Doug Jones

Then using these standards YOU've set up, fighters like Clarence Henry, Nino Valdez, Henry Hall, Paul Andrews, Billy Smith, Marty Marshall, Eddie Cotton, Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Gustav Scholz, Lothar Stengel, Tommy Ruth and probably others ALL qualify as "quality" fights, contrary to your earlier statement.

Then on Johnson's side, you'd have Moore(x5), Charles, Bivins, Walcott, Pastrano, Satterfield(x3), Henry, Valdez, Hall(x3), Andrews(x2), Marshall, Cotton, Machen, Jones, Scholz, Stengel, and Ruth.

I'd say it's pretty clear Johnson had more quality fights and did better in them.

Just because you can come up with an excuse for a fighter doesn't mean the loss(es) didn't happen. You can make an excuse for every loss a fighter ever had. If you wanted, you could make excuses for the fighters who lost to Tarver, and then where would his legacy be?

The fact still remains, he was a total of 0-3 against them, losing every fight by a wide margin.

So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.

Says most anyone who's actually studied those fighters - which you've admitted excludes you.

Johnson needed only one try to beat him and dominated him from the get-go. Tarver LOST the first time he fought Roy and needed a second fight before he could figure him out.

 

Griffin, Harmon, Woods, Gonzales, Telesco, Johnson(Reggie) etc. are not remembered as the best of their era either. They were at least a notch or two below the best. Roy, Dariusz, Hill, Tarver, Adamek, Hopkins, Dawson, and even Glen Johnson are the best of that era.

 

not hill.
adamek was WBC for too short , and was defeated by dawson and didn't beat anyone significant there , so not him.
hopkins was never really 175 , except for tarver , and even then he just came up from 160 , tarver was drained there , and the rest of his wins were at 170 against smaller oponents. not hopkins also.
we were left with : Roy , Dariusz,Tarver,Dawson,Johnson.
while Dawson is also not from that era.
but the contenders you mentioned were still not bad , Griffin even good.

 

you extend the 'top mix' too much.
the top mix at 175 back then was only : walcott , charles , moore and maybe maxim also.

not for every fighter's loss.
see Wlad's losses.
see lewis vs. mccall 1.
see leon spinks vs. qawi.
see foreman vs. ali.
too many more to mention.

what i said earlier was about Reggie Johnson , not about Tarver.

the stats 2(1):1(0) , for Tarver , with the loss a close MD , although Roy has a good excuse , not good as tarver's though , while the stoppage a 2nd rd TKO is still better than 1(1) for johnson .
i wouldn't call most of johnson-jones fight domination.
you also don't know what would happen if they fought another time.
i think you do know what would happen if they'd fought at roy's peak - see hopkins-johnson , only roy would have done it alittle quicker.

 

a realistic chance.

the top ten wins of norris isn't much impressing h2h considering the way he beat them and his balance against each one of them.
but still more impressing than johnson.
mccall , tucker , greg page , nate miller to name some.
p4p ofcourse norris is much better.
do you think harold johnson would end 1:1 with tucker and 1(0):0 over mccall ? you think he'd end with a draw against jirov ?
if you do , then you are delusional.
but this is the delusional forum , so you fit here.

it is only part of the requirements for being an ATG.
if you lose for fighters of your time then how can you be considerred a favorite against fighters from all-time.

so losing in that era makes you great ?

not a **** era still.
far from it.
want a **** era ?
look at hopkins' time at 160 , pavlik's days at 160.
most of the 122 and below most of the time.
the 168 since about 1997/8.

what is THAT bad about him ?

at 175 based on history you are true.
but this was the weakest weight for toney for some reason , undisclosed for me.
at any other weight 168 or 190 , toney would have destroyed him just like he did with others.

a well conditioned johnson was stopped by pre-prime as you say hopkins.
a heavily drained tarver still wasn't stopped and that was a still prime hopkins.

what you're doing is confusing reggie johnson with jorge castro and antonio tarver , h2h with p4p.
lets make it clear :
p4p jorge castro and reggie johnson were at least very good.
that despite h2h they weren't great at any weight.
tarver at 175 was great or at least near to it.
harold johnson wasn't great in any terms.
maybe he was tough , but so many where.
tough is not enough.
at 175 reggie johnson and jorge castro are undersized and probably would have lost to harold johnson. but they were smaller men.
castro came from 154. he should have never go beyond 168.
johnson came from 160 , he should have returned to 168 after his loss to jones but big money fights at 175 and the lack of them at 168 made his record look as it is.
it wasn't a **** era at 175 and that's part of the evidence.
that's also part of the evidence that it was indeed a **** era at 168.

tarver was a better 175 than harold johnson.
i don't say he was better than charles and walcott but better than johnson.
i wonder if tarver would have gotten stopped against marciano at a 180 catchweight which would have been comfortable for both.
i really wonder , with all respect for marciano.

 

I asked you for YOUR definition of "quality fights". This is what you told me:

EVERY fighter I listed falls under one or more of these "categories" you gave.

If you want to change your definition of "quality fights" to only include the "top mix", then your list needs to be shortened as well.

SPINKS was grossly weight drained for the Qawi fight, the exact same excuse you use for Tarver against Hopkins (that's in addition to being past his prime anyway). If you don't think Spinks has an excuse for losing that fight, then no fighter does (and certainly not Tarver).

Aside from that, yes you can make excuses for any of those fights you mentioned, anyway.

No, it wasn't. Here's the exact chain of conversation:

--------------------

No it isn't. Whupping a guy the first time is better than LOSING to him and needing to avenge the loss in a rematch. On top of that, you've admitted yourself that Jones was weight drained for the first Tarver fight, which makes Tarver look even worse for losing.

Neither do you, nor is it relevant.

And if Tarver fought Roy at his peak, would that look like Hopkins-Tarver?