roy jones jr vs archie moore....

1. Don't make it sound like Moore feasted on HOF opponents and Jones hasn't. The likes of Maxim/Marshall aren't as good as Tarver, McCallum, Virgil Hill, Griffin. Jones has beat 16 World Champions and won 23 World Title fights fighting ranked opposition fight after fight.

2. Jones did go from HW-LHW many times, he weighs 190 usually and goes down to 175-170 for fights, thats a fact, so hes no different from Moore in that respect

You mention Moore fought more, well he did but you'd be lucky if 2-3 of these opponents were top ranked opposition, so its not really that much different

3. I'm not going overboard I think Charles beats Jones 2-1 in a series. The rest he largely dominates

4. I think Jones could go 10-0 against Bivins and Johnson although he could possibly drop a loss or 2. Don't you think Jones could go 10-0 against Toney and Ruiz in his prime?

 

faster than a 1947-1955 moore? I dont think so

 

Heres my comment


Archie Moore 7 stoppage losses in 221 fights= .031

Roy Jones 2 stoppage losses in 56 fights= .035


so moore is not more vunerable than jones



Take Note



Bivins knockout loss- Moore weighed 168lb to Bivins 186lb. When Moore fully grew into a solid 180lber later on......he DOMINATED bivins

Bernard Hopkins floored twice and Draw with journeyman Segundo Mercado at age 27. some fighters are late bloomers as u can see.

I see u have yet to comment in one of there draws.....archie moore put booker down 5 times

 

You CANNOT empasize this point enough........This is why roy jones will never be as good as archie moore IMO.


here it is.......

193lb Roy Jones age 34 W12 6'3 226lb John Ruiz

Months later........

Antonio Tarver KO 2 Roy Jones Age 35 weight 175lb




check this out.....


196lb Archie Moore Age 38 W 15 6'3 210lb # 1 Nino Valdez

2 months later......

175lb Archie Moore Age 38 KO 3 Carl Bobo Olsen





Moore repeated this countless times, jones couldnt do it once

 

Powerpuncher.......heres why jones chin doesnt rate with moores


Moores= 22-1(19kos) against men over 200lb

Jones= 1-0 against men over 200lb(that man ruiz being a non puncher)


so moore is obviousely more proven his chin against big men. Big punchers like Nino Valdez and Bob Baker were unable to floor archie moore in multiple bouts.

In fact against Men over 200lb.........Only 204lb Muhammad Ali was ever able to floor Archie.......archie was 46.






Btw, Jones is not the best 175lb puncher at all in the last 20 years. In fact Jones had little power at 175lb, he lost it all stepping up. He went the distance multiple times with ham and eggers at 175lb........virgil hill was shot to peices when he fought jones(though impressive body shot)........montell griffin was purely average(his wins over toney shows u just how inconsistent james was in his younger years).......Jones was a beast at 160-168lb, but he ducked DM at 175lb........in fact jones was not Linear champ for a while, DM was!


Imagine moore ducking his # 1 contender for many years and never fighting him? LOL

 

Wrong....The Burley win was a clear win for marshall....burley was at his peak but marshall knocked him down 2 times and won a wide decision. marshall is probably the most underated fighter of all time.


Charles smashed marshall in 2-3 rounds??? have u seen the fights on film? I have.....Marshall knocks charles down in round 1 of the rematch for 9 count with a left hook to the liver...nearly stopped charles right there then gave charles a tough 6 rounds.....take note these knockout losses all took place when marshall was aging in his 30s.........when marshall was younger he knocked charles down 8 times en route to an EASY knockout


Charles was green? then explain his 2 victories over ur best friend CHARLY BURLEY prior to marshall kicking the **** out of ezzard?


Marshall won 9 out of 10 rounds against a prime jake lamotta, a top 10 middleweight of all time. lamotta was as big a natural middle as u get!

 

making things up? Ur the one making things up saying charles "owned" moore.... does Pacquaio own JMM because in 2 fights JMM has yet to record a win plus suffering 4 knockdowns??



charles-moore II was a very close split decision that many believe could have gone to moore


the 3rd fight, with better luck may have gone to archie. archie outfought charles was slightly ahead on the cards according to an ezzard charles FRIEND I personally talked too.......moore hurt charles badly in the 8th and had him all but knocked out(corrales-castillo)...but charles came back like corrales and caught moore coming in and finished him off

Maxim/Marshall/Johnson/Bivins/Williams are all MUCH MUCH better than Tarver, 40 year old mccallum, hill, and griffin.

 

:blood





:bolt

 

Moore by a KO

 

Lloyd Marshall was one of the top dogs of the black murderers' row and beat Ezzard Charles, Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Joey Maxim, Jake LaMotta and a slew of others. Maxim recorded wins against Sugar Ray Robinson, Jersey Joe Walcott, Floyd Patterson, Jimmy Bivins, and more than his share of top contenders, and the only guys to get the better of him in an eight-year run in his prime were Walcott, Charles and Moore. I get the impression you don't know too much about these guys and are discounting them a bit offhand; I do not believe the likes of Antonio Tarver and Virgil Hill were better than them.

1. Many of those "world champions" were paper champions produced by the plethora of alphabet-soup belts floating around the ridiculous number of divisions in this era. In Moore's time, there were only eight divisions with one title apiece, and the contenders in each division would fight their guts out for years just to get a crack at it. There is a BIG difference between "A-B-C super middleweight champion" and linear, undisputed light heavyweight champion in an era with only eight divisions with one belt. I, for one, will NEVER call John Ruiz a "world heavyweight champion" (unless, God-forbid, he somehow managed to come back and beat the Klitschkos).
2. Similarly, your "23 world title fights" figure is enormously inflated by the fact that Jones came along in an era in which, if you have good management, after just a couple-dozen fights against poor to moderate-level opposition, you'll get to fight some other guy with a couple dozen easy-to-moderate fights for some "vacant A-B-C world championship" in one of the 15 weight divisions, and can move up to heavyweight and challenge for the "WBA 'world heavyweight championship'" in your first fight against John Ruiz. Moore was an elite contender, first at middleweight then at light heavyweight, for a solid 10 years, several of those as #1 contender,and had over 150 professional fights before he was finally given the chance to fight for the one and only world light heavyweight title, which he won and retained for another 10 years before he finally couldn't make weight anymore in the early '60s. Moore's world championship is so much more meaningful as to make the comparison ludicrous.
3. Jones was only fighting about two or three times a year. To put this in perspective, in 1949, Moore fought 13 times, beating Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Bob Satterfield, and several other noteworthy gatekeeper-types along the way. In 1951, he fought 18 times, facing Johnson twice, Bivins once, and a couple of noteworthy heavyweights. In 1952, he fought six times, beating Johnson, Maxim, Clarence Henry and three fringe contenders. In 1955, he was terribly inactive with only four fights, in which he beat world-elites Johnson, Valdes, and Olson before losing to Marciano for the heavyweight title. Then, the following year he fought 12 times, including a light heavyweight title defense against a top contender and another world heavyweight title fight against Patterson. Moore was having far more fights, fighting more top fighters, fighting better top fighters, fighting them over and over again, and doing this year after year.

But Moore didn't get to fake it by dehydrating himself for the weigh-in and then putting it back on; they had same-day weigh-ins, meaning he had to actually weigh his official weight for his fights.

It is a lot different fighting a top-ranked opponent when you've just fought six times in the last six months rather than fighting a top-ranked opponent when you've had a five-month rest.

No, if Jones were fighting 10 times a year while moving up and down and fighting both of those guys five times apiece along with numerous other noteworthy fighters, he would almost certainly lose at least one to Toney, and possibly one to Ruiz as well (Ruiz has a fairly powerful right hand, remember). That said, John Ruiz is not as good as Bivins or Johnson at any weight (note that they were both excellent heavyweights who beat big men and would be liable to box Ruiz's ears off), and Toney was probably not as good as them at light heavyweight, though at least he was a great fighter in the same vein as those guys. It is true that Jones beat Toney badly in their one encounter, but consider that Moore and Charles beat guys like Johnson/Bivins/Marshall/Burley badly in some of their encounters as well; the problem is that they didn't get to fight the other great fighters of their eras only once apiece in major fights where they had months to prepare- they were facing these guys two, three, four, five times, and fighting them often, while fighting often against other miscellaneous opposition on the road. No one beats that kind of opposition every time under those sorts of circumstances.

Now, it seems that your impression here is that Jones was a sort of "super-elite" fighter, while Moore was more "down to Earth" ability-wise. Much of Moore's record is spotty, but the circumstances are paramount for consideration, here. If Moore had been a multi-million-dollar-empire-backed golden boy Olympian who turned pro with a top management team and premiere training in an era where there were three or four campy "world championship" belts in twice as many divisions as in his actual career and all he had to do was build up a shiny record for a couple years in order to fight for one, then spend the rest of his career fighting only two to three times a year and facing the other elite fighters of his era only once or not at all, then he absolutely could've had dozens of "world title" victories and built a shiny 51-4 type career record. Even in his own time, once he was "over the hump" so to speak and was able to fight a little less often with better training, management and nutrition in the '50s, Moore had a peak run during '49-55 in which he lost only once in 47 fights (that being a close decision to Johnson), while beating Johnson (three times), Bivins, Maxim (three times), Bobo Olson, Nino Valdes (twice), Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, and others. That's an 8-1 record against Hall-of-Fame opponents, supplemented by numerous wins over top heavyweight contenders (instead of exactly one like Jones had). Moore in his peak years was a dominant elite in the same vein as Jones.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl The only one that deserves to be ranked with Maxim and Marshall is McCallum and he was as old as Methusalem when Jones fought him.

So, you just negated the excuse for Jones bad performance in the first Tarver fight. Good work :good

Nope I don´t think so. You are so exxagerating this, it´s not funny anymore. Alone comparing Bivins and Johnson to Ruiz and Toney is laughable.

Great work of putting the careers of Moore and Jones in perspective. :good

 

I disagree that Hill was shot. He just came of a bad loss to DM but he was not shot. Hill would go on to win a belt a weight class higher and fight until he was (nearly) 40. That was one of Jones better wins also Hill just came of a loss to Jones´ biggest rival at 175.

 

One title apiece? Try again. NYSAC, NBA and BBBofC all had their own version of world title. And there were not "only eight" divisions, there were junior divisions already.

 

You really are not paying attention JONES IS 190LBS WHEN BEFORE TRAINING CAMP AT A LOW BODYFAT, HE REGULARLY COMES DOWN FROM 190 AND ALWAYS HAS

Tarver is also way better than Olsen

 

says who? Tarver is nothing but average fighter. outside of beating roy jones, he went 1-1 with old man glen johnson, got the **** kicked out of him by old man hopkins, got easily outpointed by eric harding(??) and in one of the most boring fights ever easily got beat by dawson. so essentially tarver is a one hit wonder. On film, tarver to me is very unimpressive. his be st weapon is his big mouth pre fight, because he certainly does not show the goods inside the ring.

WOW NO WAY guess what? archie moore is over 200lb before training camp and he regulary comes down from 200lb in very short amount of time to make weight at 175lb........and moore was in his late 30s-40s when he did this....while jones couldnt handle it once at the age of 34.