Harold Johnson at Top 100 ATG. Agree or Disagree?

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by led's baby mama

I think he definitely should be competing for a decent spot because he already definitely should get in. He beat Charles before Rocky got to him so that's a pretty decent win and beat Archie waaaaaay before Ali fought him so it's not like those 2 ATG's were majorly past their prime even if they were past it.

I don't think their like Calzaghe's win over Roy Jones, but more on the lines of Joe's win over Hopkins which I think is an A- win, then he has wins over some decent world champs so yeah it's a no brainier. Actually pretty ****in crazy he's forgotten like this.

Archie hadn't been beaten in 36 fights prior to fighting Johnson, was 35 years of age and didn't lose a fight for his entire stay at LHW after that in which spanned of 21 fights. After he lost to Johnson he went on to beat Johnson in a rematch x2, Maxim, Olson X2 and Valdez all before he fought Marciano which was 4 years after Johnson beat him.

So I would strongly argue that win is much more legit and great than Calzaghes win over Hopkins considering Hopkins hadn't fought and beat a HOF'er many years prior to Calzaghe and hasn't beat one since then. Unlike Moore. And it is absolutely nothing like Calzaghes win over Roy Jones, nothing alike.

Ezzard Charles was only 32 when Johnson beat him but was past his prime further than Moore was but just a year prior Charles beat Jimmy Bivins which is a clear indicator he had more than a little left.

Both were also Top ranked when he fought them.

[IronDanHamza]

Archie Moore's loss some 36 fights prior to losing to Johnson was to Henry Hall by the way. Who Johnson himself also beat.

Just throwing that in there.

[$Natedatpkid$]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

Archie hadn't been beaten in 36 fights prior to fighting Johnson, was 35 years of age and didn't lose a fight for his entire stay at LHW after that in which spanned of 21 fights. After he lost to Johnson he went on to beat Johnson in a rematch x2, Maxim, Olson X2 and Valdez all before he fought Marciano which was 4 years after Johnson beat him.

So I would strongly argue that win is much more legit and great than Calzaghes win over Hopkins considering Hopkins hadn't fought and beat a HOF'er many years prior to Calzaghe and hasn't beat one since then. Unlike Moore. And it is absolutely nothing like Calzaghes win over Roy Jones, nothing alike.

Ezzard Charles was only 32 when Johnson beat him but was past his prime further than Moore was but just a year prior Charles beat Jimmy Bivins which is a clear indicator he had more than a little left.

Both were also Top ranked when he fought them.

Yeah I was just using those examples with age and how shot they might or might not have been. Definitely weren't no shot Roy Jones. Where would you rank him in the top 100? I think he should be pretty damn higher then 100.

[IronDanHamza]

Originally Posted by led's baby mama

Yeah I was just using those examples with age and how shot they might or might not have been. Definitely weren't no shot Roy Jones. Where would you rank him in the top 100? I think he should be pretty damn higher then 100.

Man, I really don't know.

It's hard to say because I don't have a Top 100 list and there are so many fighters to look over and watch and breakdown to form a list like that.

But to me, A top 10 Light Heavyweight of all time, and a very very very impressive and stacked resume IMO should be ranked much higher than 100 If I'm honest.

I think he is being criminally underrated in terms of Historians and others. I'm not sure where I would rank him but I think it would be much higher than 100.