was not awesome at all. i wonder if 'good' will be apropriate. somewhat/quite good is a good description to be exact.
enough with the bias for the pre 1980's here.
people then were not better than today in the average.
there were exceptions , but just like today.
history , by its nature has a tendency to accumulate.
particularly , the number of great fighters throughout it accumulates.
so the number of great fighters is very big enough without counting wrong.

 

He never lost to Charles and he lost to Walcott one time when he ****ed his back.

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

This should be good. Great in fact. It's going to be awesome. :good