roy jones jr vs archie moore....

Good post. :good

Besides, why not do a similar list for Roy or the guys that beat him? There's no shortage of criticism you could make there.

 

I think there's some truth to both of them.

But the important difference is, Moore clobbered Maxim every time they fought, whereas Roy met his match in Tarver while Roy was still the top P4P fighter in the world.

 

If Roy couldn't get that strategy to work against Montell Griffin, it's doubtful he'd get it to work against Moore. Moore had all the crafty and technical skill that Griffin had, was no less fast, but also had some genuine knockout power to back it all up.

More likely, that would be Roy's best chance of winning. If the fight goes beyond a round or two, Moore would likely technically shut down Roy and then either KO him or force him to fight defensively the rest of the way.

 

I'll take the 'Ol Mongoose by KO in this one...

 

Yes, these are largely legitimate criticisms of Marshall's career. However, similar criticisms can certainly be made of the fighters you're propping up; for example, Antonio Tarver's best wins were against an over-the-hill Jones, who he also lost to once, followed by one over the old and spotty-record-bearing Glen Johnson, who he also lost to. Not to mention, he was utterly humiliated by a 41-year-old ex-middleweight champion moving directly up in weight and coming off back-to-back losses. Is/was Tarver as bad as that little bit made him sound? No, not at all. He was a legitimate championship-caliber fighter. But certainly his career is heavily-flawed, and his resume a bit shallow. I don't see why he should be considered better than the Moore contemporaries being discussed, and even if he were, we never actually saw Jones dominate Tarver (he won one close decision and lost the rematches, albeit while past his prime), and so I'm not certain why this would support the thesis that Jones could go undefeated in 15+ fights against Moore's opponents anyway.
As for Virgil Hill, let it likewise be noted that: A. he was 34 years old and coming off a loss when he fought Jones, and his elite career was largely behind him, B. he LOST to old ex-welterweight Tommy Hearns (and you're giving these guys flack for having close wins over the likes of Sugar Ray Robinson and Charley Burley!), and C. he never beat anyone who will make the Hall of Fame. All-in-all, then, claims of his superiority seem perhaps still more dubious than those made for Tarver.

Actually, he was 166 in his fights with Moore. Can you substantiate Tarver being 190-195 on fight night, eg. was there a broadcast where they announced his dressing-room weight, or are you guessing?

I don't know that the Patterson fight was "definitely" a robbery. OLD FOGEY has presented some reasonable arguments to the contrary in the past. Have you seen it? Calling Robinson a lightweight is pretty ridiculous (he fought at lightweight when he was 18-20 years old and was substantially heavier for the rest of his career), and he wasn't welterweight at that stage either, but the criticism that he was small is valid; however, note again that Hill LOST to old ex-welterweight Tommy Hearns, and Tarver LOST, and quite badly so, to his contemporary top middleweight in Hopkins.

 

MF has anyone told you u have unbelievable debating skills? your logic is impeccable

 

That was a good post of yours but I would like to argue that point. Hill beat Maske who likely maybe inducted into the HoF because of his effort for German boxing, he made it big again - and by the standards of the HoF he should be inducted but then we all know how biased the IBHoF is when it comes to European fighters.

 

His argumentation is impregnable.

 

1. I simply see Tarver as a tougher test because overall hes bigger than Marshall, a good big man v a good small man etc.

2. Anyone who fairly scored Tarver-Johnson 1 wouldnt have Johnson winning. Griffin, Woods and HArding are all ranked wins

3. Hopkins is an ATG, and his losses to Taylor are controvesal

4. His resume is shallow due to starting his career late, at his pinnacle hes pretty damn good and DM wanted no part of him says allot

5. I see Tarver better than some of Moore's contemperies, ie the smaller fighters, and the likes of Maxim, Jones was well past prime when he lost to Tarver first time, but he still won

6. Jones who fought Tarver is 4-6years past prime

7. I'm critising Moore for struggling with WWs, I'm not putting Hill on Moore's level. Hearns isn't a natural Welter anyway, he was solid at 175. Wouldn't Hearns likely beat Maxim? Hes far stronger at 175 than SRR

Hill's skills are excellent and he had very good physical ability, Hes a very underrated LHW and champ for around 13years all in all

Jones performance against Hill though is superb, a 4 round blowout who fought went 1-1 with DM and Maske, 2 top 5 fighters and gave DM a closish fight, before that he was an unbeaten champ for 4years

We don't if Jones could fight 5fight series against the men of Moore's day coming through unscathed, 1 things is near certain, if Jones fought Toney, Ruiz, Hill, Hopkins in his prime 5 times each, he would win them all because he was just too dominant against all to lose

8. Made a mistake, still Marshall was a MW pretty much and a MW isn't giving Jones problems

9. TBH I just always didn't like Maxim on film, his resume is good, and he obviously has redeeming qualities but against the slicker faster boxers I see him getting outboxed time and again

Put it this way I don't see Jones losing a round to Maxim

 

Except for the fact Griffin was in effect ko'd twice getting a flucky DQ that no one saw as a real win

 

Regardless, he never was able to beat Griffin by boxing him. He was only able to beat him by opening up and banging with him.

If he couldn't get his usual "sidestep and counter" strategy to work against Griffin, it almost certainly wouldn't work against Moore either. The only way he could beat Moore would be to go for the knockout.

 

In this whole post you state your oppinions as facts ... :roll:

 

How is it that you keep excusing Roy's losses to Tarver for being past his prime, yet you keep giving Roy so much credit for beating Hill when Hill was equally past his own prime?

BTW, Hill's loss to Dariusz was not "close-ish". Dariusz outclassed him for most of the fight, and Hill took a lot of punishment.

 

Moore wins by KO. A different class of fighter. Jones doesn't have the experience to cope with Moore.

If Moore can have Charles on the verge of a stoppage then he can blow Roy's candle out.

 

I favour Jones here. Best style vs Jones is intense pressure and rough-housing (e.g. Frazier, Greb style, or how Hagler fought Hearns, or Duran Leonard I), not crafty boxing skills. The Toney fight showed how a slick speedster dominates a slower technician (ditto the Hopkins fight...notice how Bernard did well when he took Roy to the ropes though).

A puncher's chance is not too much of a chance vs someone as quick as Jones. He fought safety first and would be very hard to catch. I see this is a lopsided decision, just like the Toney fight.