Harold Johnson vs Bob Foster 175lbs primes

[DeeMoney]

That's literally my problem The term "level above".

If I've misunderstood you then my bad. I thought you said Foster was a level above Johnson as a fighter. That was my only contention.



Agree Tunney is better than Johnson but solely skill wise I wouldn't say there's much between them though. I'd rank Tunney above him though.

I just think the logic kind of doesn't stand but again I've misunderstood your positon, because I wouldn't argue saying Foster is better than Johnson. My issue was saying he's a level above him.



Don't disagree.

But Foster didn't beat anyone on Moore's level. That's something that I think needs to be considered in this conversation.

But I wouldn't argue the idea of Foster winning at least 1 out of 5 vs Moore.



No, again, I don't disagree. I did state that Foster was pre prime when he lost to Jones. Johnson however was past his prime. So neither of them were the best versions of themselves.

I don't hold much stock in it. But, it did happen. It's something to consider at least to some degree.

Now for the real question, which you brought up earlier but I missed: did Foster have a better jab?
I lean to yes on this, but its a hard one, because they used it so differently. Johnson threw ligtning jabs 50 times a round to gauge distance and work his way in. Foster threw thunder to keep you away and cause damage. I rate them both as having great jabs, just different.

[IronDanHamza]

Now for the real question, which you brought up earlier but I missed: did Foster have a better jab?
I lean to yes on this, but its a hard one, because they used it so differently. Johnson threw ligtning jabs 50 times a round to gauge distance and work his way in. Foster threw thunder to keep you away and cause damage. I rate them both as having great jabs, just different.

My opinion, I would say definitely not.

Foster had a good solid jab, but Johnson's jab was immense. Perfectly timed, often the man with the shorter reach but almost never outjabbed. I can't think of a time he was ever outjabbed. Beat Charles to the jab, one of the all time skilled operators.

It was one of Johnson's best tools, in an insanely good toolbox. Probably in all likelihood his best tool and key to his success in the ATG career he had.

[JAB5239]

There isn't.

Do you have a point you'd like to get to?

Absolutely. For someone who uses almost the same terminology from an opposing opinion you sure like to split hairs about someone else's descriptions. No big deal, just an observation.

[IronDanHamza]

Absolutely. For someone who uses almost the same terminology from an opposing opinion you sure like to split hairs about someone else's descriptions. No big deal, just an observation.

The terminology itself that is being used is not the issue. What the terminology is being used to DESRCRIBE is the issue. I.e That Foster is a level above Johnson as a fighter in general. Because, that's not true. (To which has now been clarified by the poster)

If someone were to say Foster is a level above/country mile ahead of Johnson in punching power alone, then there would be no issue....Because.....That's true.

I said.....Harold Johnson is a country mile ahead of Foster in regards to SKILL (and only skill)......... Which.....he is.

I don't know what part you're not getting or are lost on.

[JAB5239]

The terminology itself that is being used is not the issue. What the terminology is being used to DESRCRIBE is the issue. I.e That Foster is a level above Johnson as a fighter in general. Because, that's not true. (To which has now been clarified by the poster)

If someone were to say Foster is a level above/country mile ahead of Johnson in punching power alone, then there would be no issue....Because.....That's true.

I said.....Harold Johnson is a country mile ahead of Foster in regards to SKILL (and only skill)......... Which.....he is.

I don't know what part you're not getting or are lost on.

The terminology is based on opinion unless otherwise defined. You keep on asking for definitions to the same terminology, yet are not doing anything but saying you're wrong as a retort. You want examples of why someone has an opinion, but do not provide any context of why your own opinion is right. That's the thing about opinions, everyone can have one. But is your ut if you're going to hop on something (and you've been pretty respectful with Dee) than you need to explain why. Same thing as the thread we argued in. You keep saying no, but you're not showing why someone else's reasoning isn't valid. It's all about opinions. Everything from guessing a fantasy fight to an evaluation of resumes is subjective. That's my point.

[IronDanHamza]

The terminology is based on opinion unless otherwise defined. You keep on asking for definitions to the same terminology, yet are not doing anything but saying you're wrong as a retort. You want examples of why someone has an opinion, but do not provide any context of why your own opinion is right. That's the thing about opinions, everyone can have one. But is your ut if you're going to hop on something (and you've been pretty respectful with Dee) than you need to explain why. Same thing as the thread we argued in. You keep saying no, but you're not showing why someone else's reasoning isn't valid. It's all about opinions. Everything from guessing a fantasy fight to an evaluation of resumes is subjective. That's my point.

I didn't ask for a definition of anything. You've again, just made that up because you can't seem to understand almost anything when you attempt to read it.

Your attempt at a point is dumb and doesn't make sense. You seemingly have some kind of issue with something I'm not even saying. You're essentially saying I can't disagree with someone saying someone is a "level up" in a specific way because I said Johnson is a "country mile" ahead of Foster in a specific way. Are the under the impression that's a contradiction? Because t's not.

The issue was never the actual terminology being used, it's what the terminology was being used to describe, you took it there for some unknown reason for what was seemingly a failed attempt at a gotcha moment that fell flat on it's face.

There are things you can argue Foster is a "level up" or "country mile" ahead of Johnson in, and vice versa. No issue with that. Again, issue is what was being described as those things.

Hence why I challenged it and asked the poster to justify his position, of Foster being a level above Johnson, to which we got to the bottom of it. We literally did that by going back and forth on that exact topic, specifically the jab which is where we disagreed. Whereby I broke down the reason why his jab is better, from a skillset standpoint, using multiple specific fights and why that was the case. Which is the tip of the iceberg. Dee did the same back and we got to a common ground on it and realized it was a case of miscommunication more so than anything else. So no, you saying I didn't provide any context is wrong, that's exactly what I did multiple times. You constantly make this claim in every thread when IT'S RIGHT THERE on a public forum for everyone to see all whilst yourself being the one who actually provides no analysis or breakdown of any kind and just repeats the same nonsense again despite the fact opposing analysis has been provided.

I can make a day of breaking down Harold Johnson's fights, I could do that in my sleep. I already had to correct you and the other retard once about your mistake in regards to him and Moore only having four fights when they had five.

[JAB5239]

I didn't ask for a definition of anything. You've again, just made that up because you can't seem to understand almost anything when you attempt to read it.

Your attempt at a point is dumb and doesn't make sense. You seemingly have some kind of issue with something I'm not even saying. You're essentially saying I can't disagree with someone saying someone is a "level up" in a specific way because I said Johnson is a "country mile" ahead of Foster in a specific way. Are the under the impression that's a contradiction? Because t's not.

The issue was never the actual terminology being used, it's what the terminology was being used to describe, you took it there for some unknown reason for what was seemingly a failed attempt at a gotcha moment that fell flat on it's face.

There are things you can argue Foster is a "level up" or "country mile" ahead of Johnson in, and vice versa. No issue with that. Again, issue is what was being described as those things.

Hence why I challenged it and asked the poster to justify his position, of Foster being a level above Johnson, to which we got to the bottom of it. We literally did that by going back and forth on that exact topic, specifically the jab which is where we disagreed. Whereby I broke down the reason why his jab is better, from a skillset standpoint, using multiple specific fights and why that was the case. Which is the tip of the iceberg. Dee did the same back and we got to a common ground on it and realized it was a case of miscommunication more so than anything else. So no, you saying I didn't provide any context is wrong, that's exactly what I did multiple times. You constantly make this claim in every thread when IT'S RIGHT THERE on a public forum for everyone to see all whilst yourself being the one who actually provides no analysis or breakdown of any kind and just repeats the same nonsense again despite the fact opposing analysis has been provided.

I can make a day of breaking down Harold Johnson's fights, I could do that in my sleep. I already had to correct you and the other retard once about your mistake in regards to him and Moore only having four fights when they had five.

Ok.