roy jones jr vs archie moore....

1. Talk about flip flopping, you've often said Charles was robbed against Valdez when you were claiming Charles was near prime against Marciano, make your mind up And Charles was past prime anyway

2. Holyfield was fresh of taking 4rounds from arguably the best head to head heavyweight ever. You're again guilty of underrating modern fighters to suit your agenda

Valdez has 19 losses and many to LHWs, therefore Moores win is not special other LHWs did it.

Baker has 16 losses including a 1 round blowout against Satterfield, Moore took 9rounds the next year

Henry also lost to the LHW Bivins by KO, Moore couldn't KO Henry

 

disagree.....Jones chin would allow him to get knocked out by a few of those big heavyweight punchers moore fought. jones is lucky ruiz hits like my grandmother.

 

I NEVER EVER claimed charles was robbed vs Valdez.......I claimed charles was robbed vs Harold Johnson. I also never claim charles was near his prime vs marciano, i said he was past his prime. I simply claim charles was still a great fighter in 1954 and put up a memorable gutsy performance in june 1954.

Charles was 31 and looked very sharp and fast on film in 1953...maybe not as much as late 1940s, but far more than the 2001-02 version of holyfield.

LOL holyfield looked awful GOD AWFUL vs ruiz, possibly the worst trilogy i have ever seen. Holy was shot to pieces, he had nothing left.


Best Head to Head heavy ever??? LMAO tell that to rahman and mccall!!!! LOL

I dont underate modern fighters,in fact i rate quite a few really high. I just dont underate the hectic schedule old timers had to go through compared to modern fighters. had jones had to fight 221 times month after month vs prime versions of bernard hopkin/james toney level fighters...he would have much more losses on his record.


You my friend fall in love with modern "flashy" fighters who duck top opposition....its truelly a shame

 

Valdez and baker are much better heavyweights than john ruiz talent wise on film. this is undeniable. much bigger punchers too. They also beat better opposition.

Funny how you commend bivins for knocking out Clarence Henry(9 fight novice btw) yet claim moore beat a over the hill bivins...so ur telling me bivins is well past his prime by this time despite being capable of knocking out a top prospect like henry?

how bout the rematch??

This content is protected

btw, Bivins was only 30 years old



Ya ur right, Moore couldn't kayo henry.......He only beat up henry so bad he gave him permant eye damage that would eventually lead to blindness and early retirement.


btw, I dont know what film u have seen of bivins......but bivins is slow, hes ackward, hes ugly, hes way too passive....bivins is nowhere near the level of an archie moore.




Harold Johnson was better than Roy Jones IMO. I believe Harold beats him too. Jones never fought a boxer like this.

 

Jones chin is as good as Moore's, Jones didnt get blasted out in a round in his prime like Moore :deal

Ruiz hits harder than Moore's HW opposition as he put down iron chinned Holyfield :deal

 

1. Now your lying, you didnt make the claim recently, it was 12-24 ago, but you said Charles was robbed against Valdes, I distinctly remember using the Valdes and Johnson losses to justify Charles was past prime and you claimed they were both robberies :deal

2. Charles was past prime, Holyfield was past prime, we can argue all day who was most past prime. Most have Holyfield over Charles in HW lists.

3. Past prime? Yes, shot to pieces, no, Ruiz is a tricky style

4. Lewis beat Rahman and McCall you muppet. Who do you rank head 2 head over Lewis?

5. The thing is times change, if Moore and Charles were around today they would be fighting 3 times a year and not fighting every body. They fought everybody because they had to in order to get paid. These days no aspiring pro can get more than 5 fights a year, let alone 10, its not possible, because of TV dates

If Moore was the exact same fighter but only had 50 fights would he be a worse fighter?

6. I appreciate both modern and past fighters. But I judge on quality over quantity, ability and resume.

 

1. Rahman, Holyfield, Golota are all better than Ruiz on film, he still ground out decisions over them all. Like him or not Ruiz has simply achieved more than those men. Don't confuse me with a Ruiz fan, but he has some impressive wins.

2. Bivins was on the tail end of his career, past prime but not shot.

3. But Bivins ko'd Henry, Moore the KO king couldn't

4. Maybe Bivins was slow, hes ackward, hes ugly, hes way too passive, when he lost to Moore, but not so much when he ko'd Moore :yep

5. I feel were going to have to agree to disagree on this 1, I see Jones dominating Moore and Johnson, you see him losing, I don't see us changing each others opinions

 

The last thing I will leave u with is I have film of Jimmy Bivins in 1943, and he looks the same in 1943 as he does on film in 1947 vs archie moore. I have film of bivins from 1943-1952 and I did not notice a physical decline in Bivins until 1949. Bivins was not a early bloomer, he simply fought much tougher competition in the mid-late 40s than he did in the early 40s....Bivins at 26-27 years old was not past his prime.

 

Moore fought and beat a more impressive bunch with deep records...Jones had a lot of skills but Moore was beyond that...Look at an old Moore vs Ali and look at some of the shots he landed on Ali, 8 years after he fought Marciano

 

It's either gonna be a wide UD for RJJ or a KO for Moore. I can see RJJ staying out of harm for 15 rounds but I can also see Moore catching him at some point. I think RJJ wins 3 out of 5.

 

You've seen the fight?

 

Is this supposed to be an argument in your favor? It shows a KO over an all time light-heavy who was arguably better and more accomplished than Roy (Harold Johnson), and a total of 4 KOs/stoppages against two fighters considered among the best ever to never win titles (Bivins and Marshall), both of whom also have arguably better resumes than Roy.

 

So how many KOs did Tarver and Glen Johnson each have worth mentioning?

 

But the list you yourself posted above illustrates Moore doing progressively better against elite fighters as his career progressed.

Couldn't that suggest that he might've better adjusted to fighting at that level, at the very least?

 

Not according to you:

Besides, what about all the fighters Roy lost to? What about their styles? What did they bring to the table that Moore didn't?