Doug Jones

Dude, you are like King Midas, nearly everything you touch here is (comedic) gold. Let's start with these gems:

- Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver have a good chance of beating Archie Moore.

- Harold Johnson is below the level of Chad Dawson and Antonio Tarver.

- Chris Byrd, Orlin Norris and Jorge Castro are great but Harold Johnson isn't.

- If you don't prove yourself the best in your era you are not great. (Which carries the hilarious implication that you can be great if you are the best in your era, irrespective of how **** that era is. I mean, the fact you think Chad Dawson is better than Harold Johnson is so beyond the pale of rationality to be comedically absurd).

- James Toney is great despite losing EVERY round to Roy Jones and getting beat by Drake Thadzi, Dave Tiberi and Montell Griffin, but Johnson isn't great because he lost a series to Archie Moore and also lost to Jersey Joe Walcott when he had a back seizure, lol. The split decision win against Ezzard Charles seals the deal.

- Antotnio Tarver's resume is on par with Harold Johnson's and if we are talking quality wins, Tarver's resume is better.

- Glen Johnson is no where near Antonio Tarver in terms of p4p ranking.

- It's near impossible for Harold Johnson to go the distance with Vasilly Jirov, Paul Briggs, Roy Jones, Sebastiaan Rothman to say nothing of stopping Derrick Harmon and Imamu Mayfield.

- It's unclear whether Archie Moore is greater than Reggie Johnson.

- Harold Johnson is not better than Reggie Johnson.

- Wins against Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz and Leonard Morrow are meaningless compared to wins against Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

- Your claims are based on a full historical perspective

 

Frank's got more important fights to watch, like Orlin Norris vs. Arthur Williams and Chris Byrd vs. Fres Oquendo. How else is he to get that full historical perspective of his?

 

Dawson? Hopkins? Adamek? Calzaghe? In each case he either lost clearly to them or didn't fight them.

What do you define as "quality fights"?

Johnson had a total of nine fights against Charles, Moore, Walcott, Bivins, and Pastrano - and that's just counting the Hall of Famers, not the host of other top contenders he beat.

What do you consider Tarver's "quality fights"?

His losses to Hopkins, Harding, and Dawson were neither controversial nor close.

Because you said you care about guys like Woods, Griffin, Harmon, "Benguesmia", etc., who were no better than that bunch.

Their records show that Johnson did better against Roy, Dawson, and Harding than Tarver did, in addition to being 1-1 against him. So no, their records do not prove what you said.

 

if there was anything controversial about that stoppage you'd say it already , but you didn't. so i was not wrong , you didn't correct me and a stoppage is a stoppage and a REAL win.

i said already that tarver was drained for the hopkins fight.
another thing you should understand is that 1(1):1(0) is most of times
more than 1(0):0.
but tarver has 2(1):1(0) over roy and 1(1):1(0) over harding.

who did they beat ? each other ?
and don't give me a fluke decision win over HOF (that are too many)
and then ignore their long series of losses.

so was tarver for the dawson fights.

roy was almost the same muscular at 175.
the difference is that he didn't have to make weight for the ruiz fight.
roy doesn't walk at street at 175 , he lives closer to 193 than to 175.
tarver doesn't look fat in this picture.
archie moore well over 200 in his 175 days ? really ?
i won't believe he was 175 in his 175 days , but WELL over 200 ?
what is that 'well'?

where did i say he avoided ?
he had no one to avoid in his day's 160.

good to know harding came from an injury.
also defeated roy in a rubbermatch.
his win over johnson was clear , his 'loss' wasn't.
against dawson he was 40 and then 41 yo.

moore's losses at HW were to 175 fighters like him.
smaller than him if anything.
especially if you are true about moore going down from well over 200
to 175 in his 175 days.

and 12 losses and 2 draws to .. check boxrec and spare it from me.

twice over jones.
you forgot mohamed benguesmia.
and if those unknown guys you mentioned count , then so is ernest mateen.
again for about the fourth time : he was 40 and 41 for the dawson fights.

now you they don't.
they still prove what I said.

records.
i did see tarver , glen johnson , reggie johnson , jones fight.
and others also.

but when a stoppage is not controversial , it counts much more.

true. but that's better than being the champion of bums like hopkins was at 160 (and there are and were more like him).
even calzaghe's reign at 168 is more impressing than hopkins' at 160.
but not by far.

 

they have a chance , don't know how good.

true.

p4p they are , and harold johnson not even a great 175.
they just didn't fight in their appropriate divisions.
maybe byrd's success was because of him fighting much less mobile
HWs and SHWs.

true most of times. it is a criterion.
if you are not the best of your era , how are you best of all eras :huh ?

this is not something i said. never.
it is something that hopkins , calzaghe and holmes lovers say.
and the klitschko lovers also , and many more.
especially what the old timers say.
they just don't recognize **** eras as such.

you haven't seen the best of chad dawson yet.
he is 27. and already achieved what he did.
i am not saying he is already proven ATG , but he may be.

toney was drained for the jones fight.
that's why roy picked him then.
he wasn't beaten by roy in a series of matches.
roy wanted none of him before or since their fight.
for thadzi and tiberi he was also drained.
the griffin fights were close and griffin also beat roy , don't forget.
if roy wouldn't have fouled he would have lost a decision just like james did. and for Griffin-Jones 2 Griffin was not allowed enough time to warm. griffin is underestimated himself.
i didn't know his back was broken for the walcott fight.
but he did lose perenially to moore.

true.

when did I say it :huh?
tarver is better h2h 175 , that's true.
didn't compare them p4p.
johnson's loss to hopkins is embarassing , however , it has big p4p implications.

when did I say it :huh? #2

when did I say it :huh? #3
at 175 ofcourse he is.
p4p is another story.
still didn't claim anything about that either.
possibly moore is greater p4p also , but i am not sure.

maybe at 175 he is.
p4p no.

when did I say it :huh? #4
don't know those forgotten ranked contenders that probably beat only each other and maybe a couple of them even succeeded to snitch some
controversial SD or MD over an ATG.

quite full.
didn't know harding's injury for tarver and johnson's for walcott.

 

If you "don't know" them, then how can you even begin to judge them?? atsch

 

The point is that you haven't even seen these men fight. How could you possibly know anything about the greatness of Archie Moore and Harold Johnson?

In my opinion the schooling Harding gave to Tarver is better than the comeback TKO win that Tarver scored over a recently injured Harding.

Tarver got the best of Roy Jones but he didn't get the best Roy Jones. He even managed to lose the first fight.

Henry Hall defeated Bert Lytell, Archie Moore, Bob Satterfield and John Holman.

Slade beat Lytell, Don Cockell, Clarence Henry, Yvon Durelle, Hurricane Jackson, Doc Williams.

Paul Andrews beat Billy Smith, Slade, Durelle, Danny Nardico.

Bethea beat Ernie Terrell, Paul Andrews, Jimmy Slade, Joe Bygraves, Ezzard Charles, had close fights with Zora Folley, Eddie Machen and Nino Valdes.

Arturo Godoy went to a SD against Joe Louis and was a heavyweight contender for many years.

Who did Reggie Johnson ever beat? Steve Collins?

Then don't bring up Hopkins's losses past 40 if you don't want me to bring up the Dawson fights.

This content is protected

Archie weighed around or more than 200 pounds to his heavyweight fights.

He weighed 197 against Valdes and the next month fought Bobo Olson at 175. 206 against Hans Kalbfell, 175 in his title defense against Tony Anthony.

You said Hopkins picks fights and was not a great fighter.

"tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it. "

Does this statement not ring true for Hopkins? He fought the best at 160 and avoided no one. Except Hopkins proved his superiority for decades while Tarver's reign at the top lasted about the time he played Mason Dixon in a Rocky movie.

Tarver was 39 and then 40. He still hasn't turned 41.

Marciano wasn't a 175 fighter. Patterson may have been but how old was Moore when he fought Patterson?

Tarver has half the amount of fights and 6 losses. How many times did Glen Johnson get robbed?

Benguesmia who?

I'm afraid they don't. Both have a similar record of wins.

Did you ever see Archie Moore and Harold Johnson fight? That's what I was asking.

What if Johnson injured his back and was stopped? Or when he collapsed without being hit due to being drugged?

The stoppage against Moore wasn't controversial but there were others that were.

The champion of bums went up in weight and dominated Tarver.

 

beat charles by a SD , and won one out of five losing four , once by TKO.

by SD.

against moore they'd have a fair chance.

again : marciano was GREAT , louis , walcott , charles somewhat less
and moore and maxim furthermore less
but didn't claim they were not good.

so an SD over charles and 1(0):4(1) to moore makes one awesome.
some long list of awesomes you have.
so montell griffin must be awesome too.
and so is fabrice tiozzo !

just holyfield , toney and pac.
and tarver , dawson , roy jones too.
and tua , and who knows how many i forgot.
and that's just today.

 

Next to Buckley's.

Comparing someone like Orlin Norris to Harold Johnson is the epitome of ridiculous. Who the **** did Orlin beat that could carry the jockstrap of the TEN best guys Harold beat?

1. Being the best of all eras is a pretty high standard. If that's what greatness means then there's only a dozen or so great fighters, which of course is rubbish.

2. If you era is outstanding, as Johnson's obviously was, it matters little that you didn't dominate it or come out on top. Comparing it to Tarver's era of journeymen and washed up fighters is a disgrace.

Tarver fought in a **** era though. Beating a past prime Roy Jones and a past prime Reggie Johnson, Montell Griffin and prime journeyman Glen Johnson is not anything CLOSE to the level of fighters Harold beat.

Unless he improves DRAMATICALLY there is no chance he will be an excellent fighter, let alone a great.

Toney is a fat, undisciplined slob who would probably give Johnson 2 close fights in a series of 5 and get shut out three times when he Burger Kings it.

Such as? That he was an embarassment at middleweight? **** that will carry a LOT of p4p weight for Glen. That should put him near Tarver for sure, my bad.

There.

There.

Which is pretty much a problem when it comes to judging them isn't it? THey only snitched the odd ATG win hey? As opposed to Reggie Johnson, Orlin Norris and Jorge Castro who had a bag full of them

You see the whole problems stems from the fact that you haven't even seen enough of Johnson, Charles, Moore etc to form a proper opinion. Placing the resume's of Tarver and Johnson on a par is just an example of that. They are NOT on a par. Anyone with a full historical perspective, or even a half assed one, would tell you that.

 

So what? You said he "perennially lost" to Charles/Moore/Walcott. He never lost to Charles, ever.

Meaning what?

...of having more success than Johnson did? No.

ALL of those fighters except maybe Maxim were great, period.

Why, when did they ever beat Charles and Moore?

No, Johnson's resume is at least comparable to any of those fighters, and in most cases better. And I don't know why Tua is even getting mentioned in a discussion about greatness.

 

again : don't make me grind the dawson and hopkins things more than i did. see my other posts.
when adamek was at 175 , i don't think adamek wanted anything with tarver + adamek was not a money fight then.
fact is : he fought dawson (who beat adamek) twice.
calzaghe - i think tarver would have loved to fight him.
but not vice-versa.
calzaghe was 168 , don't forget and even when he stepped up it was to 170.

fights against very good fighters that are on a winning streak or at least after a controversial/competent loss.
if they have physical advantage - it just adds to the quality.
and most preferably - fighters that are at the mix of the top of your division on top i mean the beaters of the beaters of such , etc.

jonesX3 , JohnsonX2,DawsonX2,HardingX2 ,reggie johnson , griffin , woods (even , because he is part of the mix of tarver's time and younger than tarver , and not smaller ) , benguesmia - stopped o'neil bell , Hopkins

again , don't let me repeat the hopkins and dawson stories.
tarver's stoppage of harding was more decisive than harding's points victory over him.

says who ? fleaman ?

Johnson fought jones only once he didn't do better than tarver cause tarver stopped roy much quicker , and also beat him on another ocasion

 

that's what the judgement based upon.
if these names are not remembered as the best of their time at their weight. because the best then were : marciano , charles , walcott , louis , moore , maxim maybe burley can be added too.
the fighters you mentioned may have been good , i can believe that better than glen johnson , woods , harmon , gonzalez but i'm not sure if better than : telesco (maybe better than him) , reggie johnson , montell griffin.
infact , p4p reggie johnson was better than them.
i will agree that maybe not as a 175.

 

about moore's quality , his record says it. lets consider him one of the best of his time - not the best even. about johnson , he was even not the #2 of his time at his weight , again , by his record.

because i didn't know of that injury , maybe it's true , but what injury was it ?

by a close MD. he played safe because he was prepared for the 'old roy'
, you see , unlike hopkins and roy , and many more , he doesn't pick his oponents , he really thought he was going to fight the 'old roy'.

you just exampled my claim about these guys now , that's what you did.

also stopped Ralph Ward in 7 rounds. that Ralph Ward WON a close decision over McClellan over 8 rounds.
also Sanderline Williams , Julio Gonzalez , by the time he was 42 !
i don't know about lamar parks but who knows what he'd accomplish without his HIV , he stopped baptist , johnson was his only defeat .
also some of johnson 4-5 close defeats (4 SDs) may just should be regarded as wins.
he fought an unpopular percentage of quality fights.
jumped 2 divisions , continued with his quality fights , and has yet to be stopped.

tarver deserves respect for the dawson fights.
hopkins picks his oponents in one of the most clear and dirty manners ever. and still manages to lose. fighting dawson is not a pick.
it's a very brave choice , especially for man tarver's age.
dawson is actually taller than tarver. and don't start saying it doesn't matter. also much younger. also was at the weight some 2.5 years before their fight.

i said almost the same muscular , not that i see a big difference here.
why does it prove me wrong ?

why does it prove me wrong ? #2

at 160 he didn't have to pick , because there was no one there.
at 170 , 175 he did pick and still does. why doesn't he fight dawson ?

the best at 160 of his time was ****.
hoya and trinidad were not **** , but then again they , were not legit 160 at that time. trinidad also not so brilliant he used his hand wraps cheating technique untill richardson exposed it and avoided its use.
and true hopkins is not a great fighter.
he is (1) a picker at 170+ (2) chapion of the sewage at 160
(3) a dirty fighter whenever needed.

that was genius , he was 39.5 and then 40.5 , with your fighters one can't even know such things. maybe they were all 1 year younger (and sometimes more) than indicated - see moore,walcott,liston.

if tarver can make 175 , so could marciano.
Moore and Walcott were bigger than marciano , and they were 175.

possibly some , but if so , then so did tarver in the johnson fight , and
of course so did reggie johnson .
that's why in such fights i say close decision , close fights , etc ,
and not mentining who 'won'. close distance fight - that's enough for me.

the one who stopped O'neil Bell.
another underestimated fighter here.

as i said before.

the answer is still no.

i already said i didn't know about it.

like which ?

a drained tarver. 220 to 175. drainer than roy. again.

 

True....and Archie was a beast at that point in time as well

 

frankenfrank, you are one dense ****.