Doug Jones [Archive] - East Side Boxing Forum

sweet_scientist

09-16-2009, 10:11 AM

johnson was not awesome. he perenially lost to the bunch of charles-walcott-moore on many ocasions.

He never lost to Charles and he lost to Walcott one time when he fucked his back.

now you say that they ere great , but i am not that sure that after so many oppurtunities fighters like roy jones , tarver , dawson , glen johnson , would have ended with the same results like harlod johnson against his bunch.

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

calling him awesome causes 2 things :
(1) overuse and decrease of the value of the word 'awesome'.
(2) overrating the past fighters.
charles , walcott were very good maxim , moore somewhat less but still very good. johnson was not awesome at all. i wonder if 'good' will be apropriate. somewhat/quite good is a good description to be exact.

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

enough with the bias for the pre 1980's here.
people then were not better than today in the average.
there were exceptions , but just like today.
history , by its nature has a tendency to accumulate.
particularly , the number of great fighters throughout it accumulates.
so the number of great fighters is very big enough without counting wrong.

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

This should be good. Great in fact. It's going to be awesome. :good

mcvey

09-16-2009, 01:26 PM

My2Sense

09-16-2009, 03:50 PM

johnson was not awesome. he perenially lost to the bunch of charles-walcott-moore on many ocasions.

No he didn't, he BEAT Charles and also won one of his fights with Moore.

now you say that they ere great , but i am not that sure that after so many oppurtunities fighters like roy jones , tarver , dawson , glen johnson , would have ended with the same results like harlod johnson against his bunch.

He only had ONE fight each against Walcott and Charles, and still beat Charles.

And I don't see how any of those fighters you listed would've done any better against the likes of Charles/Moore/Walcott.

charles , walcott were very good maxim , moore somewhat less but still very good.

No, Charles and Walcott were GREAT, Moore somewhat less but still GREAT.

johnson was not awesome at all. i wonder if 'good' will be apropriate. somewhat/quite good is a good description to be exact.

No, it isn't.

enough with the bias for the pre 1980's here.
people then were not better than today in the average.
there were exceptions , but just like today.
history , by its nature has a tendency to accumulate.
particularly , the number of great fighters throughout it accumulates.
so the number of great fighters is very big enough without counting wrong.

If you don't think Johnson's achievements are enough to be called great, then no fighter today has achieved enough to be called great.

My2Sense

09-16-2009, 03:54 PM

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

Agreed.

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

:lol: Exactly.

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

This should be good. Great in fact. It's going to be awesome. :good

:lol:

Longhhorn71

09-16-2009, 09:32 PM

Bearing in mind Foster was a late sub ,and had not reached his peak,Jones still looks very good here.
The aggressor throughout, Jones looked to land his right over the top of Foster's low left,all his career Foster carried his left at hip level ,shooting his jab upwards from this position,and relying on his shoulder to shield his chin on that side.
Foster looked to begin to run down after the 6th round and Jones kept the pressure on ,very impressive performance.
Thanks for putting this up.

I like Jones too.....but this was Bob's first 10 round fight.
Foster had 9 fights....Jones 23.

Foster was subbing for Zora Folley....a much better fighter at the time.

1962-10-20 ([Only registered and activated users can see links])174Doug Jones ([Only registered and activated users can see links])18219-3-1

Madison Square Garden, New York, New York, United StatesLTKO810

~ time: 0:23 | referee: Teddy Martin ~
Foster was a substitute for Zora Folley, who pulled out with a virus. Foster was knocked down for a nine count in the 1st by a right hand. Foster was staggered badly in the 7th and 8th.
As he was staggering in the 8th round, referee Teddy Martin stopped the bout.

john garfield

09-16-2009, 10:17 PM

Seein' Doug Jones' name brings a smile. Used to date the daughter of Jones' manager. She dropped me like a rock for spending more time at the fights with her dad.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 08:01 AM

He never lost to Charles and he lost to Walcott one time when he fucked his back.

he even has an SD over charles.
but something like 1:4 vs. moore , while moore being older by 12 years.

Guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson would have been owned by Doug Jones, to say nothing of the beatdowns they'd receive off the likes of Walcott, Charles and Moore.

maybe about johnson you may be true , about the rest , they would have a good chance at least against moore and jones.
you are too effected by the drained tarver who came against hopkins and the old one that showed against dawson.

If Johnson is somewhat/quite good, guys like Tarver, Dawson and Johnson should rate as somewhat/quite shiezenhouse.

glen and harold johnson are below the level of tarver and dawson.
losing by TKO to hopkins is a shame , it is a proof that he is not elite.

Who do you consider great if the likes of Charles are only very good and Moore somewhat less?

it will still be a very long list :
p4p : langford , duran , pacquiao , ray leonard , qawi , marciano , toney , byrd , orlin norris , jorge castro (not a favorite here)
i may have forgot some .
marciano surely proved the upper hand over louis , charles , walcott , moore. he was the pacquiao of the 'hw' division back then.
by beating twice each one of the two of the reigning bunch , 3 times by stoppage , and stopping another two of that bunch ,
you clearly prove yourself as the best of your time at that weight.
but note : the best of (1) YOUR TIME (2) AT THAT WEIGHT
and that's only marciano.
there were many more bests of their time at their weight.
and louis , charles , walcott , moore , jones , johnson FAILED at achieving that status. maybe louis partially succeeded for a time -
he was 1:1 vs. schmelling who was not that briliant himself.
louis' 'reign' was on a weak era and its length benefited of the war.
tarver and dawson succeeded at being the BEST OF THEIR TIME AT THEIR WEIGHT , understand ?
and that's even h2h and not p4p.

you underestimate tarver , dawson , and for sure reggie johnson
they are yet to be stopped , and reggie johnson did move up in weight and faced great oposition in both 160 and 175.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 08:05 AM

If you don't think Johnson's achievements are enough to be called great, then no fighter today has achieved enough to be called great.
today we still have holyfield , toney and pacquiao . these are greater.
and that's just today. not the whole history.
so lets just call them great and not overuse the word so will not need too many words.

TheGreatA

09-17-2009, 09:49 AM

he even has an SD over charles.
but something like 1:4 vs. moore , while moore being older by 12 years.

Moore was in his prime though, while Johnson was just 21-22 years old in most of those bouts.

In their last and most meaningful bout, Moore had to pull out a late round comeback win after being knocked down and outpointed for the 13 previous rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Moore was slightly greater but this doesn't mean Harold Johnson wasn't great.

maybe about johnson you may be true , about the rest , they would have a good chance at least against moore and jones.
you are too effected by the drained tarver who came against hopkins and the old one that showed against dawson.
When did Tarver ever truly impress? I was impressed by his KO win over Roy Jones but then Glen Johnson smashed Roy too. He has never been a dominant fighter of the era as you are making him out to be.

glen and harold johnson are below the level of tarver and dawson.
losing by TKO to hopkins is a shame , it is a proof that he is not elite.Harold Johnson's resume makes Tarver look mediocre, not to mention Dawson's who hasn't achieved a whole lot at all.

Johnson was TKO'd by a prime Hopkins while he himself had not yet fought any notable opponents. He gave hell to Tarver and Dawson yet he doesn't rate anywhere near them?

it will still be a very long list :
p4p : langford , duran , pacquiao , ray leonard , qawi , marciano , toney , byrd , orlin norris , jorge castro (not a favorite here)
i may have forgot some .
Huh? :huh

marciano surely proved the upper hand over louis , charles , walcott , moore. he was the pacquiao of the 'hw' division back then.
by beating twice each one of the two of the reigning bunch , 3 times by stoppage , and stopping another two of that bunch ,
you clearly prove yourself as the best of your time at that weight.
but note : the best of (1) YOUR TIME (2) AT THAT WEIGHT
and that's only marciano.Marciano proved he was the best heavyweight of the bunch while Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis were older. But Moore and Charles had their most significant accomplishments as light heavyweights.

there were many more bests of their time at their weight.
and louis , charles , walcott , moore , jones , johnson FAILED at achieving that status. maybe louis partially succeeded for a time -
he was 1:1 vs. schmelling who was not that briliant himself.
louis' 'reign' was on a weak era and its length benefited of the war.
tarver and dawson succeeded at being the BEST OF THEIR TIME AT THEIR WEIGHT , understand ?
and that's even h2h and not p4p.
Neither Tarver nor Dawson have proved that they are the best of their era.

Tarver is 2-1 against Jones, 1-1 against Johnson, 0-2 against Dawson, 0-1 against Hopkins, 1-1 with Harding, hardly dominant.

Dawson has two wins over Tarver and a controversial decision win over Glen Johnson, both of whom are 40 years of age.

you underestimate tarver , dawson , and for sure reggie johnson
they are yet to be stopped , and reggie johnson did move up in weight and faced great oposition in both 160 and 175.And lost more often than not. Yet you take down Moore and Harold Johnson for losing? Even though they accomplished twice or three times as much as Reggie Johnson.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 11:07 AM

harold johnson was TKO'd by moore when he was 26. and of their 5 fights that's the most convincing defeat.

When did Tarver ever truly impress? I was impressed by his KO win over Roy Jones but then Glen Johnson smashed Roy too. He has never been a dominant fighter of the era as you are making him out to be.

:huh
Terver beat every top 175 of his time except michalczewski (who didn't face roy either , so maybe it's michalczewski's fault) , you have boxrec too , you don't need that long list from me .

Harold Johnson's resume makes Tarver look mediocre, not to mention Dawson's who hasn't achieved a whole lot at all.

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.
and his record in his quality fights was significantly worse than tarver's.

Johnson was TKO'd by a prime Hopkins while he himself had not yet fought any notable opponents. He gave hell to Tarver and Dawson yet he doesn't rate anywhere near them?

in his 32 first fights , the 'road warrior' fought nobody.
when he did face a still not prime hopkins , who had problems with baptist and lost to a still not peak roy , he was TKO'd , i saw that fight , johnson was shit there , hopkins also , that's not peak , that's just johnson was the shittier of the two , a boring fight , with no talent at all demostrated by any of the fighters. it's just that johnson was the worse of the two. hopkins was still not peak and was never a great fighter. just a smart picking one who fouls whenever his oposition's level of talent surpasses its size disadvantage compared to him.
johnson gave hell to a still unexperienced dawson.
in the 'hell' he gave to tarver , he was still outlanded and the less accurate.

Marciano proved he was the best heavyweight of the bunch while Charles, Walcott, Moore and Louis were older. But Moore and Charles had their most significant accomplishments as light heavyweights.

charles was only 2 years older than marciano.
moore was older , which is true , but by that time , he STOPPED that harold johnson , and was still peak , at least according to you.
the walcott marciano beat was a reigning world champion , back in the days when being a 'world champion' really meant something.

Neither Tarver nor Dawson have proved that they are the best of their era.

Tarver is 2-1 against Jones, 1-1 against Johnson, 0-2 against Dawson, 0-1 against Hopkins, 1-1 with Harding, hardly dominant.

Dawson has two wins over Tarver and a controversial decision win over Glen Johnson, both of whom are 40 years of age.

johnson's SD over tarver , which i also saw , was a fight in which tarver had the better accuracy and landed more.
it is a controversial decision.
it can also be regarded as a 2:0 or a 1:0:1.
the 0-2 against Dawson means that tarver is really no longer the #1.
but he was untill 2005 and the rocky balboa movie.
the loss to hopkins was because he was drained coming down from the 220 he was for the movie.
and the points loss to harding was avenged by a 5th round TKO.
it's a 1(1):1(0). tarver proved the superiority again , like with every fighter he has ever fought.
he beat : Jones 2(1):1(0) , while the loss was close and controversial.
Glen Johnson 1:1 while johnson's win a controversial SD , another tarver's win over him in fact , Reggie Johnson 1:0 Woods 1:0 , Griffin 1:0 , harding 1(1):1(0) , Benguesmia 1(1):0 .
what can you ask more ?
that's the best 175 of HIS TIME.
dawson also beat adamek , another reigning world champion and also harding.
he had already surpassed calzaghe legacy-wise.

And lost more often than not. Yet you take down Moore and Harold Johnson for losing? Even though they accomplished twice or three times as much as Reggie Johnson.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 but went to 175 from career/political reasons. that explains his losses at 175 who despite the HIGH-LEVEL oposition he faced were never by stoppage.
harold johnson was somewhat bigger than reggie johnson and for sure bigger than jorge castro and fitted 175 much better than them.
can you see him going the distance with jirov , paul briggs , roy jones , sebastiaan rothman.
stopping derrick harmon and imamu mayfield.
AND THAT's A 154 FIGHTER , NEVER FORGET IT.
if he wanted he could have stayed 160 and below for the whole of his career.
moore was a better 175 for sure than reggie johnson because he was a natural such if not even slightly bigger than 175.
he should have been anorectic to make 175.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 , hence the reason why moore a better 175 than him. but p4p is another story with an unclear answer. maybe moore better p4p than reggie johnson.
but harold johnson was not better p4p. as a 175 he was somewhat better , again , because he was somewhat bigger and fitted there better.

Bummy Davis

09-17-2009, 11:17 AM

When he beat Foster he could have made 175lbs...Jones was underated, he had decent power and good skills and lets face it he gave Ali a scrap...better than Liston in 2 fights....Jones never got a title but he was a strong fighter

TheGreatA

09-17-2009, 11:51 AM

harold johnson was TKO'd by moore when he was 26. and of their 5 fights that's the most convincing defeat.

:huh

Did you not watch the fight I posted? Harold Johnson was having the better of the action until Moore pulled out a late round comeback win. Both of them were very equal skill-wise.

Moore being 4-1 with Johnson is deceiving. All of the fights were close and only the 5th one ended in decisive fashion and in that fight Johnson was winning until being stopped.

Terver beat every top 175 of his time except michalczewski (who didn't face roy either , so maybe it's michalczewski's fault) , you have boxrec too , you don't need that long list from me .He also lost to most of them.

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.
and his record in his quality fights was significantly worse than tarver's.This clearly displays your lack of knowledge about Harold Johnson's era of boxing. He had wins over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (though Moore got the best of their series), Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Machen, Bert Lytell, Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes, Doug Jones, Eddie Cotton, Henry Hank, Clarence Henry, Marty Marshall, Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc.

A much more extensive record than Tarver's, who only has wins over Roy Jones (2-1), Glen Johnson (1-1), Eric Harding (1-1), Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

in his 32 first fights , the 'road warrior' fought nobody.
when he did face a still not prime hopkins , who had problems with baptist and lost to a still not peak roy , he was TKO'd , i saw that fight , johnson was shit there , hopkins also , that's not peak , that's just johnson was the shittier of the two , a boring fight , with no talent at all demostrated by any of the fighters. it's just that johnson was the worse of the two. hopkins was still not peak and was never a great fighter. just a smart picking one who fouls whenever his oposition's level of talent surpasses its size disadvantage compared to him.
johnson gave hell to a still unexperienced dawson.
in the 'hell' he gave to tarver , he was still outlanded and the less accurateThat was a peak Bernard Hopkins. He had been having problems with Roy and Baptist 5 years earlier, not relevant when Hopkins fought Johnson. It was a great display of skills by Hopkins which made an impression on Gil Clancy the great boxing trainer.

If Hopkins wasn't great, then Tarver isn't either. Hopkins schooled the much bigger man in very one-sided fashion and all the excuses about Tarver being weight-drained are utterly ridiculous. If Tarver was weight-drained, then so was Roy when he fought Tarver. "What are your excuses tonight Roy?", might as well ask that from Tarver.

Tarver threw a lot of pitter-pat punches at Johnson but it was obvious who was the stronger of the two.

charles was only 2 years older than marciano.
moore was older , which is true , but by that time , he STOPPED that harold johnson , and was still peak , at least according to you.
the walcott marciano beat was a reigning world champion , back in the days when being a 'world champion' really meant something.Charles had also fought 100 times and had started his career when Rocky hadn't even thought about boxing. When did Marciano retire? Two years later, when he felt his body was breaking down.

Moore was a great light heavyweight, not a heavyweight. Do you think Tarver could have beaten the heavyweight champion? Or even a cruiserweight title? He certainly never tried.

johnson's SD over tarver , which i also saw , was a fight in which tarver had the better accuracy and landed more.
it is a controversial decision.
it can also be regarded as a 2:0 or a 1:0:1.
the 0-2 against Dawson means that tarver is really no longer the #1.
but he was untill 2005 and the rocky balboa movie.
the loss to hopkins was because he was drained coming down from the 220 he was for the movie.
and the points loss to harding was avenged by a 5th round TKO.
it's a 1(1):1(0). tarver proved the superiority again , like with every fighter he has ever fought.
he beat : Jones 2(1):1(0) , while the loss was close and controversial.
Glen Johnson 1:1 while johnson's win a controversial SD , another tarver's win over him in fact , Reggie Johnson 1:0 Woods 1:0 , Griffin 1:0 , harding 1(1):1(0) , Benguesmia 1(1):0 .
what can you ask more ?
that's the best 175 of HIS TIME.
dawson also beat adamek , another reigning world champion and also harding.
he had already surpassed calzaghe legacy-wise.Johnson's win over Tarver may have been close but he gave Tarver a beating at times. Johnson was certainly not a class below him as you say.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
4:20

Tarver was simply the best light heavyweight for a very short time, maybe from 2004 to 2006 and even that's debatable, much like Harold Johnson was in the early 1960's.

reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 but went to 175 from career/political reasons. that explains his losses at 175 who despite the HIGH-LEVEL oposition he faced were never by stoppage.
harold johnson was somewhat bigger than reggie johnson and for sure bigger than jorge castro and fitted 175 much better than them.
can you see him going the distance with jirov , paul briggs , roy jones , sebastiaan rothman.
stopping derrick harmon and imamu mayfield.
AND THAT's A 154 FIGHTER , NEVER FORGET IT.
if he wanted he could have stayed 160 and below for the whole of his career.
moore was a better 175 for sure than reggie johnson because he was a natural such if not even slightly bigger than 175.
he should have been anorectic to make 175.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 , hence the reason why moore a better 175 than him. but p4p is another story with an unclear answer. maybe moore better p4p than reggie johnson.
but harold johnson was not better p4p. as a 175 he was somewhat better , again , because he was somewhat bigger and fitted there better.[/quote]

Harold Johnson fought and beat numerous top 5, top 3, even number 1 ranked heavyweight contenders and rarely lost at that weight, so yes he could go up in weight and be effective.

Moore actually went up from welterweight, to being the number 1 ranked middleweight contender, to being the light heavyweight champion and the number 1 heavyweight contender.

Reggie also lost 4 times at 160 pounds, controversial or not, a lot of Harold Johnson's losses were. The only thing he ever did at 175 was to expose the chin of the grossly overhyped William Guthrie who didn't go onto accomplish anything. His best wins are over Steve Collins and Lamar Parks, hardly an ATG resume, especially compared to Harold Johnson's. Does it matter that he wasn't stopped? A loss is a loss, especially a whitewash in which you are knocked down several times like his loss against Roy Jones.

I can very well see Harold Johnson going the distance with Sebastian Rothman, Paul Briggs, Vassiliy Jirov and Roy Jones and actually beating 3 out of 4 of them with the Jones fight being close. Castro was tough as nails but that doesn't make him a great fighter.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 12:33 PM

Did you not watch the fight I posted? Harold Johnson was having the better of the action until Moore pulled out a late round comeback win. Both of them were very equal skill-wise.

Moore being 4-1 with Johnson is deceiving. All of the fights were close and only the 5th one ended in decisive fashion and in that fight Johnson was winning until being stopped.

he was STOPPED. that's the important thing here.
no i didn't watch that fight.
there are still many more interesting fights that i still haven't seen.

He also lost to most of them.

his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.

This clearly displays your lack of knowledge about Harold Johnson's era of boxing. He had wins over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore (though Moore got the best of their series), Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Machen, Bert Lytell, Bob Satterfield, Nino Valdes, Doug Jones, Eddie Cotton, Henry Hank, Clarence Henry, Marty Marshall, Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc.

A much more extensive record than Tarver's, who only has wins over Roy Jones (2-1), Glen Johnson (1-1), Eric Harding (1-1), Clinton Woods, Montell Griffin and Reggie Johnson.

why should i care about Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc. ?

That was a peak Bernard Hopkins. He had been having problems with Roy and Baptist 5 years earlier, not relevant when Hopkins fought Johnson. It was a great display of skills by Hopkins which made an impression on Gil Clancy the great boxing trainer.

hopkins also had problems with wright so many years later.
that's why the headbutt for. also with calzaghe.
also with jermain taylor twice.
we later saw taylor's worth against spinks , pavlik, froch .
hopkins is overrated. tarver underrated.

If Hopkins wasn't great, then Tarver isn't either. Hopkins schooled the much bigger man in very one-sided fashion and all the excuses about Tarver being weight-drained are utterly ridiculous. If Tarver was weight-drained, then so was Roy when he fought Tarver. "What are your excuses tonight Roy?", might as well ask that from Tarver.

Tarver threw a lot of pitter-pat punches at Johnson but it was obvious who was the stronger of the two.

roy had HIS best outcome against tarver when he (roy) was the most drained.
roy got from 193 to 175 , tarver 220 to 175 , i see a difference.
hopkins is an american version of calzaghe , but even worse , because his losses came against fighters calzaghe wouldn't have lost to.
maybe except roy. calzaghe is certainly better than hopkins when thinking about it.
tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it.
you keep ignoring the comparison between tarver's 'losses' to his wins.

Moore was a great light heavyweight, not a heavyweight. Do you think Tarver could have beaten the heavyweight champion? Or even a cruiserweight title? He certainly never tried.

i didn't claim tarver a great p4p.
just a great 175 that's all.

Johnson's win over Tarver may have been close but he gave Tarver a beating at times. Johnson was certainly not a class below him as you say.

i told you i have seen that entire fight.
their records prove what i said.

Harold Johnson fought and beat numerous top 5, top 3, even number 1 ranked heavyweight contenders and rarely lost at that weight, so yes he could go up in weight and be effective.

i don't care about the ranking of contenders today and care even less about then. my claims are based on full historical perspective.

Moore actually went up from welterweight, to being the number 1 ranked middleweight contender, to being the light heavyweight champion and the number 1 heavyweight contender.

again about the ranking of contenders :
who cares ?
p4p moore was better than tarver , i agree.
at 175 maybe also , but i didn't compare them. and didn't claim the oposite.

Reggie also lost 4 times at 160 pounds, controversial or not, a lot of Harold Johnson's losses were. The only thing he ever did at 175 was to expose the chin of the grossly overhyped William Guthrie who didn't go onto accomplish anything. His best wins are over Steve Collins and Lamar Parks, hardly an ATG resume, especially compared to Harold Johnson's. Does it matter that he wasn't stopped? A loss is a loss, especially a whitewash in which you are knocked down several times like his loss against Roy Jones.

it really does matter , controversial or not. matters alot.

I can very well see Harold Johnson going the distance with Sebastian Rothman, Paul Briggs, Vassiliy Jirov and Roy Jones and actually beating 3 out of 4 of them with the Jones fight being close. Castro was tough as nails but that doesn't make him a great fighter.
you are comparing the 154 castro to harold johnson based on h2h ?
:shock:
that's not what i did.

the mentioning of castro's oposition at 175 and above was to demonstrate his greatness p4p , and to example p4p greatness.
never claimed castro was a great 175 or 190.

sweet_scientist

09-17-2009, 12:36 PM

Thank you for sparing me the task TGA.

Some of the ideas Frank has espoused are down right luancy.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 12:44 PM

Thank you for sparing me the task TGA.

Some of the ideas Frank has espoused are down right luancy.
like what ?

TheGreatA

09-17-2009, 12:56 PM

he was STOPPED. that's the important thing here.
no i didn't watch that fight.
there are still many more interesting fights that i still haven't seen.

Perhaps you shouldn't talk then. You haven't even seen Archie Moore vs Harold Johnson? What kind of an authority are you to tell people of their skills and resume when you haven't even seen them fight?

his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.His loss to Harding was decisive, he lost the fight to Jones in rounds quite clearly, Johnson fight may have gone his way, Hopkins dominated him.

He may have been good in rematches but he lost to top fighters about the same amount that he won. He hardly established his dominance.

why should i care about Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc. ?Because they were good fighters.

hopkins also had problems with wright so many years later.
that's why the headbutt for. also with calzaghe.
also with jermain taylor twice.
we later saw taylor's worth against spinks , pavlik, froch .
hopkins is overrated. tarver underrated.
Hopkins was 40+ years old.

roy had HIS best outcome against tarver when he (roy) was the most drained.
roy got from 193 to 175 , tarver 220 to 175 , i see a difference.
hopkins is an american version of calzaghe , but even worse , because his losses came against fighters calzaghe wouldn't have lost to.
maybe except roy. calzaghe is certainly better than hopkins when thinking about it.
tarver fought the best oposition he could get , and proved his superiority over it.
you keep ignoring the comparison between tarver's 'losses' to his wins.Tarver lost fat, Roy lost muscle. Roy was also weighed in at 200+ lbs on the documentary about the fight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Archie Moore lost weight to make 175 (during same day weigh ins) from well over 200 lbs numerous times yet he had no excuses.

Tell me about all the fighters Hopkins avoided at 160.

Tarver lost decisively to Harding, caught him in a rematch when Harding was coming off an injury, lost a close decision to Roy, caught him in a rematch, lost a close decision to Johnson, won a close but clear decision in the rematch, was dominated by Hopkins and beaten clearly twice by Dawson.

i didn't claim tarver a great p4p.
just a great 175 that's all.Why would you bring up Moore's losses at HW then? 175 is what we are talking about.

i told you i have seen that entire fight.
their records prove what i said.Johnson has wins over Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Clinton Woods, Richard Hall, controversial loss to Dawson.

Tarver has wins over Roy Jones, Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Clinton Woods, two clear losses to Dawson.

Their records prove what I said.

i don't care about the ranking of contenders today and care even less about then. my claims are based on full historical perspective.What historical perspective when you haven't even seen these people fight?

again about the ranking of contenders :
who cares ?
p4p moore was better than tarver , i agree.
at 175 maybe also , but i didn't compare them. and didn't claim the oposite.Atleast you admit that.

it really does matter , controversial or not. matters alot.Then again you could also say the same about Harold Johnson who suffered many controversial decision losses.

you are comparing the 154 castro to harold johnson based on h2h ?
:shock:
that's not what i did.
the mentioning of castro's oposition at 175 and above was to demonstrate his greatness p4p , and to example p4p greatness.
never claimed castro was a great 175 or 190.What was so spectacular about Castro's accomplishments at 154/160? He wasn't great at any weight.

sweet_scientist

09-17-2009, 01:19 PM

like what ?

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 shit 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 :lol:

sweet_scientist

09-17-2009, 01:33 PM

Perhaps you shouldn't talk then. You haven't even seen Archie Moore vs Harold Johnson? What kind of an authority are you to tell people of their skills and resume when you haven't even seen them fight?

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?

My2Sense

09-17-2009, 01:46 PM

Terver beat every top 175 of his time except michalczewski (who didn't face roy either , so maybe it's michalczewski's fault) , you have boxrec too , you don't need that long list from me .

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

johnson's resume doesn't make tarver look medicore at all.
he just had more fights. not more quality fights.

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 wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.

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

why should i care about Henry Hall, Jimmy Slade, Paul Andrews, Wayne Bethea, Arturo Godoy, Gustav Scholz, Leonard Morrow, etc. ?

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

their records prove what i said.

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.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 02:25 PM

Perhaps you shouldn't talk then. You haven't even seen Archie Moore vs Harold Johnson? What kind of an authority are you to tell people of their skills and resume when you haven't even seen them fight?

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.

His loss to Harding was decisive, he lost the fight to Jones in rounds quite clearly, Johnson fight may have gone his way, Hopkins dominated him.

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.

He may have been good in rematches but he lost to top fighters about the same amount that he won. He hardly established his dominance.

Because they were good fighters.

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.

Hopkins was 40+ years old.

so was tarver for the dawson fights.

Tarver lost fat, Roy lost muscle. Roy was also weighed in at 200+ lbs on the documentary about the fight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Archie Moore lost weight to make 175 (during same day weigh ins) from well over 200 lbs numerous times yet he had no excuses.

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'?

Tell me about all the fighters Hopkins avoided at 160.

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

Tarver lost decisively to Harding, caught him in a rematch when Harding was coming off an injury, lost a close decision to Roy, caught him in a rematch, lost a close decision to Johnson, won a close but clear decision in the rematch, was dominated by Hopkins and beaten clearly twice by Dawson.

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.

Why would you bring up Moore's losses at HW then? 175 is what we are talking about.

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.

Johnson has wins over Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Clinton Woods, Richard Hall, controversial loss to Dawson.

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

Tarver has wins over Roy Jones, Glen Johnson, Eric Harding, Montell Griffin, Reggie Johnson, Clinton Woods, two clear losses to Dawson.

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.

Their records prove what I said.

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

What historical perspective when you haven't even seen these people fight?

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

Then again you could also say the same about Harold Johnson who suffered many controversial decision losses.

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

What was so spectacular about Castro's accomplishments at 154/160? He wasn't great at any weight.
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.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 02:52 PM

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.

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

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

true.

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

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.

- If you don't prove yourself the best in your era you are not great.

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 ?

(Which carries the hilarious implication that you can be great if you are the best in your era, irrespective of how shit that era is.

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 shit eras as such.

I mean, the fact you think Chad Dawson is better than Harold Johnson is so beyond the pale of rationality to be comedically absurd).

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.

- 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.

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.

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

true.

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

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.

- 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.

when did I say it :huh? #2

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

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.

- Harold Johnson is not better than Reggie Johnson.

maybe at 175 he is.
p4p no.

- 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.

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.

- Your claims are based on a full historical perspective :lol:
quite full.
didn't know harding's injury for tarver and johnson's for walcott.

My2Sense

09-17-2009, 02:58 PM

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.

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

TheGreatA

09-17-2009, 03:05 PM

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.

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?

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.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.

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.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?

so was tarver for the dawson fights.Then don't bring up Hopkins's losses past 40 if you don't want me to bring up 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'?[Only registered and activated users can see links]

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.

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

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

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

and 12 losses and 2 draws to .. check boxrec and spare it from me.Tarver has half the amount of fights and 6 losses. How many times did Glen Johnson get robbed?

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.Benguesmia who?

now you they don't.
they still prove what I said.I'm afraid they don't. Both have a similar record of wins.

records.
i did see tarver , glen johnson , reggie johnson , jones fight.
and others also.
Did you ever see Archie Moore and Harold Johnson fight? That's what I was asking.

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

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

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 03:07 PM

No he didn't, he BEAT Charles and also won one of his fights with Moore.

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

He only had ONE fight each against Walcott and Charles, and still beat Charles.

by SD.

And I don't see how any of those fighters you listed would've done any better against the likes of Charles/Moore/Walcott.

against moore they'd have a fair chance.

No, Charles and Walcott were GREAT, Moore somewhat less but still GREAT.

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

No, it isn't.

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 !

If you don't think Johnson's achievements are enough to be called great, then no fighter today has achieved enough to be called great.
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.

sweet_scientist

09-17-2009, 03:52 PM

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

Next to Buckley's.

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

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 ?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.

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 shit eras as such.Tarver fought in a shit 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.

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

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.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.

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

when did I say it :huh? #2reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 but went to 175 from career/political reasons. that explains his losses at 175 who despite the HIGH-LEVEL oposition he faced were never by stoppage.
harold johnson was somewhat bigger than reggie johnson and for sure bigger than jorge castro and fitted 175 much better than them.
can you see him going the distance with jirov , paul briggs , roy jones , sebastiaan rothman.
stopping derrick harmon and imamu mayfield.

There.

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.moore was a better 175 for sure than reggie johnson because he was a natural such if not even slightly bigger than 175.
he should have been anorectic to make 175.
reggie johnson is a 160 who became 168 , hence the reason why moore a better 175 than him. but p4p is another story with an unclear answer.

There.

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.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 :lol:

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

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.

My2Sense

09-17-2009, 05:06 PM

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

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

by SD.

Meaning what?

against moore they'd have a fair chance.

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

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

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

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 !

Why, when did they ever beat Charles and Moore?

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.

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.

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 05:52 PM

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

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.

What do you define as "quality fights"?

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.

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"?

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

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

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.

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

says who ? fleaman ?

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.
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

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 05:58 PM

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

frankenfrank

09-17-2009, 06:50 PM

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?

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.

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

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

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

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'.

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.

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

Who did Reggie Johnson ever beat? Steve Collins?

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.

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

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

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

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.

why does it prove me wrong ? #2

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

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 ?

"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.

the best at 160 of his time was shit.
hoya and trinidad were not shit , 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Benguesmia who?

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

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

as i said before.

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

the answer is still no.

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

i already said i didn't know about it.

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

like which ?

The champion of bums went up in weight and dominated Tarver.
a drained tarver. 220 to 175. drainer than roy. again.

Bummy Davis

09-17-2009, 07:27 PM

Which goes to show just how fkkn awesome Johnson was.

That was a masterpiece of a performance by Johnson, despite him being "old" (according to the numbers at least) then.

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

Russell

09-17-2009, 07:35 PM

frankenfrank, you are one dense cunt. :lol::lol:

My2Sense

09-18-2009, 01:11 AM

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.

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.

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

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.

again , don't let me repeat the hopkins and dawson stories.

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.

tarver's stoppage of harding was more decisive than harding's points victory over him.

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

says who ? fleaman ?

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

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

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.

My2Sense

09-18-2009, 01:49 AM

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.

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.

frankenfrank

09-21-2009, 11:02 AM

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.

frankenfrank

09-21-2009, 11:14 AM

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

frankenfrank

09-21-2009, 01:46 PM

Next to Buckley's.

a realistic chance.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

so losing in that era makes you great ?

Tarver fought in a shit 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.

not a shit era still.
far from it.
want a shit 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.

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

what is THAT bad about him ?

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.

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.

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

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.

There.

There.

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 shit era at 175 and that's part of the evidence.
that's also part of the evidence that it was indeed a shit era at 168.

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.
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.

My2Sense

09-21-2009, 11:39 PM

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Terver beat every top 175 of his time except michalczewski (who didn't face roy either , so maybe it's michalczewski's fault) , you have boxrec too , you don't need that long list from me .
He also lost to most of them.
his wins were decisive , his losses controversial and close and never as decisive as their rematches , except dawson when tarver was 40-41.
His losses to Hopkins, Harding, and Dawson were neither controversial nor close.
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.
So what? The fact still is his loss was decisive, not "close or controversial", contrary to what you earlier said.
--------------------

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 .

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.

you also don't know what would happen if they fought another time.

Neither do you, nor is it relevant.

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.

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