BoxRec

I say easily pre 1956

I can't see the retardation in this equation. I do see that it is an expressed opinion from someone who gives much thought to these subjects.

Brockton on occasion you demonstrate very interesting logic structure but never retardation. Now as for having Johnson in the top 10....makes sense to some of us.

Decagon does not seem to have an affininty to your particular brand of logic on this topic. I'm sure he'll eventually be just fine after a bit of a lay down.

Decagon wrote:He uses one set of criteria for judging Jimmy Bivins, and another when judging Harold Johnson. Let's see your top 10/20/whatever.

i give a lot of credit to bivins win over charles, i dont give any credit to harold johnson for beating charles cause i thought charles clearly won the fight.


what takes away from bivins victory?

charles was only 165lb and 21 years old and he took the fight on last minute notice

Decagon wrote:Yes, you did:

BrocktonBlockbuster wrote:actually bivins was on the decline, his wins over moore, henry, valdes, charles hold more water than his wins over bivins

johnsons best wins came pre 1955 that is a fact. clarence henry, valdes, jimmy bivins, archie moore, ezzard charles are better wins than jones, machen, bethea.

If you don't give him any credit for beating Charles, why have you repeatedly brought it up?

because i have too include him on a list of his "best wins". it is a fact harold johnson beat charles just like its a fact holyfield drew lewis.


however in my personel stance, i think charles beat johnson so i dont really give johnson credit for anything except a good preformance vs a great fighter