How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

[Mendoza]

How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters all time greats at light heavyweight! Take the poll. I thought the Liston thread was a success, however I get the hunch some posters voted 1 or 10 for personal reasons. You can vote however you choose this time, but it’s a public thread.

The ten fighters are:

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sam Langford
Jack Dillion
Tommy Loughran
Gene Tunney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster
Mike Spinks
Roy Jones

[McGrain]

I voted for 7.

The ones I think he would lose to are Langford, Charles and Spinks. I think that Jones and Tunney are around 50/50 but I lean towards Moore.

[Mendoza]

I voted for 7.

The ones I think he would lose to are Langford, Charles and Spinks. I think that Jones and Tunney are around 50/50 but I lean towards Moore.

Intersting. If you think Morre likely losses three, and the other two are close to " 50/50 ", it is unlikely he wins both of the " 50/50 matches ". It might be best to say he wins one of the 50/50 matches, and vote for " 6 ".

[McGrain]

Intersting. If you think Morre likely losses three, and the other two are close to " 50/50 ", it is unlikely he wins both of the " 50/50 matches ". It might be best to say he wins one of the 50/50 matches, and vote for " 6 ".

Statistically you are undoubtedly correct - i based my vote upon which fighter I would be leaning towards on the respective fight-nights, and all things being equal I would go for Moore in these fights.

[PowerPuncher]

I'd go for 4-5

Bob Fitzsimmons - Moore probably slicker but this is a 50-50 with Fitz amazing power and Archies chin

Sam Langford - Langfords pressure and compact punching would get to Moore imo.

Jack Dillion - Moore UD

Tommy Loughran - Moore UD, that little bit better

Gene Tunney - I'd edge towards Tunney UD but a true battle of slick boxing where Moore

Maxie Rosenbloom - Moore UD

Ezzard Charles - Charles wins AGAIN

Bob Foster - 50-50 KO either way, edge towards Moore, maybe both get kd'ed

Mike Spinks - Spinks UD

Roy Jones - Jones makes Moore look like Toney

[McGrain]

Bob Fitzsimmons - Moore probably slicker but this is a 50-50 with Fitz amazing power and Archies chin

Of course power was only part of Fitz's lethal equation. It also seems he was very clever about bringing people onto those shots, controlling the space. Here he is in with a fighter who is likely to be able to out-smart him. I think Moore has the smarts to stay out of trouble for the UD.

Roy Jones - Jones makes Moore look like Toney

I could see why Jones might be a reasonable pick over Moore but with Moore's edge in power-chin ration at this weight the fight would have to go an awful lot like you've suggested for Jones to win - and I don't see it. Jones made a weight-drained Toney look pretty bad but Moore is to smart to get involved in that kind of action IMO. Once again I think that Moore's smarts could save him from that kind of loss. If he can bring Jones onto him he can stop him. I think he could do it.

[Manassa]

Nine! But only if he wasn't affected by the wear and tear of each fight, and if Moore was at his peak. And by saying he'd 'win' them, I mean I would favour him. Moore might be 80/20 over Bob Fitzsimmons but 60/40 over Gene Tunney.

[Holmes' Jab]

5 or 6.

I'd give Langford, Charles, Spinks, Jones and Tunney all a good chance of defeating him (though it wouldn't be easy by any stretch).

Moore beats the others at LHW, although Fitz's power might just prove an equaliser in their matchup.

[Minotauro]

I think he would win all besides Charles, Langford, Jones (terrible match stylistically for Moore) and maybe Tunney although I would favor Moore slightly.

[janitor]

The two who would give him the most trouble are Jack Dillon and Ezzard Charles.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Of course power was only part of Fitz's lethal equation. It also seems he was very clever about bringing people onto those shots, controlling the space. Here he is in with a fighter who is likely to be able to out-smart him. I think Moore has the smarts to stay out of trouble for the UD.

2. I could see why Jones might be a reasonable pick over Moore but with Moore's edge in power-chin ration at this weight the fight would have to go an awful lot like you've suggested for Jones to win - and I don't see it. Jones made a weight-drained Toney look pretty bad but Moore is to smart to get involved in that kind of action IMO. Once again I think that Moore's smarts could save him from that kind of loss. If he can bring Jones onto him he can stop him. I think he could do it.

I seriously think Moore is 1 of the most overrated P4P fighters ever based on his longevity. His performance against the very best seems to come up short time and again and he lost to many smaller fighters. Yes he is an excellent fighter but a class lower than the ultra elite of the sport

1. I'm not an expert on Fitz, he was an excellent fighter by all means.

2. RJJ did have a habit of making very good fighters look a class below. And RJJ would be every bit the puncher in this fight as Moore was.

Why do people talk about RJJs chin and neglect to mention Moores chin problems? Moore was ko'd 7 times, including ko losses in his prime and ko'd by Bivins, Booker, Morrow, Charles, Patterson, Marciano. RJJ hit harder than most of these and his speed and accuracy means he will land more.

[Mendoza]

I seriously think Moore is 1 of the most overrated P4P fighters ever based on his longevity. His performance against the very best seems to come up short time and again and he lost to many smaller fighters. Yes he is an excellent fighter but a class lower than the ultra elite of the sport

1. I'm not an expert on Fitz, he was an excellent fighter by all means.

2. RJJ did have a habit of making very good fighters look a class below. And RJJ would be every bit the puncher in this fight as Moore was.

Why do people talk about RJJs chin and neglect to mention Moores chin problems? Moore was ko'd 7 times, including ko losses in his prime and ko'd by Bivins, Booker, Morrow, Charles, Patterson, Marciano. RJJ hit harder than most of these and his speed and accuracy means he will land more.


Fair points. Fitz, Foster, Jones, Langford, and Spinks hit just as hard as or harder than some guys who put Moore down and out. Moore could very well lose some of these matches by knockout.

I think Moore wins about 5 or 6 matches here. None of the matches would be easy for Moore.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fair points. Fitz, Foster, Jones, Langford, and Spinks hit just as hard as or harder than some guys who put Moore down and out. Moore could very well lose some of these matches by knockout.

I think Moore wins about 5 or 6 matches here. None of the matches would be easy for Moore.

The opposite is also true of everyone except Spinks. Moore hit as hard or harder than men who ko'd Fitz, Foster, Jones, and Langford. And Spinks did not meet nearly as many tough punchers as Moore and Langford did.

I picked Langford, Tunney, Charles, and Spinks to beat Moore, and I think that he should be the underdog against Tunney and Charles. Langford, though, is a very close call. His record is as speckled with defeats as Moore's and in the end Moore's winning and knockout percentages were considerably better, even discarding all the NC and draws on Langford's record. I judge Moore as having a real good chance with Langford.

[mattdonnellon]

beats loughran, Rosenbloom. dillion, foster,
loses to Fitz, langford, Tunney, Charles, Jones(?) spinks....
or all ten could be the other way around. Damn, this was hard.

[McGrain]

Why do people talk about RJJs chin and neglect to mention Moores chin problems? Moore was ko'd 7 times, including ko losses in his prime and ko'd by Bivins, Booker, Morrow, Charles, Patterson, Marciano. RJJ hit harder than most of these and his speed and accuracy means he will land more.

Much of what you say is true but what must be said is that Moore literally dozens of contests with top 1% opposition. Jones had, what - arguably one? Count weight-drained Toney for two. Of course he was KO'd a few times.

Moore is the puncher in this fight. He is the all-time KO king fighting at his best weight. Jones is an all time talented slickster fighting one weight above his best, the same weight where he was KO'd by fighters a whole level below the guys who KO'd Moore.

I don't object to your pick - Jones is a monster H2H, and anyone claiming to be 100% sure about this one on fight night is a mook - but I do think you underestimate Moore a little bit.

Have another look at him when you get time.

[PowerPuncher]

Much of what you say is true but what must be said is that Moore literally dozens of contests with top 1% opposition. Jones had, what - arguably one? Count weight-drained Toney for two. Of course he was KO'd a few times.

Moore is the puncher in this fight. He is the all-time KO king fighting at his best weight. Jones is an all time talented slickster fighting one weight above his best, the same weight where he was KO'd by fighters a whole level below the guys who KO'd Moore.

I don't object to your pick - Jones is a monster H2H, and anyone claiming to be 100% sure about this one on fight night is a mook - but I do think you underestimate Moore a little bit.

Have another look at him when you get time.

People are pretty hard on RJJs comp, lets look

Toney - ATG

BHOPs - ATG

McCallum - ATG

Virgil Hill - ATG? Top LHW stopped in 4 by RJJ, went 12 with Darius Michouski (sp)

Tarver (won the first) - allot of wins over contenders cleaning out 175 before he fought RJJ first time

Ruiz - top5 HW of the 00s

Montel Griffin - undefeated excellent fighter beat in 1 by RJJ

Reggie Johnson - 2 weight champ, went to an SD with Toney - easily dominated

Gonzalez - beat Darius Michauseski (sp)

Hall - beat comprehensively, arguably robbed against Darius Michauski (sp)

Harding - RJJ stops the man fresh from a win over Tarver

Woods - current champ with wins over Glen Johnson, Gonzalez, Hoye

Del Valle - WBA champ, easily beaten

Otis GRant - WBO Middleweight champ in his prime dominated and stopped

Malinga - beat Nigel Benn once (many say he was robbed in the first fight), went to an SD against Chris Eubank beat a few champs, robbed a few times

Tate - ko'd in 2, went 12 with ATG puncher Julian Jackson

Paziana - 2 weight champ, fresh off wins over an old duran, ko'd in 6 easily

Thornton - ko'd in 3, took Toney and Eubank 12 (both punchers).

Brannon - undefeated contender, excellent pressure fighter (video on this)

Sosa - beat 2 champion - Glen Johnson and 2 weight champ Charles Williams

People say RJJ would not be able to handle pressure fighters. I urge everyone to watch the Brannon fight:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[McGrain]

Toney - ATG

Yep. But Toney was horribely weight-drained and no rematch. Jones is better than Toney but arematch would have done him good.

BHOPs - ATG

His best win.

McCallum - ATG

Borderline.

Virgil Hill - ATG? Top LHW stopped in 4 by RJJ, went 12 with Darius Michouski (sp)

No. Not for me.


I think you're right, people are hard on Jones' competition. But Moore fought by far the better fighters and as a result he has more losses.

[Drew101]

Bob Fitzsimmons~ Fitz obviously has the puncher's chance, but I think Moore's cool and edge in terms of skill sees him through some rough spots to score a late KO.

Sam Langford~ Two pretty similar approaches, actually. 50/50, but, Moore generally displayed a higher workrate, which might make him more likely to secure a decision in a close fight.

Jack Dillion~ Moore's height advantage, plus his educated jab, allows him to dictate the pace to secure a decision.

Tommy Loughran~ Loughran beats a lot of people with his jab and legs. But, as Moore showed against Johnson, it takes more than that to beat Moore.

Gene Tunney~ Tough fight to pick, but I get the feeling Moore pulls out a close decision, based on superior power, and equally sound defensive ability.

Maxie Rosenbloom ~ Moore doesn't stop him, but he wins.

Ezzard Charles~ It happened three times, when Moore was approaching his peak. Three times he lost. Charles vexes Moore, even at his peak, and pulls out a close win.

Bob Foster~ Foster was a pretty sound boxer when he had to be, and he kept his power throughout the fight. I say he scores a come from behind victory late.

Mike Spinks~ I think Spinks' versatility, and power, enable him to pull out the close decision.

Roy Jones~ Kind of the opposite of my Foster pick. I could see Jones easily leading the fight, but Moore breaking him down with bodyshots, and landing something big to pull out the late round kayo.

So...7 out of 10. Not too shabby at all.

[PowerPuncher]

Yep. But Toney was horribely weight-drained and no rematch. Jones is better than Toney but arematch would have done him good.

BHOPS - His best win.

McCallum - Borderline.

Hill - No. Not for me.

I think you're right, people are hard on Jones' competition. But Moore fought by far the better fighters and as a result he has more losses.

I disagree, Moore has more losses because he wasn't as good as RJJ, he fought allot but few were elite.

Toney did not deserve a rematch after losing every round. He would have got a rematch if he didnt lose to Montell Griffin and others

BHOPS best win? Maybe but not his best performance

McCallum - definately an ATG BUT OLD. Then again McCallum aged like BHOPs

Hill - probably not but better than most fighters Moore ever faced

[Marciano Frazier]

I voted 7. Although Moore hadn't reached his best yet when they fought, Charles did beat him all three times, so he has to be given the edge head-to-head, I though Moore-Langford was pretty even or maybe a slight edge to Langford, and I figured that with such a formidable roster he'd probably lose one or two along the line against the other eight, so 7 came across as the fairest total.

[Marciano Frazier]

I disagree, Moore has more losses because he wasn't as good as RJJ, he fought allot but few were elite.
Few elite fighters?!?!?!? Let's see, here... from the early 1940s all the way through the early '60s, he fought the following future Hall-of-Fame opponents(I may have forgotten a couple somewhere in here):
Eddie Booker(three times), Charley Burley, Holman Williams(twice), Lloyd Marshall(twice), Ezzard Charles(three times), Joey Maxim(three times), Jimmy Bivins(five times), Clarence Henry, Harold Johnson(five times), Bobo Olsen, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Willie Pastrano, and Muhammad Ali.
I count 30 fights against future Hall-of-Fame opponents, out of 220 listed for him on boxrec. That means that a little under one in every seven of Moore's fights was against a future Hall-of-Fame opponent. All of this is just Hall-of-Famers, again, mind you- I'm not even going into the plethora of other quality contenders he fought all the way from middleweight to heavyweight over a span of 25+ years. In short, it doesn't get much more ignorant than saying Archie Moore fought few elite fighters.
Further, from mid-1949 through mid-1960, a rund of 80 fights which I consider to more or less encompass his prime(I'd say he really reached his peak in the early '50s and started declining in about '58, but a few years around the borders can be included), Moore was 75-3-2, and the only losses were to Harold Johnson(who he beat four times out of five), Marciano and Patterson, all of whom were definitely elite fighters. The wins included seven over future Hall-of-Fame opponents. Note his win-loss record is every bit as good as Jones' here, and in the three losses, we have two to great heavyweight champions, and one against a great light heavyweight champion who he fought five times(if Jones had had to fight Hopkins and Toney five times, I suspect he'd lose one to them, too). And their win resumes? Moore blows him away.

[Mendoza]

Few elite fighters?!?!?!? Let's see, here... from the early 1940s all the way through the early '60s, he fought the following future Hall-of-Fame opponents(I may have forgotten a couple somewhere in here):
Eddie Booker(three times), Charley Burley, Holman Williams(twice), Lloyd Marshall(twice), Ezzard Charles(three times), Joey Maxim(three times), Jimmy Bivins(five times), Clarence Henry, Harold Johnson(five times), Bobo Olsen, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Willie Pastrano, and Muhammad Ali.
I count 30 fights against future Hall-of-Fame opponents, out of 220 listed for him on boxrec. That means that a little under one in every seven of Moore's fights was against a future Hall-of-Fame opponent. All of this is just Hall-of-Famers, again, mind you- I'm not even going into the plethora of other quality contenders he fought all the way from middleweight to heavyweight over a span of 25+ years. In short, it doesn't get much more ignorant than saying Archie Moore fought few elite fighters.
Further, from mid-1949 through mid-1960, a rund of 80 fights which I consider to more or less encompass his prime(I'd say he really reached his peak in the early '50s and started declining in about '58, but a few years around the borders can be included), Moore was 75-3-2, and the only losses were to Harold Johnson(who he beat four times out of five), Marciano and Patterson, all of whom were definitely elite fighters. The wins included seven over future Hall-of-Fame opponents. Note his win-loss record is every bit as good as Jones' here, and in the three losses, we have two to great heavyweight champions, and one against a great light heavyweight champion who he fought five times(if Jones had had to fight Hopkins and Toney five times, I suspect he'd lose one to them, too). And their win resumes? Moore blows him away.

Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.

After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers. For my money Spinks, Tunney, and maybe Roy Jones hit nearly as hard or harder than Charles and Bivins. Spinks, and Tunney had top Chins. Jones did not have a good chin, but he had the best speed and skills at 175.

Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.

Many of the other matches are close 40/60 or 60/40 for Moore, which is why I can't see Archie winning 7 or more. I think " 5 " or " 6 " makes sense for me. These threads to me are interesting. I plan on doing a middle weight next.

[PowerPuncher]

Few elite fighters?!?!?!? Let's see, here... from the early 1940s all the way through the early '60s, he fought the following future Hall-of-Fame opponents(I may have forgotten a couple somewhere in here):
Eddie Booker(three times), Charley Burley, Holman Williams(twice), Lloyd Marshall(twice), Ezzard Charles(three times), Joey Maxim(three times), Jimmy Bivins(five times), Clarence Henry, Harold Johnson(five times), Bobo Olsen, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Willie Pastrano, and Muhammad Ali.
.

If you look at those hall of famers, it isn't very impressive, because he came up short against the very best he faced

Fighters who dominated Moore

Ali - completely dominated and stopped

MArciano - dominated and stopped

Patterson - dominated and stopped

Charles - beaten 3 out of 3

Burley - The Welterweight beat him twice, knocking him out and beating him on points knocking him down 4 TIMES!!!

Fighter he lost of went level with

Booker - knocked out, being put down 4 times. Drew the other 2 going down another 2 times

Holman Williams - 1-1

Pastrano - draw

Fighters he beat

Harold Johnson - won the series 4-1 - best wins? But not much of a puncher

Maxim - 3 wins near the end of his career against a weaker champion. Maxim was ofcourse Charles left overs. He go a gift decision against Patterson and got the W over SRR due to SRR collapsing with heat exhaustion rather than Maxim actually giving the man a beating

Lloyd Marshall - 2 good wins

Olsen - good win against a smaller man

Henry - fringe contender

Bivins - 4-1 fringe contender coming off allot of recent losses and probably past prime. Bivins won the first fight by KO when he was probably nearer to his prime.

Moore definately fought the best of his time, but he came up short against the very best of his time. Also the quality of many of these fighters is overrated (obviously excluding a few)

[rydersonthestorm]

Why do people start on about jones chin being weak, he got old fast and didn't have his chin tested in his prime so how can people say it was weak etc.

[McGrain]

I disagree, Moore has more losses because he wasn't as good as RJJ, he fought allot but few were elite.

My friend - coming from a guy who's defending Jones' record that is pretty rich. Here are the ATG tussles Moore had as I see it. It includes most of the black murderers row, some of the most ducked fighters of all time.

Eddie Booker (x3), Shorty Hogue (x4) Jach Chase (x4), Charley Burley, Lloyd Marhsall (x2), Jimmy Bivins (x3), Cocoa Kid, Holmean Williams (x3), Ezzard Charles (x3), Harolod Johnson (x2), Joey Maxim (x3), Bobo Olson, Rocky Marcinao, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali,

I'm not 100% on some of the numbers but you get the idea.

Of course Moore lost a few (20 something if memory serves), he also had some draws. Jones' is a world class talent and an ATG but he has problems in the chin department. It seems unlikely to me that Jones' record would be much better fighting Moore's opposition to Moore's schedule. Jones resume would look something like this:

Joe Calzaghe (x3), Bernard Hopkins (x4), James Toney (x2), Nigel Benn (x4), Micheal Watson, Chris Eubank (x3), Sven Ottke, Iran Barkely, Lennox Lewis, Evander Hollyfield.

Plus some others, plus all the "contenders" he did beat.



Toney did not deserve a rematch after losing every round. He would have got a rematch if he didnt lose to Montell Griffin and others

Perhaps. But it has still served to hurt Jones' legacy that rematches with Toney and Hopkins were never made.

[McGrain]

Why do people start on about jones chin being weak, he got old fast and didn't have his chin tested in his prime so how can people say it was weak etc.

Because he got KTFO by two good punchers. Chins don't get old. Reaction time slows and workrate slows making a fighter more likely to get hit. This, as you say, is why he didn't have his chin tested in prime (although I actually think he did get cracked a few times).

[rydersonthestorm]

Yes but the shot tarver hit him with was conisdered by many to be a lucky but big shot, i conisder shots like that as different as alot of boxers with great chin canbe put out by shots like that. In regards to sying chins don't get old i don't see that as accurate some fighters chin gets better with age, some fighter's chins get worse.

[McGrain]

If you look at those hall of famers, it isn't very impressive, because he came up short against the very best he faced

Fighters who dominated Moore

Ali - completely dominated and stopped

Patterson

MArciano - dominated and stopped

Yes, all thes HEAVYWEIGHT (Moore started of in the same weight division as Jones remember) beat Moore. He was old and they are all ATG fighters


Charles - beaten 3 out of 3

Indeed. The version of Charles Moore got is arguably the best fighter who ever lived. Moore isn't that good. I wonder how Jones would do against this guy three times (probably better actually - I think he's difficult stylistily - but the fact is we'll never know. Jones never came close to this level of comp).

Burley - The Welterweight beat him twice, knocking him out and beating him on points knocking him down 4 TIMES!!!

This has freaked me out a little bit because I have Burley fighting Moore only once. You sure they fought twice?




Booker - knocked out, being put down 4 times. Drew the other 2 going down another 2 times

Holman Williams - 1-1

Again, ATG fighters. What series of Jones' do we compare with these efforts? Which great fighters did he take on on multiple occasions for a valid comparison? None, but he did fight Tarver three times.

[McGrain]

Yes but the shot tarver hit him with was conisdered by many to be a lucky but big shot, i conisder shots like that as different as alot of boxers with great chin canbe put out by shots like that. In regards to sying chins don't get old i don't see that as accurate some fighters chin gets better with age, some fighter's chins get worse.

There are no lucky shots in boxing IMO. Are you saying that Jones had a "great chin"? Or do you think that Jones' chin was suspect?

Fighters chins can get better with age because they're less likely to get "caught cold" (unprepared for an opponents power - see Ali v Cooper, then Frazier). But which fighters chins have got worse please?

[rydersonthestorm]

I am saying jones had a decent chin not amazing but not weak, half the people seem to make out he was glass jawed now becuase he got knocked out when he was past it, he semed to take ruiz shots ok a full blown heavyweight.
I also didn't say i conisdered the shot to be lucky, if you throw a punch and it lands it's not lucky, however against a prime roy that shot wouldn't have come within a foot of him.
You don' think that some fighters who take alot of punishment become more likely to be koed, also fighter's who where never koed then lose by ko are more likely to get koed in the future?
I conisder having a good chin as much about mentality as well as physcial ability.

[McGrain]

I am saying jones had a decent chin not amazing but not weak.

I agree with this surmise. But it becomes an issue when you're in with the very best, especially the very best punchers.

I also didn't say i conisdered the shot to be lucky, if you throw a punch and it lands it's not lucky, however against a prime roy that shot wouldn't have come within a foot of him.

I also tend to agree with this, although I'm sure you would agree that Tarver is no ATG.

You don' think that some fighters who take alot of punishment become more likely to be koed, also fighter's who where never koed then lose by ko are more likely to get koed in the future?

Yes and yes, but it tends to be because of diminishing returns on training and deterioration of reflexes. It is possible for a fighter to be brain damaged and more susceptable to punches, but I don't think this was the case with Roy.

I conisder having a good chin as much about mentality as well as physcial ability.

Only in so much as a fighter might not be training as hard as he should have been due to a lack of mental commitment during his preperation, which is probably the single most common factor you'll enocunter in surprise loses.

[rydersonthestorm]

I think it was to do with his reflexs and his mentality against johnson, before he lost to tarver he conisdered himself unbeatable and a loss like that damages any fighters confidence and i think makes him more likely to be koed. To be fair though we tend to pretty much agree with most points so far.

[PowerPuncher]

My friend - coming from a guy who's defending Jones' record that is pretty rich. Here are the ATG tussles Moore had as I see it. It includes most of the black murderers row, some of the most ducked fighters of all time.

Eddie Booker (x3), Shorty Hogue (x4) Jach Chase (x4), Charley Burley, Lloyd Marhsall (x2), Jimmy Bivins (x3), Cocoa Kid, Holmean Williams (x3), Ezzard Charles (x3), Harolod Johnson (x2), Joey Maxim (x3), Bobo Olson, Rocky Marcinao, Floyd Patterson, Muhammad Ali,

I'm not 100% on some of the numbers but you get the idea. .

Lets compare RJJs comp to Moores black murderers row & other comp because Moores isn't much better if at all. I've compared the most comparable opponents on their respective records:

Charles-BHOPs
Maxim-Virgil Hill
Harold Johnson-Tarver
Bobo Olsen-Reggie Johnson
Bivins-McCallum
Burley-Trinidad
Holman Williams - Griffin
Valdes-Ruiz
Cocoa Kid-Pazienza
Marshall - Gonzalez
Chase -Hall/Harding
Williams-Woods/Mallinger

As mentioned Moore lost against the best fighters he faced. The black murderers row are excellent as a group but so are RJJ, Toney BHOPs, McCallum, Tarver, Virgil Hill, Trinidad

RJJs legacy isn't affected in the slightest for not getting rematches with Toney or RJJ. BHOPs ducked the rematch for years and he won every round against Toney whos career proceeded to take a nose dive

[McGrain]

[quote]Charles-BHOPs

Charles is an ATG LHW, and all time p4p #1 contender. BHOP is an all time great MW. Not a good comparison for roy.

Harold Johnson-Tarver
Bivins-McCallum

Clear water in terms of quality in favour of Archie.

Burley-Trinidad

Burley took out contenders at LHW and numerous ATG MW's, and stopped at least two HW's. Trinidad failed miserabley at MW. This is not a good comparison for Roy.

Holman Williams - Griffin

Holman Williams is, in my opinion, one of the greatest fighters ever to draw breath. Griffin really isn't. Not a good comparison for Roy.


Cocoa Kid-Pazienza
Marshall - Gonzalez
Chase -Hall/Harding

These are all really bad comparisons in terms of quality in my opinion. Cocoa Kid, Marshall, Chase, these are some of the most avoided, feared fighters in history. The guys on the other end of the see-saw aren't even in the class of the men who ducked these guys.

As mentioned Moore lost against the best fighters he faced.

As did Wills. Moore fought at a consistantly higher level than Roy, fought more frequently than Roy, fought to a more advance age than Roy has jet reached. I wonder if there is any point in his career where he would have lost 2/3 to Tarver.

RJJs legacy isn't affected in the slightest for not getting rematches with Toney or RJJ. BHOPs ducked the rematch for years and he won every round against Toney whos career proceeded to take a nose dive

I disagree. The fact that he didn't rematch either of those guys is often raised on the forums and in print. That's as clear an inditment of his decision not to rematch as one can find.

I like Jones. I like watching him fight, I rate him. I pick him H2H over some of my favourite fighters (including my very favourite, Charley Burley), but the comparison of Moore's competition to Roy's is an absolute non-starter.

[PowerPuncher]

There are no lucky shots in boxing IMO. Are you saying that Jones had a "great chin"? Or do you think that Jones' chin was suspect?

Fighters chins can get better with age because they're less likely to get "caught cold" (unprepared for an opponents power - see Ali v Cooper, then Frazier). But which fighters chins have got worse please?

Fighters do lose their chin and punch resistance with age, partly due to being easier to tag with BIG shots. See RJJs rival Michalczewski as he got ko'd by Tiozzo in his last fight

Regardless of that its unlikely RJJ would take many of Moores shots. RJJ will land easier and Moore showed a dodgy chin in his prime

[McGrain]

Fighters do lose their chin and punch resistance with age, partly due to being easier to tag with BIG shots.

Yeah, that's basically what I said, the easier to tag with BIG shots bit anyway.

Michalczewski

I can never spell this guys name, that's why I didn't put him in the Jones imagined resume.

Regardless of that its unlikely RJJ would take many of Moores shots. RJJ will land easier and Moore showed a dodgy chin in his prime

The KO king would be rellying upon smarts to slow the action down and bring Jones onto his punches. He was the absolute master at this. Interesting intangibles for this fight. The longer it goes the better for Moore.

[PowerPuncher]

[quote=PowerPuncher]
1. Charles is an ATG LHW, and all time p4p #1 contender. BHOP is an all time great MW. Not a good comparison for roy.

2. Clear water in terms of quality in favour of Archie. (Harold Johnson-Tarver, Bivins-McCallum)

3. Burley took out contenders at LHW and numerous ATG MW's, and stopped at least two HW's. Trinidad failed miserabley at MW. This is not a good comparison for Roy.

4. Holman Williams is, in my opinion, one of the greatest fighters ever to draw breath. Griffin really isn't. Not a good comparison for Roy.

5. These are all really bad comparisons in terms of quality in my opinion. Cocoa Kid, Marshall, Chase, these are some of the most avoided, feared fighters in history. The guys on the other end of the see-saw aren't even in the class of the men who ducked these guys.

6. As did Wills. Moore fought at a consistantly higher level than Roy, fought more frequently than Roy, fought to a more advance age than Roy has jet reached. I wonder if there is any point in his career where he would have lost 2/3 to Tarver.
..

1. 2 elite fighters not much seperation, RJJ beat BHOPs at 160. Moore got whooped 3 times by Charles

2. I don't see how its clear water, McCallum is the best P4P & prime for prime from those by far. Bivins was pretty much shot when Moore got to him and coming off numerous losses. Tarver has as good wins as either

3. Trinidad and Burley are both natural Welters. AND Moore lost BOTH fights to Burley- no credit for this

4. Better yes, Griffin was top draw

5. Cocoa Kid was about 50, a natural lightweight and on a losing streak when Moore got to him. Thats why I compared him to the younger ex-lightweight in Paziana - its about as impressive as RJJ fighting Duran who Paziana beat

6. Moore lost series to far inferior fighters to a Prime Tarver. Moore obviously has better longevity than RJJ but prime for prime Moore isn't in RJJs league. Yes Moore fought more often. Quantity does not equal Quality.

Moore was basically a consistantly very good fighter. However he isn't top30 P4P of all time and the fact many have him in the top 15 of all time is laughable. Prime for prime RJJ would beat him and look relatively easy doing it.

[Manassa]

Harold Johnson was a fair bit better than anyone Jones faced.

[McGrain]

1. 2 elite fighters not much seperation, RJJ beat BHOPs at 160. Moore got whooped 3 times by Charles

Peak Charles would probably beat B-Hop 10/10 what with being a natrally bigger sharp shooting combination puncher - so I'll disagree with you about "not much seperation". The win/loss diferetial makes for interesting reading though.

2. I don't see how its clear water, McCallum is the best P4P & prime for prime from those by far. Bivins was pretty much shot when Moore got to him and coming off numerous losses. Tarver has as good wins as either

Moore's series with Bivins started when Bivins was at peak and ended when Bivins was past his peak. So "pretty much shot" is stretching things a bit.

3. Trinidad and Burley are both natural Welters. AND Moore lost BOTH fights to Burley- no credit for this

Are you using Boxrec for Burley's record? I really am sure that Moore and Burley didn't fight twice.

Yes both are natural welters. Yes Burley is by far the better fighter. If we're comparing Jones' competition to Moore's (as opposed to assigning credit for wins in relation to your original claim about Moore's competition) it's another one where Moore comes of well.

4. Better yes, Griffin was top draw

I'm not getting you. You think Griffin was better than Holman Williams?

5. Cocoa Kid was about 50, a natural lightweight and on a losing streak when Moore got to him. Thats why I compared him to the younger ex-lightweight in Paziana - its about as impressive as RJJ fighting Duran who Paziana beat

Cocoa was coming to the end of his career for sure. But he has a decision win right before or right after the Moore fight (I forget), same year for sure. This proves he was still mixing in ATG comp, and winning, when Moore beat him. Was Paziana doing so when Jones got him?

6. Moore lost series to far inferior fighters to a Prime Tarver.

Who?!

However he isn't top30 P4P of all time and the fact many have him in the top 15 of all time is laughable.

Some, of course, have him top 5.

Prime for prime RJJ would beat him and look relatively easy doing it.

A bold bold claim given that the only man who made it look easy was Burley (one of thebest ever) and Charles the first time (one of the best ever).

[rydersonthestorm]

I fancy jones to beat him but it would be far from an easy night, i don't think most people would have an easy time with moore.

[Mendoza]

Lets compare RJJs comp to Moores black murderers row & other comp because Moores isn't much better if at all. I've compared the most comparable opponents on their respective records:

Charles-BHOPs
Maxim-Virgil Hill
Harold Johnson-Tarver
Bobo Olsen-Reggie Johnson
Bivins-McCallum
Burley-Trinidad
Holman Williams - Griffin
Valdes-Ruiz
Cocoa Kid-Pazienza
Marshall - Gonzalez
Chase -Hall/Harding
Williams-Woods/Mallinger

As mentioned Moore lost against the best fighters he faced. The black murderers row are excellent as a group but so are RJJ, Toney BHOPs, McCallum, Tarver, Virgil Hill, Trinidad

RJJs legacy isn't affected in the slightest for not getting rematches with Toney or RJJ. BHOPs ducked the rematch for years and he won every round against Toney whos career proceeded to take a nose dive

Interesting stuff. Roy Jones seems a bit under rated by modern historians. Some Historians don’t see Jones as a top ten all time great at 175 pounds. I do. Those who do not point to Jones two one-punch KO losses, and his problem with substance abuse.

Jones was not only boxing best pound for pound fighter for a while, he was one heck of a fight manager. Jones picked too many low risk average legacy reward type of fights.

I do think Moore's competition at 160 and 175 was superior to Jones, however as you pointed out Moore was hit or miss vs the best he fought at this weight, while Jones was a winner nearly ever time until old age caught up to him.

[brownpimp88]

I'm glad most think spinks would beat him cuz IMO, he would.

[C. M. Clay II]

I think Charles and Jones would beat him. Spinks would be 50/50. Other than that he beats the rest.:good

[Dempsey1238]

cant belive you guys dont give Loughran much of a chance. Loughran has speed and a hard chin over Archie, Tommy is going to be a HARD man to catch. I make that fight 50 50 about. Loughran had more than a jab and speed. He was good at countering, was a great inside fighter as he show vs Walker, he was as close to Gene Tunney as one man can be imo.

[PowerPuncher]

1. Peak Charles would probably beat B-Hop 10/10 what with being a natrally bigger sharp shooting combination puncher - so I'll disagree with you about "not much seperation". The win/loss diferetial makes for interesting reading though.

2. Moore's series with Bivins started when Bivins was at peak and ended when Bivins was past his peak. So "pretty much shot" is stretching things a bit.

3. Are you using Boxrec for Burley's record? I really am sure that Moore and Burley didn't fight twice.

4. Yes both are natural welters. Yes Burley is by far the better fighter. If we're comparing Jones' competition to Moore's (as opposed to assigning credit for wins in relation to your original claim about Moore's competition) it's another one where Moore comes of well.

5. I'm not getting you. You think Griffin was better than Holman Williams?

6. Cocoa was coming to the end of his career for sure. But he has a decision win right before or right after the Moore fight (I forget), same year for sure. This proves he was still mixing in ATG comp, and winning, when Moore beat him. Was Paziana doing so when Jones got him?

7. Moore lost series to far inferior fighters to a Prime Tarver. Who?!

8. Some, of course, have him top 5.

9. A bold bold claim given that the only man who made it look easy was Burley (one of thebest ever) and Charles the first time (one of the best ever).

1. Yes I'd pick Charles, but 10 out of 10? They're both great fighters (the same size - BHOPs started at 175, Charles started at 160). THE DIFFERENCE - RJJ won Moore lost 3times

2. Bivins started his bad losing streak before Moore beat him. Before that he was on a massive winnign streak. Doesn't that indicate he got Bivins at the right time?

3. OOPS my mistake

4. Maybe he is the better fighter, I find the thought of RJJ losing to any welter hard to fathom. SRR been an exception and I'd still pick RJJ

5. No, I'm saying hes good comp

6. It was Cocoas 7th loss in 12 months.

7. Shorty Hogue for 1

8. Better than SRR, Charles, Grebb, Armstrong, SRL? He shouldn't be ahead of Marciano - they both weighed the same.

9. Well the similarly sized and styled Patterson beat Moore very comprehensively. There wasn't any fighter quite like RJJ - no one else beat the similar Toney that emphatically either.

[Marciano Frazier]

Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.
Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.
Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.
I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

[McGrain]

THE DIFFERENCE - RJJ won Moore lost 3times

I accapt that - when we started, I thought we were discussing the level of competition that both men engaged throughout their careers and how it compared. Comparing their best wins is a different argument (might be fun though :hey )


2. Bivins started his bad losing streak before Moore beat him. Before that he was on a massive winnign streak. Doesn't that indicate he got Bivins at the right time?

Yeah, Bivins lost to Walcott and Charles before Moore beat him the first time, you are right. However,if memory serves, Bivins had wins over Shepard and Oakland Billy Smith within months of his loss to Moore - so I won't accept your original premis that he was shot. The Bivins win is an excellent win for Moore.


3. OOPS my mistake

Is that fucking Boxrex?!

4. Maybe he is the better fighter, I find the thought of RJJ losing to any welter hard to fathom. SRR been an exception and I'd still pick RJJ

Again, the argument isn't about who has the better wins (or the worsT losses which is also debateable) but who fought the better comp. Trinidad is not comparable to Burley for me. Burley is one of the best ever (just my opinion of course) and Trinidad is a good fighter who failed in moving up. I agree with you about a Welter beating Jones, but if I was going to pick a man to do the job it would be the guy you mentioned, Sugar, or this guy here, Burley.

6. It was Cocoas 7th loss in 12 months.

...boxrec? :hey

OK, I understand. And you are right in your point of view that Cocoa Kid was at the end of his career and Moore would be expected to win. But I stand by my original point. Kid was beating ATG fighters within weeks of taking on Moore. ATG.

7. Shorty Hogue for 1

Hogue has wins over Booker (who I would pick to beat Tarver 100/100) and Lloyd Marshall (100/100) as well as Moore - he was a patchy and freakish talent and he was fighting in Calafornia at a time when fighters were expected to lose in order to recieve their paycheck - now this impacts his wins as well as his losses. He is a difficult subject, but if you're sure of his inferiority to Tarver you're sure of a hell of a lot more than I am, as well as privy to some raw date i've never seen.

8. Better than SRR, Charles, Grebb, Armstrong, SRL? He shouldn't be ahead of Marciano - they both weighed the same.

No, not for me, my point was that your complaint of Moore's overatedness wasn't strong enough. I've seen him at the very very top of all time lists. He didn't weigh the same as Rocky for most of his career.

9. Well the similarly sized and styled Patterson beat Moore very comprehensively. There wasn't any fighter quite like RJJ - no one else beat the similar Toney that emphatically either.

Moore was well past prime at that point. He'd been in more total wars than most people had fights.

[Mendoza]

Mendoza :
Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.

Marciano_Fraizer : Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Mendoza: Good points, but we are only comparing Moore to the best ever. Like you said Moore's record from 1945-1948 was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition, and five losses coming to elite opposition.


Mendoza: After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.

Marciano_Frazier says: Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Menzoda: . From 1945-1948, he was Ko'd by Chalres, Bivins, and Morrow. He was knocked down by Bob Jacobs, knocked down by Marshall 3x, a 38-33 Curtis Sheppard knocked Moore down, down again vs Bivins in a fight he won, and down from Oakland Billy Smith. This is 3 Ko losses in three " prime years " and and additonal 7 knock downs suffred in fights he won. Chins don't get better over time. Moore's chin is suspect vs punchers. As I said before, this list has some big hitters. Moore is being matched against guys who hit has hard or harder than Charles or Bivins. Fitz, Langford, Foster, Jones, ect.....

As for Satterfield, I did not see that fight. It was short. Perhaps Moore caught the chinny Satterfield early and wasn't tested himself. The Sheppard win vs vs a guy who was 3-3 in his last six fights. Valdes was a bit gun shy from action at times.


Mendoza: Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.

Marciano_Frazier: I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

Mendoza: I have seen Moore in many fights. From memory they are: Maxim, Bivins, Smith, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Durelle 2x, and Johnson. It seems to me Archie Moore does best vs boxer types without a lot of power, and struggles a bit vs puncher types. Durelle was not that good, and he nearly had Moore out.

[janitor]

Jack Dillion~ Moore's height advantage, plus his educated jab, allows him to dictate the pace to secure a decision.


I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.

[Mendoza]

I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.

Dillion was tough as shoe leather, but I never saw him on film. Is there any film of Dillion?

[Marciano Frazier]

Mendoza :
Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.

Marciano_Fraizer : Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Mendoza: Good points, but we are only comparing Moore to the best ever. Like you said Moore's record from 1945-1948 was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition, and five losses coming to elite opposition.
Yes, but the whole point was that Moore's performance from 1945-1948 does not stack up at all with his performance from 1949-1960, against any level of opposition. Moore clearly and markedly improved after his losses to Charles and Bivins in '45-48, and hence they're not entirely valid as reference points to how a peak Moore does against great opponents, since a peak Moore did not lose to non-elite opponents, did not get knocked out by anyone aside from great heavyweights, and won the overwhelming majority even against elite opposition- and he did this consistently for over a decade.



Mendoza: After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.

Marciano_Frazier says: Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Menzoda: . From 1945-1948, he was Ko'd by Chalres, Bivins, and Morrow. He was knocked down by Bob Jacobs, knocked down by Marshall 3x, a 38-33 Curtis Sheppard knocked Moore down, down again vs Bivins in a fight he won, and down from Oakland Billy Smith. This is 3 Ko losses in three " prime years " and and additonal 7 knock downs suffred in fights he won. Chins don't get better over time. Moore's chin is suspect vs punchers. As I said before, this list has some big hitters. Moore is being matched against guys who hit has hard or harder than Charles or Bivins. Fitz, Langford, Foster, Jones, ect.....

As for Satterfield, I did not see that fight. It was short. Perhaps Moore caught the chinny Satterfield early and wasn't tested himself. The Sheppard win vs vs a guy who was 3-3 in his last six fights. Valdes was a bit gun shy from action at times.
No, you've again apparently misinterpreted my point. I was saying that 1945-1948 was clearly not a part of Moore's best years, as demonstrated by the fact that he lost to three non-elite opponents and was knocked out/lost decisively about half the time against elite opponents, whereas in 1949-1960, he went 80+ fights without losing to any non-elite fighters, won the overwhelming majority against even elite opposition and was only knocked out by Marciano and Patterson. I'm saying that Moore clearly and undeniably improved after the time period you keep bringing up.
Again, he is 33-8-2 in 1945-48, with three losses to non-elite opposition, whereas he is 75-3-2- a record leagues better against comparable or better opposition- with no losses to non-elite opposition in mid-1949 through mid-1960. That is more than twice as many losses in just over half as many fights, and not against superior opposition. How could this be reasonably explained, aside from accepting that Moore was a considerably better fighter in the '50s than he was in the '40s?
Or, for another telling stat, Moore never lost a fight at light heavyweight in the last 12 years of his professional career.



Mendoza: Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.

Marciano_Frazier: I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

Mendoza: I have seen Moore in many fights. From memory they are: Maxim, Bivins, Smith, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Durelle 2x, and Johnson. It seems to me Archie Moore does best vs boxer types without a lot of power, and struggles a bit vs puncher types. Durelle was not that good, and he nearly had Moore out.

As I pointed out above, Moore did beat some very dangerous hitters. Durelle caught a slightly-slipping Moore cold, and he did nearly have him out, but Moore still came back and beat him, then crushed him in the rematch. Bit of a fluke, I'd say- in my opinion, Moore had a pretty average chin, but his defensive skills, ring savvy and experience made him incredibly hard to knock out in his prime- in the last 14 years of his career, he was stopped only by Marciano, Patterson, and(while at the very end of the road) Ali, despite facing literally dozens of top fighters. When you caught him flush, you could hurt him, but once he'd perfected his turtle-shell defense and reached the height of his career, that hardly ever happened, and even when it did(ala Durelle), his survival and recovery skills were unbelieveable. Perhaps his best stylistic match-up would be against the type you describe, but I certainly wouldn't just then say, "He therefore loses to the guys on the list with a lot of power."

[Mendoza]

Marciano Frazier

Yes, but the whole point was that Moore's performance from 1945-1948 does not stack up at all with his performance from 1949-1960, against any level of opposition. Moore clearly and markedly improved after his losses to Charles and Bivins in '45-48, and hence they're not entirely valid as reference points to how a peak Moore does against great opponents, since a peak Moore did not lose to non-elite opponents, did not get knocked out by anyone aside from great heavyweights, and won the overwhelming majority even against elite opposition- and he did this consistently for over a decade.

I see your point. Moore fought a lot and did well from 1949-1960. Do you think Moore beat better competition from 1945-1948 or any other three years from 1949-1960? I think Moore's toughest opponents were in the years of 1945-1948 ( Omit Marciano and Patterson at heavyweight from 1954-1960 ).


My point is durability in boxing really doesn't change much. It usually diminishes as the years roll on. While Moore did beat some punchers, Sheppard was 3-3 in his last six and, he caught Satterfield early.

Even from 1949-1960 in Moore' prime years, he was floored by Billy Smith, and Harold Johnson. Neither guy was a light heavyweight puncher. I see too much evidence that suggest that Moore when faced vs skilled punchers had could be knocked down or out. Every man in the poll is skilled, and most of them are punchers.




As I pointed out above, Moore did beat some very dangerous hitters. Durelle caught a slightly-slipping Moore cold, and he did nearly have him out, but Moore still came back and beat him, then crushed him in the rematch. Bit of a fluke, I'd say- in my opinion, Moore had a pretty average chin, but his defensive skills, ring savvy and experience made him incredibly hard to knock out in his prime- in the last 14 years of his career, he was stopped only by Marciano, Patterson, and(while at the very end of the road) Ali, despite facing literally dozens of top fighters. When you caught him flush, you could hurt him, but once he'd perfected his turtle-shell defense and reached the height of his career, that hardly ever happened, and even when it did(ala Durelle), his survival and recovery skills were unbelieveable. Perhaps his best stylistic match-up would be against the type you describe, but I certainly wouldn't just then say, "He therefore loses to the guys on the list with a lot of power."

Well said. I agree with what you said. I agree Moore doesn't automatically lose to anyone in the poll. We are talking about Archie Moore here. He was an all time great light heavyweight who could beat anyone on the list on any given night! At the same time, many of these matches are close ones, which is why I feel 7 or more wins for Moore is unlikely. In truth most all time great are lucky to have a winning record in their own era vs other all time greats. Winning 5 or 6 of ten is very good.

[janitor]

Dillion was tough as shoe leather, but I never saw him on film. Is there any film of Dillion?

There is not sadly.

By all acounts he seems to have been the prototype for Jack Dempsey.

[Rumsfeld]

I said seven. Obviously, Charles represented a stylistic nightmare of the Old Mongoose.

Archie was very resourceful and found ways to win more often than not.

[rodney]

How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters all time greats at light heavyweight! Take the poll. I thought the Liston thread was a success, however I get the hunch some posters voted 1 or 10 for personal reasons. You can vote however you choose this time, but it’s a public thread.

The ten fighters are:

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sam Langford
Jack Dillion
Tommy Loughran
Gene Tunney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster
Mike Spinks
Roy Jones

Archie beats them all.

[Drew101]

I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.

Dillon was, by all accounts, a pretty smooth boxer, who could work well in the trenches. That having been said, Moore was just as adept on the inside as "The Giant Killer", and, given Dillon's disadvantage in terms of height and reach, that's where he'd have to make his living.

That's why I pick Moore.

[Langford]

I voted for six. In my fantasy world, he wins six outta ten.

[Amsterdam]

The two who would give him the most trouble are Jack Dillon and Ezzard Charles.

Is there any film on Dillon Janitor?

EDIT:

Just read your above post. By all accounts then, accounts from that era when the fan and analyst alike knew no better than their own time period, these reports are enough to pick him over Moore mate?

[Amsterdam]

Bottom 4 beat him 10/10 times. He smokes the rest 10/10 times, Jack Dillon particularly in 1 round.:yep

[McGrain]

Yeah, especially Ezzard Charles. :roll:

:lol:

[DavidPayne]

I seriously think Moore is 1 of the most overrated P4P fighters ever based on his longevity. His performance against the very best seems to come up short time and again and he lost to many smaller fighters. Yes he is an excellent fighter but a class lower than the ultra elite of the sport

1. I'm not an expert on Fitz, he was an excellent fighter by all means.

2. RJJ did have a habit of making very good fighters look a class below. And RJJ would be every bit the puncher in this fight as Moore was.

Why do people talk about RJJs chin and neglect to mention Moores chin problems? Moore was ko'd 7 times, including ko losses in his prime and ko'd by Bivins, Booker, Morrow, Charles, Patterson, Marciano. RJJ hit harder than most of these and his speed and accuracy means he will land more.
To compare Moore and Jones on punching power is a flawed argument. Moore was a destructive puncher at 175lbs, sure Jones had the odd highlight as a puncher at 175lbs, Virgil Hill etc, but he wasn't the puncher Moore was.

And you seriously believe Jones hit harder than Patterson and the Rock? Seriously.

Patterson had a hell of a punch and while Marciano was a cumulative type puncher, consider his right hand versus Walcott as example of his concussive power.

I'd back Langford and Charles to beat Archie, I don't know Dillion enough to comment but to suggest Moore was over-rated is harsh. Harsh in the extreme.

I may give Spinks the nod. May.