Archie Moore beats Michael Spinks

[Manassa]

Am I in the minority? I don't believe Spinks had the experience to deal with Moore's trickery.

I'm watching him fight Harold Johnson at the moment; it's the fifth fight, Moore's fourth and final victory. Before I discuss Moore-Spinks, I'd like to talk about Harold Johnson first...

... He was the Luis Rodriguez of the 175lbs division; the Rodrigo Valdez or the Esteban De Jesus. A genuinely talented fighter who is overlooked by most - on ability, he's probably in the top ten. I would even rate him around #8.
Johnson's strengths were his speed and fundamental skills - he was quick, too, definitely one of the quicker light heavyweights I've seen. His jab rivals Bob Foster's as the best of the division, ever, and his punches are neat and tidy. Strong and endurable, and with easily enough skill to protect his (only) slightly above average chin more often than not, Johnson was quite the well-rounded fighter.

Was he a better boxer than Spinks though? Johnson certainly hit with less force (although he could definitely whack) than Spinks, but I reckon he was the better boxer; I believe Spinks is overrated somewhat, due to the fact he had very few fights. He did well to stave off a tired Larry Holmes, but he didn't really face enough light heavyweights to tell us entirely how good he was. Qawi and Muhammad were top light heavyweights in their own right and these two victories are as good as any win that Harold Johnson ever had - but he never rematched them. Johnson, Lopez, that other one whose name I can't pronounce... They were all solid light heavyweights and proper made up a better bunch than Bob Foster faced. But they weren't Harold Johnson.

And had Spinks faced Harold Johnson, he might have even lost. Spinks had a knack of turning the trick and surprising his opposition with his adaptability; he was awkward, intelligent and hard hitting. But then Johnson was a better boxer than he ever faced - just as technically good as Muhammad but far more alert and 'on the ball.' Qawi was tough and tricky, but again, didn't box like Johnson.
Maybe Spinks would catch Johnson and put him to sleep, I don't know. Maybe Johnson would outbox him for a tight decision victory - it could happen either way. It's not a given, though.

But of course, this is in no way relevant to Moore-Spinks from a styles point of view, because Moore fought totally differently to Harold Johnson. But I think it's interesting for me to point out that Johnson was perhaps on the same level as a comparitively (to Moore) untested Spinks.

-

Spinks was a really big hitter for the weight, and some will say this punching power would be enough to take Moore out, since Moore was known to be a bit shaky. Harold Johnson just knocked him down, although it was a bit of a slip. But for Spinks to use his power, he had to be set; Moore wouldn't let him set himself, and so wouldn't be as vulnerable. Spinks, knowing Moore was a great puncher himself, would probably opt to box like he did against Qawi, not so much fearful of his opponent's power as he was aware. He wouldn't be able to outbox Moore though. Not the Moore of the early '50s.

It's Spinks' lack of experience, lack of fights, that would lose him the fight. He was fantastically awkward, but he wasn't tricky; not like Moore, who just tricked the trickster - Johnson - into falling onto a right lead which scrambled his senses and made him hold. He wouldn't know how to deal with Moore's counter jabs, although he would definitely try.

Moore is probably underrated as a pressure fighter. Against Joey Maxim now, he is slipping an almighty number of jabs, popping up with fast ones of his own from a lower crouch than before, and hooking to the body. He's like a smart Joe Frazier.

On Maxim, he's probably slightly underrated, and I'm not just saying that because he was a Charles/Moore opponent. Look at the record; in the nine year period (which I am rather conveniently choosing, but there you go) between '46 and '55, Maxim lost eleven times. Ten of those losses came to Hall of Famers; Willie Pastrano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Carl Olson and Archie Moore. The lone 'regular' loss was a split decision, and he was never knocked out in this period. Maxim looks much better than usual (because we normally see him against greats) against Bob Murphy, who he beat up quite comprehensively.

I am going to cut this short for now because I'm boring myself and the structure has fallen apart. I was never one for long posts. Debate away.

[brownpimp88]

Charley burley beats archie but spinks doesnt. Michael Spinks beat a version of larry holmes that archie moore would have mots likely lost to, yet ur reason is that archie is too tricky and he has to much experience? Spinks is better than many people that beat archie moore anyways.

Joey maxim aint all that, his win over floyd was controversial, his win over walcott was also considered controversial and he was losing to robinson before he got exhuasted. On top of that hes 0-8 against ezzard and archie.

[Manassa]

Charley burley beats archie but spinks doesnt.

Was there even any point in mentioning this? Moore - pre-prime. And you know it.

Michael Spinks beat a version of larry holmes that archie moore would have mots likely lost to

How do you know that? Holmes looked lacklustre and deserved the decision in the rematch.

yet ur reason is that archie is too tricky and he has to much experience?

(Struggles to follow Pimp's thought train)...

... Yes. That is my reasoning.

Spinks is better than many people that beat archie moore anyways.

Moore is better than many people Michael Spinks beat. Yay.

Joey maxim aint all that, his win over floyd was controversial, his win over walcott was also considered controversial and he was losing to robinson before he got exhuasted.

Right - first two were heavyweights. The last one? Maxim was conserving his own energy - anyone who's seen him in regular conditions would know this, but I don't suppose you've seen anything other than the Robinson highlights. Anyone who says 'Robinson would have won if not for the heat' is talking bollocks.

On top of that hes 0-8 against ezzard and archie.

Where's the shame in that? He ran them close several times and was never knocked out by them. I'm sure Rodrigo Valdez would lose to Carlos Monzon in five out of five meetings but it doesn't mean to say Valdez was no good.

[dpw417]

I really don't think a person could go wrong picking Moore against any light heavy. But in this instance, I'll take Michael Spinks.
Spinks would not necessarily be pretty to watch against Moore... I think his plan would be to keep a safe distance from the 'Mongoose'. Spinks had very good durability at the weight, good speed, and great power. Archie is very clever and would attempt to set traps...but in the meantime, Spinks would jab, jab, and jab some more... If Archie got too rambuncious....Spinks would counter hard with a mean 'Spinks' Jinx.
Spinks might not have Moore's experience, but he fought good quality fighters at light heavy....and he had great experience in his corner with Eddie Futch.
Is Spinks a better fighter than Moore? Nope. He just beats him...because he's a stylistic nightmare.

[McGrain]

I was never one for long posts.

:lol: :patsch

I agree with a lot of this though, and to put it simply, there is no way Spinks takes Moore for three like Charles did.

[McGrain]

Charley burley beats archie but spinks doesnt.

Burley could not be tricked, only outboxed or outpunched. THIS is the true stylistic nightmare for Moore.

[teeto]

We seem to be having the Spinks-Moore debate a lot lately. I still think Spinks wins this one in a really hard close one. What a fight it could be , both of these could control a fight solely with the jab , but both of these were too good to be controlled with the jab. There styles are different though and both are tremendous righthand punchers.

I think this would have everything , fighting , ringcraft and boxing. Moore would probably have the better of the infighting , but I do think the outside is Spinks' territory (people may not agree , but I just think Spinks was a prolific boxer) , and Spinks' right hand was a killa

[SuzieQ49]

spinx was so damm ackward and goofy moore might have trouble landing his precision pinpoint punches lol. I see this being a difficult fight for both fighters, and i agree moores experience would give him the edge. Snipes does have the power to put moore away, visa versa.

[Woddy]

THis is a very hard fight to judge. Spinks best opponents at lightheavy were Marvin Johnson, Dwight Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, and Eddie Muhammad. I don't know if any of these men added up to Archie Moore, but it would be a good match.

[Sonny Carson]

THis is a very hard fight to judge. Spinks best opponents at lightheavy were Marvin Johnson, Dwight Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, and Eddie Muhammad. I don't know if any of these men added up to Archie Moore, but it would be a good match.
Quawi was very good and Moore wouldn't be able to take Spinks uppercut.

[teeto]

Quawi was very good and Moore wouldn't be able to take Spinks uppercut.
Good point,

[Manassa]

Good point,

:lol:

[Cojimar 1945]

What's your view on Harold Johnson's second fight with Julio Mederos?

[Manassa]

What's your view on Harold Johnson's second fight with Julio Mederos?

I really have no idea. It's like Ike Williams' knockout loss to Chuck Davey. Davey couldn't punch to save his life.

[mr. magoo]

Am I in the minority? I don't believe Spinks had the experience to deal with Moore's trickery.

I'm watching him fight Harold Johnson at the moment; it's the fifth fight, Moore's fourth and final victory. Before I discuss Moore-Spinks, I'd like to talk about Harold Johnson first...

... He was the Luis Rodriguez of the 175lbs division; the Rodrigo Valdez or the Esteban De Jesus. A genuinely talented fighter who is overlooked by most - on ability, he's probably in the top ten. I would even rate him around #8.
Johnson's strengths were his speed and fundamental skills - he was quick, too, definitely one of the quicker light heavyweights I've seen. His jab rivals Bob Foster's as the best of the division, ever, and his punches are neat and tidy. Strong and endurable, and with easily enough skill to protect his (only) slightly above average chin more often than not, Johnson was quite the well-rounded fighter.

Was he a better boxer than Spinks though? Johnson certainly hit with less force (although he could definitely whack) than Spinks, but I reckon he was the better boxer; I believe Spinks is overrated somewhat, due to the fact he had very few fights. He did well to stave off a tired Larry Holmes, but he didn't really face enough light heavyweights to tell us entirely how good he was. Qawi and Muhammad were top light heavyweights in their own right and these two victories are as good as any win that Harold Johnson ever had - but he never rematched them. Johnson, Lopez, that other one whose name I can't pronounce... They were all solid light heavyweights and proper made up a better bunch than Bob Foster faced. But they weren't Harold Johnson.

And had Spinks faced Harold Johnson, he might have even lost. Spinks had a knack of turning the trick and surprising his opposition with his adaptability; he was awkward, intelligent and hard hitting. But then Johnson was a better boxer than he ever faced - just as technically good as Muhammad but far more alert and 'on the ball.' Qawi was tough and tricky, but again, didn't box like Johnson.
Maybe Spinks would catch Johnson and put him to sleep, I don't know. Maybe Johnson would outbox him for a tight decision victory - it could happen either way. It's not a given, though.

But of course, this is in no way relevant to Moore-Spinks from a styles point of view, because Moore fought totally differently to Harold Johnson. But I think it's interesting for me to point out that Johnson was perhaps on the same level as a comparitively (to Moore) untested Spinks.

-

Spinks was a really big hitter for the weight, and some will say this punching power would be enough to take Moore out, since Moore was known to be a bit shaky. Harold Johnson just knocked him down, although it was a bit of a slip. But for Spinks to use his power, he had to be set; Moore wouldn't let him set himself, and so wouldn't be as vulnerable. Spinks, knowing Moore was a great puncher himself, would probably opt to box like he did against Qawi, not so much fearful of his opponent's power as he was aware. He wouldn't be able to outbox Moore though. Not the Moore of the early '50s.

It's Spinks' lack of experience, lack of fights, that would lose him the fight. He was fantastically awkward, but he wasn't tricky; not like Moore, who just tricked the trickster - Johnson - into falling onto a right lead which scrambled his senses and made him hold. He wouldn't know how to deal with Moore's counter jabs, although he would definitely try.

Moore is probably underrated as a pressure fighter. Against Joey Maxim now, he is slipping an almighty number of jabs, popping up with fast ones of his own from a lower crouch than before, and hooking to the body. He's like a smart Joe Frazier.

On Maxim, he's probably slightly underrated, and I'm not just saying that because he was a Charles/Moore opponent. Look at the record; in the nine year period (which I am rather conveniently choosing, but there you go) between '46 and '55, Maxim lost eleven times. Ten of those losses came to Hall of Famers; Willie Pastrano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Carl Olson and Archie Moore. The lone 'regular' loss was a split decision, and he was never knocked out in this period. Maxim looks much better than usual (because we normally see him against greats) against Bob Murphy, who he beat up quite comprehensively.

I am going to cut this short for now because I'm boring myself and the structure has fallen apart. I was never one for long posts. Debate away.

Personally, I'm not sure that I agree with your claim that Spinks didn't have the experience to beat Moore. Simply having a ton of fights on paper does not always reflect a vast difference in experience. Spinks had a far more extensive amateur career than Moore did, and started fighting and beating quality opposition from the time he turned pro. He cleaned out an entire division leaving virtually no stone unturned before vacating the title to beat an aging, yet still competitive Larry Holmes. As one poster already pointed out, Archie lost a fair amount of bouts to fighters who couldn't hold a candle to a peak Spinks. Michael only lost once in his career, and that was to a near invincible ( figuratively speaking ) Mike Tyson. Spinks could box his way to a clear decision, or utterly destroy a guy early. Whatever it took to get the job done, Spinks was usually able to turn the trick.

I'm not claiming that Spinks would beat Moore, but to say that he was totally out of Archie's league leaves many questions to be asked, and so does your claim about him having far less experience.

[Manassa]

Three points:

1. An amateur career, however extensive, is not a suitable substitute for a professional one

2. Spinks having a better win:loss ratio has little to do with how good he was; he fought in a different era, where he had plenty of time to train for a fight and was able to focus entirely on the matter at hand, unlike a young Moore who was fighting for peanuts

3. I never said Spinks was totally out of Moore's league

[mr. magoo]

Three points:

[quote]
1. An amateur career, however extensive, is not a suitable substitute for a professional one


Having a good amateur career and winning a gold medal provides a young fighter with a better foundation for turning pro, than being hurled into the ring and fighting tomato cans for 3 or 4 years, before acquiring the much needed skills that most modern fighters begin learning at pre-adolescence.


2. Spinks having a better win:loss ratio has little to do with how good he was; he fought in a different era, where he had plenty of time to train for a fight and was able to focus entirely on the matter at hand, unlike a young Moore who was fighting for peanuts


Taking the time to be well trained and prepped for a fight, is of the utmost of importance, and a big reason why I often rank modern all time greats over that of yesterday. Taking a fight on short notice and losing, is a justifiable reason for a defeat, but a defeat nonetheless. I also disagree with your claim about his winning streak being irrelevant. The job of a fighter is to win fights. Spinks not only acheieved this, but did it against the very best of his era. In only 27 bouts at lightheavyweight, at least 11 of those fights were title bouts, plus a few additional wins against rated contenders on the way up. This needs to be acknowledged. I tend to be partial towards fighters who have less fights, but also less fat on their records. A career containing over 200 fights, is not as impressive, if maybe only 25 of them are against truly good fighters.


3. I never said Spinks was totally out of Moore's league


Fair enough, but it certainly sounded like you favoured Moore heavily, which is fine, but neither of these men should be made a terribly big underdog.

[Manassa]

Don't underrate the fights against journeymen and nobodies - Moore got the chance here to practise his skills before trying them out on the better fighters. A record with ten big fights and thirty fillers is far better than a record with just ten big fights.

[mr. magoo]

Don't underrate the fights against journeymen and nobodies - Moore got the chance here to practise his skills before trying them out on the better fighters. A record with ten big fights and thirty fillers is far better than a record with just ten big fights.

Look, in Spinks 32 pro fights, about 17 of them were against quality opposition, and the vast majority were victories, except for one. The rest of his fights primarily consisted of the usual string of mediocrities that a young prospect typically faces upon turning pro, which is something we can't hold agianst him. Moore on the otherhand, continued to fight such mediocrities 10 years into his career. I don't have a problem with a fighter having a little padding on his record for the sake of learning, but let's just say that Archie had more than his share of such padding.

[Manassa]

Look, in Spinks 32 pro fights, about 17 of them were against quality opposition, and the vast majority were victories, except for one. The rest of his fights primarily consisted of the usual string of mediocrities that a young prospect typically faces upon turning pro, which is something we can't hold agianst him. Moore on the otherhand, continued to fight such mediocrities 10 years into his career. I don't have a problem with a fighter having a little padding on his record for the sake of learning, but let's just say that Archie had more than his share of such padding.

What's wrong with a load of keep-busy fights if you're fighting the top opposition as well? Moore certainly fought a much better array than Spinks.

[mr. magoo]

=Manassa]What's wrong with a load of keep-busy fights if you're fighting the top opposition as well?


Nothing, but Spinks didn't exactly sit idle for most of his career, and in fact retired maybe 11 years after turining pro, and cementing himself into the hall of fame. Moore turned pro in 1938, and didn't fight Maxim for the lightheavyweight title until 1952, nearly 15 years into his career. Spinks accomplished a lot more proportionately than Moore in a shorter duration of time, and without the aid of in-betweeners. A great fighter should not have to face endless numbers of tomato cans to take care of business.



Moore certainly fought a much better array than Spinks.


Numerically? perhaps. Percentage wise? Don't even waste your time going there. In 220 pro fights, Moore probably faced maybe 30 truly good fighters, and not all of them were wins either. That amounts to what? About 35% of his opponents who were worth anything. Spinks had 32 pro fights, but about 17 of them were good fighters, making over a 50% quality ratio. Plus, he had only one loss. Moore was definately an all time great, don't get me wrong. His record and comp list however, really sucks proportionately though. Sure there are plenty of good fighters on there, but the list of bums, tomatos, and journeyman far outweigh the gems.

[Manassa]

You are making a fool of yourself. Surely you must know that nobody would give Moore a title shot? It wasn't by his own choice that he didn't face Maxim until 1952!

Oh and on the numbers side of things... Firstly, your percentages are way off. Secondly, percentages matter little - it's the actual number of top fighters fought that counts. Or if you like, number of top fighters beaten.

Shall we look at that? Shall we? ;)

I think we shall. We'll judge it by a Hall of Fame level measurement (someone like Holman Williams will be counted, because he deserves to be there):

Michael Spinks:

Larry Holmes x2
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad

Archie Moore:

Jimmy Bivins x4
Harold Johnson x4
Holman Williams
Carl Olson
Joey Maxim x3
Lloyd Marshall x2

I wonder who beat the better opposition? :think
I didn't even mention the Chase-Hogue-Kid-Wade-Lytell bunch either, who were collectively probably as dangerous as the Philadelphia crew that Hagler faced in the '70s. Moore also drew with Eddie Booker and Willie Pastrano.

Seriously, you stick Spinks in Moore's era and see how he'd do. Don't let him have an amateur career, don't pay him a lot for his fights, don't give him a title shot when he deserves it, make him fight the best fighters more than once, make him fight until he's in his late forties. Then see how good his win:loss ratio is.

and without the aid of in-betweeners.

I really would like to laugh at this statement, but that isn't my style.

--

Summararily; percentages matter little.

[mr. magoo]

[quote=Manassa]You are making a fool of yourself. Surely you must know that nobody would give Moore a title shot? It wasn't by his own choice that he didn't face Maxim until 1952!


Are you quite sure that he was deserving of one? Frankly, he had quite a list of subpar opponents and performances prior to facing Maxim.


Oh and on the numbers side of things... Firstly, your percentages are way off. Secondly, percentages matter little - it's the actual number of top fighters fought that counts. Or if you like, number of top fighters beaten.


I disagree. A fighter who spends most of his career taking on the best opponents that his era has to offer is the better man, regardless of how many names he retired with. Spinks left the lightheavywieght divison, because there simply was no one left to take on. Moore couldn't even beat everyone he actually fought.



Shall we look at that? Shall we? ;)

I think we shall. We'll judge it by a Hall of Fame level measurement (someone like Holman Williams will be counted, because he deserves to be there):

Michael Spinks:

Larry Holmes x2
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad

Archie Moore:

Jimmy Bivins x4
Harold Johnson x4
Holman Williams
Carl Olson
Joey Maxim x3
Lloyd Marshall x2

I wonder who beat the better opposition? :think


You're saying that I'm making a fool out of myself? You managed to name only 3 additional wins that Moore had, despite having 7X the number of fights, and don't tell me that my math is off either. Plus you left out a few names on Spinks list such as Marvin Johnson, Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Davis and a few others. In the end, the comp list is much closer than you give it credit for. Plus Spinks never acquired the kinds of losses that Moore had.


[quote]
Seriously, you stick Spinks in Moore's era and see how he'd do. Don't let him have an amateur career, don't pay him a lot for his fights, don't give him a title shot when he deserves it, make him fight the best fighters more than once, make him fight until he's in his late forties. Then see how good his win:loss ratio is.

If you're going to engage in fantasy matchups across eras, then you need to have the balls to compare fighters according to how their careers actually went, without saying shit like " If my Aunt a dick she'd be my Uncle". This kind of logic is just plain childish, and the exact sort of thing that you here as a last resort from the losing side of a debate.

STICK TO THE FACTS!!!!!!




I really would like to laugh at this statement, but that isn't my style.




If you're implying that you have class, well then I'd say its a bit too late to make that claim.

[Manassa]

Are you quite sure that he was deserving of one? Frankly, he had quite a list of subpar opponents and performances prior to facing Maxim.

Yes, I am absolutely positive he deserved a title shot earlier than he received one.

I disagree. A fighter who spends most of his career taking on the best opponents that his era has to offer is the better man, regardless of how many names he retired with.

Have you read what you just wrote? You really expect Moore to fight a Harold Johnson or Ezzard Charles in every fight? What about their plans? Moore was just fighting the journeyman while waiting for his next solid opponent!

You're saying that I'm making a fool out of myself? You managed to name only 3 additional wins that Moore had, despite having 7X the number of fights, and don't tell me that my math is off either.

Three? Three? You did see the numbers on the right side of several names? Michael Spinks beat three Hall of Fame level opponents four times in total. Archie Moore beat six Hall of Fame level opponents fifteen times.

despite having 7X the number of fights

And? What is your obsession with percentages! I'm sure Ray Leonard has a better percentage than Ray Robinson but it doesn't mean to say he was better.

and don't tell me that my math is off either.

Why not? It was. 220 divided by 30 is not 35%, not even close. But your '30' figure was wrong anyway.

Plus you left out a few names on Spinks list such as Marvin Johnson, Yaqui Lopez, Eddie Davis and a few others.

I did leave them off. Why did I leave them off, Mr. Magoo? I could have sworn I stated before my list that I would only include Hall of Fame level fighters. If you think Marvin Johnson belongs in the Hall of Fame, well...

... But if you want to throw that lot in there, then I'll throw in another twenty five from Moore's record. If that's okay with you? ;)

Plus Spinks never acquired the kinds of losses that Moore had.

No, you're right, he didn't. Probably because he was nurtured like nearly every modern fighter; paid good money and well looked after by qualified trainers, given ample time between fights to hone his body perfectly. Moore didn't always have these luxuries, and so performed worse on some occasions than others.

But luckily, even these losses still added to his experience.

If you're going to engage in fantasy matchups across eras, then you need to have the balls to compare fighters according to how their careers actually went, without saying shit like " If my Aunt a dick she'd be my Uncle". This kind of logic is just plain childish, and the exact sort of thing that you here as a last resort from the losing side of a debate.

What? An if my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle comparison would be saying 'if Emile Griffith had fought Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Marvin Hagler and Jose Napoles a couple more times he'd have the best resume of all time.'

What I'm saying is that Spinks' record would more than likely look a lot less impressive had he been fighting under the same conditions as Moore. Hardly a ridiculous notion.

If you're implying that you have class, well then I'd say its a bit too late to make that claim.

I certainly have more class than you. Look:

STICK TO THE FACTS!!!!!!

Wind your neck in. I might be handing you an intellectual and factual arse whipping, but there's no need to get your handbag out :good

[mr. magoo]

=Manassa]Yes, I am absolutely positive he deserved a title shot earlier than he received one.


Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.


Have you read what you just wrote? You really expect Moore to fight a Harold Johnson or Ezzard Charles in every fight?

No I didn't say that, but I sure as hell don' think he should be fighting 5-11, journeyman in every goddamn fight either.


What about their plans? Moore was just fighting the journeyman while waiting for his next solid opponent!


While Spinks clobbered ranked contender, one right after the other without adding filler to his record.



Three? Three? You did see the numbers on the right side of several names? Michael Spinks beat three Hall of Fame level opponents four times in total. Archie Moore beat six Hall of Fame level opponents fifteen times.


I thought we going by names, and not numbers of times that they met each other, but suit yourself.


And? What is your obsession with percentages! I'm sure Ray Leonard has a better percentage than Ray Robinson but it doesn't mean to say he was better.


I already told you. I like fighters with quality over quantity. I don't don't know why it hasn't sunk in.



Why not? It was. 220 divided by 30 is not 35%, not even close. But your '30' figure was wrong anyway.

You're absolutely right Einstein. 30 is approximately 14% of 220, which is actually rules even further in favor of Spinks.


I did leave them off. Why did I leave them off, Mr. Magoo? I could have sworn I stated before my list that I would only include Hall of Fame level fighters. If you think Marvin Johnson belongs in the Hall of Fame, well...


Fine, if you want to go soley by hall of famers, then go ahead, but Spinks fought a larger body of ranked fighters, given than the lesser number of fights that he had, which was my originally point.




No, you're right, he didn't. Probably because he was nurtured like nearly every modern fighter; paid good money and well looked after by qualified trainers, given ample time between fights to hone his body perfectly. Moore didn't always have these luxuries, and so performed worse on some occasions than others.


Neither did most of the men of his era, so how did that make him any less adavantaged? Spinks turned pro and right awat began fighting some of the best fighters of his division. Then move up to heavyweight and fought for the HW title without any tuneup bouts at 200 pound mark. I don't know why this would be considered protected frankly.
But luckily, even these losses still added to his experience.




What? An if my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle comparison would be saying 'if Emile Griffith had fought Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Marvin Hagler and Jose Napoles a couple more times he'd have the best resume of all time.'


No, its more like saying if Spinks had padded his record with the kind of crap that Moore did, he might have gone undefeated in god knows how many fights.


What I'm saying is that Spinks' record would more than likely look a lot less impressive had he been fighting under the same conditions as Moore. Hardly a ridiculous notion.


And Moore may have had an even worse record than he actually did, and far less knockout wins, if he faced less cans.



I certainly have more class than you. Look:



Get a grip.

Wind your neck in. I might be handing you an intellectual and factual arse whipping, but there's no need to get your handbag out :good

Sure, I feel schooled already.

[Manassa]

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that Moore deserving a title shot before he received one is about as near to a fact as you can get in boxing. Unless you believe that a fighter who's beating all the top opposition should stay a contender?

No I didn't say that, but I sure as hell don' think he should be fighting 5-11, journeyman in every goddamn fight either.

What was Moore supposed to do? Sit there with no money waiting for Jimmy Bivins to sign another contract? You are quite unbelievable. Unlike Spinks, who was fighting for a new swimming pool, Moore was fighting for more humble belongings. He had to take those fights; did him good anyway, as I said before, he got to hone his skills on their heads.

While Spinks clobbered ranked contender, one right after the other without adding filler to his record.

See above.

Where is your logic? It seems to have vanished. You are discrediting Moore because he fought journeyman in between his big fights. Big fights that were more numerous than on Spinks' record! What's going on?

I already told you. I like fighters with quality over quantity. I don't don't know why it hasn't sunk in.

Quality over quantity? It's not like Moore only fought journeymen. He fought more top fighters than Spinks! And I don't know why that hasn't sunk in.

Of course, you will likely come back with the percentage argument. I thought you told me to look at the facts? The facts are that Moore fought more top fighters, regardless of what the bum:contender ratio was. If anything, Moore should be rewarded for the fact he beat up more people.

You're absolutely right Einstein. 30 is approximately 14% of 220, which is actually rules even further in favor of Spinks.

Good, so you admit you were wrong. Ah, but your revelation means little; since Moore fought more than just thirty top fighters. He actually beat more than thirty top fighters - well, as long as we're going by your criteria, which includes David Sears and the like.

But again, this percentage thing is totally irrelevant. Moore could have fought five hundred journeymen and just fifty top fighters for all I care; his percentage is going to be shite but he still beat more contenders than Spinks.

Let's take it to extremes; Tye Fields has a better knockout ratio than George Foreman. Does it mean he's the better puncher?

Nil.

Fine, if you want to go soley by hall of famers, then go ahead, but Spinks fought a larger body of ranked fighters, given than the lesser number of fights that he had, which was my originally point.

Who cares?! Jesus! It doesn't matter if he had a better percentage. Moore actually, directly fought and beat more contenders/Hall of Famers. So he fought a load of nobodies in between... What about it!

Neither did most of the men of his era, so how did that make him any less adavantaged?

Uh, I'm not comparing Moore to the other men of his era. I'm comparing him to Michael Spinks.

Don't you see your own problem? You have this uncanny knack to pluck things out of thin air that happen to be untrue or lacking of logic.

Spinks turned pro and right awat began fighting some of the best fighters of his division. Then move up to heavyweight and fought for the HW title without any tuneup bouts at 200 pound mark. I don't know why this would be considered protected frankly.

I never said Spinks was protected. I merely stated that he, along with nearly every other modern fighter, was far better looked after from a financial point of view than Moore. That's why Moore was fighting all those journeymen - but it benefitted him all the same. Experience. That's why he'd beat Spinks. Now if you're penalizing him for having more experience, well... U CRAZY SOLDIER!

No, its more like saying if Spinks had padded his record with the kind of crap that Moore did, he might have gone undefeated in god knows how many fights.

You're forgetting that Moore fought more contenders and champions than Spinks. It's not just a load of journeymen he'd have to conquer; it would be a whole slew of Hall of Famers, far more than he had to in his own career infact. Far more.

And Moore may have had an even worse record than he actually did, if he faced less cans.

What, you mean if he fought in Spinks' era? Nah. He'd have been managed well and looked after, paid enormous sums of money that would mean he didn't have to have a day job. Moore would likely do as well as Spinks did, or better.

Get a grip.

I'm firmly seated, don't you worry about that :good

As for you...

crap goddamn assholes

Hm!

Your main gripe here is that Moore padded his record. I've pointed out to you that it doesn't matter if he padded his record (and it wasn't to benefit his legacy; he needed the money) - he was fighting all the best fighters as well. He fought them so many times that the only people left to fight in between were journeymen!

Regardless of percentages, which matter about as much as Moore's moustache, Moore fought more contenders than Spinks.

I had to put that bit in bold because so far, I've gathered your comprehension and tracking skills are in a shocking state. So, again:

Moore fought more contenders than Spinks.

Alright? ;)

[Manassa]

And by the way, I'm finished with you now. I'll leave it to other people to judge our debate.

[dpw417]

I really have no idea. It's like Ike Williams' knockout loss to Chuck Davey. Davey couldn't punch to save his life.
Can you say 'handcuffed'?:yep

[Manassa]

Can you say 'handcuffed'?:yep

I don't know about that, but I can say 'Chuck Davey was useless.'

[Nemesis]

I really have no idea. It's like Ike Williams' knockout loss to Chuck Davey. Davey couldn't punch to save his life.

kinda smells funny that one

[McGrain]

I didn't even mention the Chase-Hogue-Kid-Wade-Lytell bunch either, who were collectively probably as dangerous as the Philadelphia crew that Hagler faced in the '70s. Moore also drew with Eddie Booker and Willie Pastrano.

:good

[brownpimp88]

The counter argument to moore having a better resume is that spinks only got knocked out by a man that would have also knocked archie moore the fuck out. While many of archie moores losses are to fighters that are lesser than spinks. I also believe that archie got knocked out in 1 round by a nobody.

[Manassa]

The counter argument to moore having a better resume is that spinks only got knocked out by a man that would have also knocked archie moore the fuck out. While many of archie moores losses are to fighters that are lesser than spinks. I also believe that archie got knocked out in 1 round by a nobody.

With a name like 'brownpimp88', why should I even take you seriously? The first letter of your name isn't even capitalized!

[brownpimp88]

With a name like 'brownpimp88', why should I even take you seriously? The first letter of your name isn't even capitalized!
Who cares about the name, what makes manassa such a leigt name.:lol:

Archie Moore was the De La Hoya of his era, losing the most important fights. Name the 5 best p4p fighters archie fought and almost all of them beat him.

[Manassa]

Who cares about the name, what makes manassa such a leigt name.:lol:

Archie Moore was the De La Hoya of his era, losing the most important fights. Name the 5 best p4p fighters archie fought and almost all of them beat him.

Manassa is a place name where my favourite boxer (at the time of joining) was born. Yours is just embarrassing.

Look at Moore's record this way; his record was 11-5 against top thirty light heavyweights. Ezzard Charles, probably the best of all time, beat him three times (narrowly), and if you take that those fights off the list you are left with 11-2 incase you can't work it out.

[brownpimp88]

Manassa is a place name where my favourite boxer (at the time of joining) was born. Yours is just embarrassing.

Look at Moore's record this way; his record was 11-5 against top thirty light heavyweights. Ezzard Charles, probably the best of all time, beat him three times (narrowly), and if you take that those fights off the list you are left with 11-2 incase you can't work it out.
Marvin Johnson can be listed as a top 30 light heavyweight, i know ring have him in thier top 20. My theory is that if burley and other lesser fighters can beat moore, why cant spinks. So far your only reason is that hes too tricky and spinks doesnt have enough experience, haha. Spinks was able to beat 3 top 30 light heavyweights within his first 20 fights, yet 32 fights isnt long enough to be a challenge for moore, give me a break.

[Manassa]

No matter how many times I tell you Moore wasn't in his prime against Burley, it won't get through to you, will it?

I may as well surrender now then. I am dealing with a lack of comprehension that even I cannot comprehend; from both you and Mr. Magoo.

[brownpimp88]

No matter how many times I tell you Moore wasn't in his prime against Burley, it won't get through to you, will it?

I may as well surrender now then. I am dealing with a lack of comprehension that even I cannot comprehend; from both you and Mr. Magoo. Yeah he wasnt exactly that green either. Why dont u name the 5 best p4p fighters that archie moore fought?

[Manassa]

Why dont u name the 5 best p4p fighters that archie moore fought?

Why, because it suits your argument? No thanks. Some of the best pound-for-pound fighters Moore fought were heavyweights, or they were the best light heavyweight ever, or they caught him while he was still developing. I'll say this though; the best light heavyweight Moore beat was better than any that Spinks beat, and he was victorious in four of five fights. Because he actually fought people more than once.

It amazes me how you think Spinks is untouchable because he was unbeaten until his last fight. I mean, he never faced anywhere near the same adversity as Moore; not in opponents, not in circumstances.

[brownpimp88]

Why, because it suits your argument? No thanks. Some of the best pound-for-pound fighters Moore fought were heavyweights, or they were the best light heavyweight ever, or they caught him while he was still developing. I'll say this though; the best light heavyweight Moore beat was better than any that Spinks beat, and he was victorious in four of five fights. Because he actually fought people more than once.

It amazes me how you think Spinks is untouchable because he was unbeaten until his last fight. I mean, he never faced anywhere near the same adversity as Moore; not in opponents, not in circumstances.
dwight qawi or eddie could have beaten harold johnson, dont try and make it sound like he's untouchable. Larry Holmes is better than any heavyweight that moore ever beat, even if larry was a few years past his peak. Archie moore was 28 when he lost to burley, a middleweight, thats hardly a green moore, he was a 9 year pro by that time, lol.

[Manassa]

dwight qawi or eddie could have beaten harold johnson, dont try and make it sound like he's untouchable. Larry Holmes is better than any heavyweight that moore ever beat, even if larry was a few years past his peak. Archie moore was 28 when he lost to burley, a middleweight, thats hardly a green moore, he was a 9 year pro by that time, lol.

I just typed out a fairly long post, but then deleted it all. I've decided I won't waste my time explaining things to you - not because I can't, but because it will never enter your extremely robust cranium. You will never realize or accept the differences in circumstances between Spinks and Moore; you'll just keep uttering the same, boring old rubbish.

"If Burley can beat him..."

"Spinks never lost until Tyson."

Yawn :dead

[brownpimp88]

You have no argument to support moore winning, you are indeed in the minority little kid.

[Manassa]

You have no argument to support moore winning, you are indeed in the minority little kid.

Actually, I have. Didn't you read this thread?

[SuzieQ49]

this shit is hilarious stop making me laugh. im sooo high right now.

[mr. magoo]

[QUOTE]
Michael Spinks:

Larry Holmes x2
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad

Archie Moore:

Jimmy Bivins x4
Harold Johnson x4
Holman Williams
Carl Olson
Joey Maxim x3
Lloyd Marshall x2


Keeping this on a peaceful note, I would like to revisit this just one last time. You make some very good points that Archie Moore did indeed beat a longer list of a hall of fame fighters. Furthermore, I acknowlege that he was the all time great knockout king with some 131 KO's to his credit. Let me remind you that at the very begining of this thread, I never calimed that Spinks should be rated higher or that he would win in a head to head matchup. My only caveat with your claim that Moore should be rated higher and has more experience, is that it needs to be a bit more carefully examined.

Moore had a greater number of fights against named boxers, yes. However, if all we're looking at is names, the difference in length isn't so vast. Moore as you pointed out, fought more fights against the same fighters, and at times wound up with a mixed bag of results. Spinks did not have to fight men like Marvin Johnson or Dwight Qawi 4 times each in an effort to prove that he was better than they were. He would typically fight a top rater once, get a decisive win, and move on to the next guy. By 1985, there really was no one left for him to fight at lightheavy. He took the next big step and became the first lightheavyweight champion to win the heavyweight title. This is a feat that Archie Moore never acheived.

In 32 professional fights, Spinks competed in exactly 15 title bouts. This amounts to approximately 47% of his career spent in a championship ring. I know that my percentage point doesn't sit well with you, and you prefer to look at actual number of fights against rated opposition, but I still feel that percentages hold a fair amount of validity. If you fight in 220 pro bouts, you're bound to stumble over a few more good fighters here and there. If you fight in 32 pro bouts, and already spent half your career competing at the world level, then there isn't much room for too many more big names, unless of course you expected Spinks to fight for the title in his debut. Also while Moore may have had ample wins, part of this is offset by the fact that he also had 23 losses and 11 draws.

Your claim that he fought under stiffer conditions than Spinks may hold water, but if you're going to apply circumstantial norms to make a point, then you have to apply them accross the board. Moore fought in an era where it was typcial for men to turn pro with little or no amateur experience, average training conditions, racial descrimination and so on and so forth. That said, he really was at no greater disadvantage than the men who stood across the ring from him. The same could be said for Spinks who came up in a period where most fighters had extensive amateur careers, qualilty trainers, better standards, and the luxery of not having to hold a job while training for fights. In fact, one might say that Spinks had a bit more to contend with, but at anyrate, the fields are not so uneven, if looked at from the right perspective. In addition, boxrec refects, that only 3 of Spinks 31 wins came against fighters who's records contained more losses than wins. If you ask me, that is damn impressive. There is virtually no padding on that resume what so ever.

I suppose more fans, experts and historians will always rate Archie Moore a bit higher,and probably for good reason. Nevertheless, this is not a cut and dry issue that can be easily decided through blanket statements or over simplifications. You're claims about Moore's career accomplishments are well reasoned, and hold much validity, but to say that he deserves to be rated higher due to having faced a few more ranked opponents, is not so clearly written in black and white as you so stridently would like to think.

.....Peace.....

[Manassa]

You're just telling me what I thought already.

[ThinBlack]

Michael Spinks is like Batman, give him the time to prepare, he'll produce.He could conceibably beat Archie Moore, but the chances lie around the 40 percent mark.But Archie has all that experiece, and in a real tight fight, that would come into play.So I'm thinking Moore just beats Spinks, barely, but just beats him.

[teeto]

Am I in the minority? .

For the sake of ESB I hope so.

[Manassa]

God damn, what a shit opening post. Ain't it weird how you can be quite happy with something when you're eighteen, then a few years later you think it looks totally amateurish and badly written? Happens to me a lot.

[SuzieQ49]

I thought it was a great post Manassa

[Manassa]

I thought it was a great post Manassa

Arse licker :lol:

[El Bujia]

I'm a fan of your exchange with brownpimp88. The PowerPuncher of his time.

[Bummy Davis]

Moore would have handled any version of Spinks but Michael would be competitive I just don't see Spinks being able to overcome the Mongoose at 175 or north

[Sister Sledge]

Spinks didn't have a lot of fights, but he had a very high learning curve, and he was very adaptable. In my opinion, his boxing ability and ring smarts are often overlooked due to the fact that he was Leon Spinks brother, and he is not thought of as a thinker, but he made good adjustments in his fights. I think he would either decision or stop Moore late. He had a better chin that Moore and could take him out with one shot. I don't know if Moore could stop Michael.