Archie Moore vs. Bob Foster

[Seamus]

And what do you mean by 2nd tier Dempseyfire ? 11-20 rating ? If so, I doubt there's a yr in the history of boxing where Bob Foster wouldn't be in the top 10 of the LHW rankings. Certainly not when Moore was the champion.

Who'd win at 175 ? I see it as a near toss up. Part of me want's to go with Moore's superior experience and quality of his competition, but you can't discount Foster's chances with his power and range.

[dempseyfire]

I view the top tier being the very very best of that era Moore,Charles,H. Johnson, Bivins etc.

2nd tier being the likes of Lesnevich,Marshall,Mauriello . . .very solid company.

Foster would've been a top 10 contender but never champ IMO.

[Grimm]

I view the top tier being the very very best of that era Moore,Charles,H. Johnson, Bivins etc.

2nd tier being the likes of Lesnevich,Marshall,Mauriello . . .very solid company.

Foster would've been a top 10 contender but never champ IMO.

All of these are 2nd tier compared to Spinks.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree that the sheer fact that Moore had many more fights, it's natural that he is going to have more losses. However you shouldn't just count all of his big wins and not count the losses. Yes you are going to have the occasional letdown with a busy schedule. Still you can't just pretend losses just didn't happen. You also have to consider that often Moore's opponents had busy schedules and weren't always at their best.

Foster never would have been a 2nd Tier light heavyweight in any era.
He was much better than Mauriello or Lesnevich.
He had great power, was a good finisher and used his height and reach very well.

[dempseyfire]

Foster never would have been a 2nd Tier light heavyweight in any era.
He was much better than Mauriello or Lesnevich.
.

What big puncher at 175 did Foster prove a reliable chin with? What really good slick guy did he ever outbox?

Foster was very good but I can't help but deem him over-rated. His best victories at 175 are vs way-past it middleweights (Hank,Tiger). Foster doesn't have the resume of the great 175 lbers (Lesnevich certainly has a much better resume) and his style with his exposed chin and sometimes clumsy movement, I can't see him beating guys like Moore who showed the ability to beat every style in the book, and who beat bigger punchers than Foster.

[Rick Farris]

About JABARDELLI . . .

The World Boxing Hall of Fame values Mr. Bardelli's historical expertise and personal experience, especially in issues relating to the Light Heavyweight division. Mr. Bardelli is a WBHOF advisor. His father, Young Firpo (Guido Bardelli) was inucted into the WBHOF in 2008.

Rick Farris
WBHOF Executive Director/Historian

[Grimm]

About JABARDELLI . . .

The World Boxing Hall of Fame values Mr. Bardelli's historical expertise and personal experience, especially in issues relating to the Light Heavyweight division. Mr. Bardelli is a WBHOF advisor. His father, Young Firpo (Guido Bardelli) was inucted into the WBHOF in 2008.

Rick Farris
WBHOF Executive Director/Historian

:??

[Ambling Alp]

We are seriously comparing Foster to Gus Lesnevich?
Well how many times did a lightheavyweight stop Foster? He had to have at least a decent chin. Who was he supposed to have proved his chin against?
I know you love the guys from the 1930's and 1940's ,but I don't think there isn't special about Lesenvich's resume. He beat Mauriello a few times and was 1-1 against Mills. Not much else. He was an average lightheavyweight champion.

Foster was one of the best. It's not his fault that the competition wasn't that great. It's not like he ducked anyone, like Lesnevich did. And there was some decent fighters like Quarry and Finnegan that he beat.

Tiger was past it, but certainly not shot when Foster beat him. Tiger beat Benvenuti after he lost to foster. And Foster stopped him in a devastating knockout. Even if Lesnevich would somehow have beat Tiger, he certainly wouldn't have been the champ for 6 years.

[dempseyfire]

Against that calibre of opposition? I wouldn't bet on it.

Average champion? Beating the likes of Mauriello,Mills, Bettina, and Mann I wouldn't say makes an average light heavyweight champion (and Gus was never stopped at 175 either, just at HW and to two all-timers in Corbett and Steele when he was at middle). I'm not saying I rank Lesnevich higher in an all-time sense to Bob, but I am saying I think his best wins top Foster's best wins.

No it's not Foster's fault his era was weaker, but fair or not it hurts his ranking at that weight IMO as well as the fact that he was pretty much dominated by any upper-tier heavyweight he fought, whereas the real upper echelon of all time great 175 lbers managed to beat some top heavyweights and often compete with the all-timers above 175.

[Ambling Alp]

Yes, average for a champion. Mauriello, Mills,Bettina, and Mann is pretty much what one would expect out an average champion. Good fighters, but not better than most other eras in the division.

Look, I know you love the old guys, but to me it doesn't really matter when a guy fought. I don't subscribe to the theory that every fighter previous to the 1960's with a pulse was really good.

Foster beat several good fighters; Rouse, Tessman, Kelly, Rondon, Kelly, Quarry, Finnegan, and Fourie were good fighters. None of them were great, special; but they weren't journeyman either.
It's not like Foster was constantly struggling with these guys either; usually he beat them very easily.

The win over Tiger is underrated; Tiger beat Torres just a year before and beat Benvenuti a year after. And Foster knocked him out cold in four rounds.

As for what Foster did against heavyweights, I don't count that at all when ranking him as a light heavyweight.
When rating a guy at a certain weight class, you only consider what he did at that weight class. To me that's just common sense.

If you want to rate a guy in a pound for pound for pound sense; that's a different story. Obviously someone like Charles or Tunney should be ahead of Foster.

Comparing Lesnevich and Foster at lightheavyweight isn't worth debating about.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I agree with Dempsey that Lesnevich is better than being credit, here, by Alp. On the other hand, I think Alp is in the right when he states a fighter should be judged within a certain weightclass, & Foster's performances at Heavy shouldn't detract from an assessment of him in another division.

[dempseyfire]

Due to the very common inter-mixing of light heavyweights and heavyweights throughout boxing history, I see it as a fair comparison. Especially if we're ranking Foster with the top 10 light HWs . . . ALL of whom managed to beat some excellent guys at heavyweight.

Of course it matters when a guy fought! Deeper waters produce better fighters, b/c they are forced to persevere vs better talent, skills etc. to get to and remain on top. Foster wasn't feasting on bums, but compared to the comp of Charles,Tunney . . even Spinks, it's really lacking.

Benvenuti was a middleweight. Tiger was a GREAT middleweight, but a good light heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp]

I think we have to agree to disagree on counting fights against heavyweights.

I think you are missing my point about when a guy fought. Of course certain eras had a lot of talent in certain weight classes and other eras are better in other weight classes. (However counting all weight classes, most eras are pretty close.)

My point is I don't (or atleast try not to) have a bias towards certain eras in general. If a guy is great, I will say he was great, whether he fought in the 1930's, 1960's, 1990's whenever.

There are also stiffs in any era and everything in between. You seem to think that anyone fighter with a pulse in any weight class pre-1960's in any weight class was good. They weren't all that good. Some were, some weren't.
No, the lightheavyweight division wasn't great in the late 1960's/early 1970's. However, that doesn't mean Foster wasn't great. I don't think Foster would have been a better fighter in the 1940's or Moore, Chalres would have been worse in the 1970's. If Charles, Moore, Tunney etc. had fought in the this era does that mean they wouldn't have been great?

[dempseyfire]

I think we have to agree to disagree on counting fights against heavyweights.

I think you are missing my point about when a guy fought. Of course certain eras had a lot of talent in certain weight classes and other eras are better in other weight classes. (However counting all weight classes, most eras are pretty close.)

My point is I don't (or atleast try not to) have a bias towards certain eras in general. If a guy is great, I will say he was great, whether he fought in the 1930's, 1960's, 1990's whenever.

There are also stiffs in any era and everything in between. You seem to think that anyone fighter with a pulse in any weight class pre-1960's in any weight class was good. They weren't all that good. Some were, some weren't.
No, the lightheavyweight division wasn't great in the late 1960's/early 1970's. However, that doesn't mean Foster wasn't great. I don't think Foster would have been a better fighter in the 1940's or Moore, Chalres would have been worse in the 1970's. If Charles, Moore, Tunney etc. had fought in the this era does that mean they wouldn't have been great?

I think great eras bring forth opportunities for greatness. Moore and Charles wouldn't have been Moore or Charles in the early 1970s.

I think you may perhaps thinking my opinion of Foster is lower than it is. I'm saying Foster was over-rated in the context of those putting him in their top 5 175lbers of all time. I can see him in the top 10 without a doubt. I personally have him at #11. He was a great fighter, and he took care of business vs the guys he had (unlike say Wladimir Klit who managed to lose vs some of the B and C graders of his era). I just add more weight to guys who were able to beat other great light HWs or some excellent heavyweights.

[Ambling Alp]

Well,maybe we aren't as far apart. #11 certainly isn't shabby, though I have him at #5. (Behind only Spinks,Charles, Moore, and Tunney).

Usually I have fighter who have beaten greats higher than those that haven't. However, I think Foster is an exception.
To me, you also have to look at the losses/bad performances as well. Foster was amazingly consistent. He never lost to any lightheavyweight during his prime; in fact he usually won easily. I'm not sure who else you have ahead of Foster, but lightheavyweights such as Rosenbloom, Lewis, Johnson, Jones all lost to less than great fighters. Consistency has to count for something.

Some fighter that fight in eras that aren't great don't go 100% and I do think they would struggle if they would have to fight another great fighter. They may not be able to dig down deep.
However, Foster wasn't like that. He was a professional who came to fight no matter who the opponent.
He also showed his toughness when when he was well past his prime in fights against Fourie and Ahumada.

Maybe a college football analogy will make sense. The SEC is usually the best conference. The competition from top to bottom is usually the best in the nation. Often their best team is the best in the country. However, sometimes a team from a not as tough of a conference is better than the best SEC team.

That is sort of how I look at Bob Foster. I also weigh the level of dominance vs the quality of competition. (which in Foster's case, the competition wasn't great overall, but it wasn't "Roy Jones bad" either.)
If Foster had lost fights he should have, or even struggled a lot of fighters that he shouldn't have I wouldn't have him that high. However, he did about as much as can reasonably be expected of him.

Obviously a fighter who dominated in a strong era has to be strongly considered to be the very best of all time. (That is why I have such high regard for Spinks)
However, that seldom happens.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

At heavyweight, he had a lot of fights but very seldom against the top heavyweights. He got knocked out by Marciano and Patterson, who were by far the best heavyweights he fought. He beat a lot of journeyman heavyweights when he was older but he never fought Williams, Folley, Machen, Johannson, or Liston.

Moore seldom fought top heavyweights? In the early-mid 1950s while he was younger and still hungry.....he practically cleaned out all the rated contenders in the division. Moore twice beat # 1 contender Nino Valdez, a 6'3 215lber, dominateds # 3 rated 6'2 210lber Bob Baker, and shutout top 5 rated Clarence Henry. these 3 men were some of the best contenders of marciano's era and moore disposed of them. Moore didnt take on those guys in the early 60s because he was in his mid 40s and his career was winding down.


Say what you want about the names above. Big Cat Williams was flattened by bob satterfield. Moore knocked out satterfield in 3. Folley was knocked out cold by Lavorante. A 45 year old archie moore knocked 6'4 212lb lavorante into a Coma. Eddie Machen lost to Harold Johnson. Archie beat Harold Johnson 4 times! As you see, Archie was beating guys who had all beaten the names above.

[Ambling Alp]

Gee, I think we have talked about this umpteen times.
Moore didn't beat Johnson at heavyweight. That is the weight that Machen lost a very close decision to Johnson at.
Johnson actually was more impressive at heavyweight than Moore was.

Williams took the Satterfield fight as a last minute replacement. That result means virtually nothing.

Satterfield, Baker, Valdes all lost many times to ordinary opponents; Moore's win over them is no big deal.
Moore had a lot of fights against heavyweights in the mid-late 1950's but not against the best heavyweights.
Yes Archie was a better heavyweight than Foster; which isn't saying much. I was just mentioning that Archie wasn't a great heavyweight.

Really what Moore did as a heavyweight has no bearing to me on rating him strictly as a light-heavyweight. At light-heavyweight, Foster is very close to Moore and would have serious chance beating him head to head.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Moore didn't beat Johnson at heavyweight.

Moore beat harold johnson FOUR friggin times. Its not like Johnson cut weight, he naturally was a 175lber. When harold johnson took on Nino Valdez and Ezzard Charles at HEAVYWEIGHT, johnson weighed in at 176lb and 177lb just 2-3lb more than what he weighed when archie moore beat him. Archie deserves full credit for beating any version of harold johnson. The heavyweight version of Johnson was the 175lb Johnson.

That is the weight that Machen lost a very close decision to Johnson at.

Johnson was 33 years old and past his prime for the machen fight. Archie beat a harold johnson in his twenties FOUR times. Harold Johnson never weighed more than 180lb, Harold fought heavyweights at 175lb.

Johnson actually was more impressive at heavyweight than Moore was.

Disagree. Archies record at heavyweight stood 75-3-2. Archies record against heavyweights over 200lb stood at 22-1 with 19 kayos.

Williams took the Satterfield fight as a last minute replacement. That result means virtually nothing.

Williams was 32-1 going into the fight. the result certainly means something. Moore knocked out satterfield btw. Satterfield knocked out Big Cat Williams.

Henry, Baker, Valdes all lost many times to ordinary opponents

If these guys were no big deals, then how come both marciano and pattersons management both snubbed some of these guys out of title shots? Clarence Henry was described by new york times in 1952 as "In the same class a fighter as Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, and Ezzard Charles". Henry took harold johnson to a close split decision. Moore won a 9 rounds to 1 shutout decision over Henry damaging henrys eye so badly henry went blind in 1953 and retired shortly afterward.

Moore had a lot of fights against heavyweights in the mid-late 1950's but not against the best heavyweights.

Well, the best heavyweights were the top rated ones right? Archie did beat the top heavyweights of the mid 1950s

Nino Valdez was the # 1 rated contender when Archie Beat him
Bob Baker was the # 2 rated Contender when Archie Beat him
Clarence Henry was # 3 rated contender when Archie Beat him
Jimmy Bivins was # 2 rated contender when Archie Beat him in 1947
Alejandro Lavorante was # 4 rated contender when Archie Beat him in 1962

Shall I go on?

Now you say late 1950s-early 60s, but Archie was in his 40s by now, and near retirement. He had taken on all the top contenders from middle to heavyweight for the past 10 years. Give the old man a break. he wanted to sit on his light-heavyweight throne it took him 20 years to get! but from early to mid 1950s, he certainly beat ALL of the top rated contenders

I was just mentioning that Archie wasn't a great heavyweight.

Sure, but he was a step above the Machens, Folleys, Williams.

Once again...and PLEASE dont hide from these facts

a 45 year old Archie KNOCKED OUT Alejandro Lavorante who had to be carried out on a stretcher. The SAME lavorante who knocked Zora Folley out COLD in 7 rounds

Archie Moore whipped a 25 year old Harold johnson FOUR times. A 33 year old Harold Johnson beat Eddie Machen.

Archie Moore KNOCKED OUT Bob Satterfield. Satterfield brutally kayoed a 32-1 Cleveland Williams

Foster is very close to Moore and would have serious chance beating him head to head.

Sure, however Archie did extremley well against 6'3 fighters during his career. I think archie would find the X spot on fosters chin an get to him. but foster has a chance certainly. I could see archie tasting the canvas once or twice, but archie would do a great job shielding off fosters jab and picking apart fosters weaknesses and getting to bob by the 10th.

Really what Moore did as a heavyweight has no bearing to me on rating him strictly as a light-heavyweight

I think Moore being very succesful as a heavyweight is a huge enhancement to his legacy over fosters unsuccesful bid.

While Moore stepped up and beat the top guys Baker, Valdez Henry. Foster stepped up in his prime and lost to the Terrell, Folley,

[Ambling Alp]

Same old story.:
Pick out one bad result of the fighters you are arguing against (in this case Williams, Machen, Folley), then ignore their quality wins/perfromances.

Then ignore the many embarrassing losses of your favorites (in this case Baker,Satterfield, and Vadles) and point out their rare quality wins.

None of those guys are legends. However, it's pretty obvious that Williams, Machen, and Folley had better careers than Baker, Satterfield, and Valdes. It's not exactly rocket science to figure that out.

Yes Moore was better than Foster at heavyweight; that isn't saying much. However, that's irrelevant when comparing them at 175. Kid Gavilan wasn't a great middleweight, but people don't hold it against him when rating him as welterweight.

Keep ignoring facts and logic that don't support you favorites, and keep ignoring facts and logic that does supports fighters that you dislike; it's so impressive. Real mature.

We have rehashed these same arguments on many other threads and I don't have much desire to do so anymore.

[Tantum]

Moore, big time.

[Marciano Frazier]

Same old story.:
Pick out one bad result of the fighters you are arguing against (in this case Williams, Machen, Folley), then ignore their quality wins/perfromances.

Then ignore the many embarrassing losses of your favorites (in this case Baker,Satterfield, and Vadles) and point out their rare quality wins.

None of those guys are legends. However, it's pretty obvious that Williams, Machen, and Folley had better careers than Baker, Satterfield, and Valdes. It's not exactly rocket science to figure that out.

I think that's a fairly debatable claim. Out of the six fighters in question, I'd say Valdes clearly has the best single win (Charles), and Williams has by far the shallowest resume, in addition to having actually been knocked out by Satterfield. I would say the Williams-Machen-Folley group has an edge on Baker-Valdes-Satterfield, but they're in a similar vein.

Yes Moore was better than Foster at heavyweight; that isn't saying much. However, that's irrelevant when comparing them at 175. Kid Gavilan wasn't a great middleweight, but people don't hold it against him when rating him as welterweight.

The Gavilan example shifts the focus, here; no, you can't fairly demote a fighter's historical ranking in a given division on the basis of lesser results in other divisions, but if you're discussing an actual theoretical fight, then any instance of that fighter in his prime engaging in a professional fight is relevant. It isn't as though weaknesses shown by Foster at heavyweight would cease to exist once he signed a contract to fight at the 175-pound limit. An examination of how the two fighters respectively dealt with certain types of opposition can fairly inform one's opinion of how they would deal with each other. The fact that Foster- a big light heavyweight- failed so thoroughly to effectively make the transition to fighting men his own size and bigger does suggest to me that there were substantial weaknesses in his make-up as a fighter which an opponent with the correct attributes and gameplan could exploit. The fact that Moore, on the other hand, saw such tremendous success in his heavyweight campaign as to defeat most of the staple heavyweight contenders of an era and remain a top 10-level heavyweight for over a decade, clear up until the time of his retirement, on the other hand, suggests to me that Moore possessed a more versatile and adaptable repertoire and did not need so much to fall back on one or two major strengths as a crutch for his success as Foster did.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, I'm glad you don't hold what Foster did above 175 against him when rating him as at 175. It really is common sense. I was staring to think that there a special "Bob Foster" law.
Foster could do things that were effective against guys at 175 that weren't against bigger fighters.
Most importantly, his power wasn't nearly as devastating against against bigger men. He also usually had less of a height and reach advantage against heavyweights than against light heavyweights.
This is really fairly simple. He wasn't able to use his major strengths against heavyweights. However, that doesn't diminish what he did at lightheavyweight. He had those strengths against lightheavyweights.
I agree that Foster couldn't "fall back on his crutch" against many heavyweights. However, my point is that he could against light heavyweights.

Some guys adapt better than others when moving up in weight.
Archie Moore was a great lightheavyweight as well. However, he lost to worse lightheavyweights than Foster had several close calls as well, was decked several times. A great lightheavyweight would have a serious chance against Moore.
At 175, a Foster-Moore fight is a pick 'em. If there is no weight limit, than I would go with Moore. That's my main point.

As for Folley-Williams-Machen vs Baker-Valdes-Satterfield (Which is not really on topic, but anyway):
The Williams-Satterfield fight is meaningless. Williams took the fight literally at the last minute. He didn't prepare at all for a fight. For all we know, he didn't have his normal trainer, his normal equipment, hadn't been in the gym for awhile, just ate a meal, etc. Even if he didn't have any of those problems, just the fact of taking a fight at the last moment you aren't going to be mentally prepared.
Satterfield was knocked by I believe 13 different guys. That's just embarrassing. Valdes and Baker also lost way too often. Take away Valdes win over a fading Charles and you don't have much. (This the part when Brocton lists heavyweights mediocre guys they beat and makes a big deal about it.) They weren't the best contenders of their era. They were are all overrated and apparently still are by some people.
Machen and Folley all had some good wins. Agree that Williams doesn't have a lot of quality wins but atleast he seldom lost to ordinary fighters like Satterfield, Baker, and Valdes often did. None of these three were legends but they were pretty good. There is a reason why Moore fought many heavyweights in the late 1950's but none of these three. (Though he found the time to fight journeyman heavyweight Howard King 5 times.)I don't think Moore would have beat them and he knew it.

I know everyone likes Archie and I like him too. I really have no special affection for Foster. However, I just try to be fair regardless of how much I like him.
To tell you the truth, I have talked about this on past threads and really don't have much interest in rehashing it further still.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I don't think Moore would have beat them and he knew it.

A 33 year old Harold Johnson was able to beat Eddie Machen, yet Archie Moore can't? Archie Moore whipped a prime version of johnson 4 times. Where is the logic here? What does Machen have in his reproitre that Archie hasn't seen before?

Alejandro Lavorante was able to knock Zora Folley out cold, yet Archie Can't? A 45 year old Archie Moore knocked out Lavorante so badly he had to be carried out of the ring on a stretcher. Light-Heavyweight Doug Jones also knocked out Zora Folley. Surely if Jones could do it, Moore could not replicate that? Zora Folleys biggest flaw was his susceptibility to a straight right hand, Archie had one of the best in history.

In My Own Opinion, Folley and Machen were extremley talented boxers, but they were not in the same class as Archie. I don't see how Archie doesnt get to Folley with his sneaky right hand for the knockout, and I think Archie outboxes and outsmarts Eddie Machen to win a decision, machen did not have the power to threaten archie, and no one beats archie at his own game.

[Marciano Frazier]

Well, I'm glad you don't hold what Foster did above 175 against him when rating him as at 175. It really is common sense. I was staring to think that there a special "Bob Foster" law.
Foster could do things that were effective against guys at 175 that weren't against bigger fighters.
Most importantly, his power wasn't nearly as devastating against against bigger men. He also usually had less of a height and reach advantage against heavyweights than against light heavyweights.
This is really fairly simple. He wasn't able to use his major strengths against heavyweights. However, that doesn't diminish what he did at lightheavyweight. He had those strengths against lightheavyweights.
I agree that Foster couldn't "fall back on his crutch" against many heavyweights. However, my point is that he could against light heavyweights.

Some guys adapt better than others when moving up in weight.
Archie Moore was a great lightheavyweight as well. However, he lost to worse lightheavyweights than Foster had several close calls as well, was decked several times. A great lightheavyweight would have a serious chance against Moore.
At 175, a Foster-Moore fight is a pick 'em. If there is no weight limit, than I would go with Moore. That's my main point.

I don't know that it is quite that simple. An underlying point I am suggesting, here, is that it may be possible even at light heavyweight for an opponent with the right skills and know-how to exploit the same weaknesses that prevented Foster from succeeding at heavyweight. For example, as you discuss, Foster was heavily reliant on his height/reach and power (which both became much smaller advantages when he moved up in weight)- because of his heavyweight exploits, it seems evident that Foster did not have a great deal to fall back on when these advantages went away. Now, if he is facing someone. even at light heavyweight, who is very good at taking away opponents' height and dealing with their power, I think these heavyweight fights are very informative and do have what would have to be negative connotations about Foster's chances in such a match.

As for Folley-Williams-Machen vs Baker-Valdes-Satterfield (Which is not really on topic, but anyway):
The Williams-Satterfield fight is meaningless. Williams took the fight literally at the last minute. He didn't prepare at all for a fight. For all we know, he didn't have his normal trainer, his normal equipment, hadn't been in the gym for awhile, just ate a meal, etc. Even if he didn't have any of those problems, just the fact of taking a fight at the last moment you aren't going to be mentally prepared.
Satterfield was knocked by I believe 13 different guys. That's just embarrassing. Valdes and Baker also lost way too often. Take away Valdes win over a fading Charles and you don't have much. (This the part when Brocton lists heavyweights mediocre guys they beat and makes a big deal about it.) They weren't the best contenders of their era. They were are all overrated and apparently still are by some people.
Machen and Folley all had some good wins. Agree that Williams doesn't have a lot of quality wins but atleast he seldom lost to ordinary fighters like Satterfield, Baker, and Valdes often did. None of these three were legends but they were pretty good.

Which of Machen and Folley's wins distinguish their resumes as being better than Valdes' or Baker's? Machen's best wins would be: Hurricane Jackson (who Valdes also beat), Valdes (who was past his best), Mike DeJohn (who Valdes also beat), Doug Jones (who was a light heavyweight and who you would dismiss if he were on an early '50s heavyweight's resume) and what could be seen as a rather green Quarry. No, frankly, I don't believe Machen has a better resume than a Valdes or Baker- maybe not even as good. I admit that he does have something going for him, though, in that he didn't have as many ugly losses as some of the other guys being discussed here.
Folley, in turn, has maybe a little better resume, with wins over Machen, Cooper, Jones, Chuvalo, and a green Bonavena, and on the second tier Cleroux and DeJohn, but if you're adverse to ugly losses, he's not your man, as he also lost to the likes of Cooper, Jones, journeyman Young Jack Johnson, Johnny Summerlin and Moore KO victim Alejandro Lavorante. In large part, these guys seem to get credit for strength of resume by virtue of having fought in the same era as Ali. There's a sort of "trickle-down" effect at work, here; guys who fought in Marciano's time period tend to have their resumes poo-pooed, while ones from Ali's are pretty much automatically accredited with having faced great opposition and having numerous big wins to prove their pedigree, even when this is not the case. In reality- and you should agree with me on this if you objectively examine their records- guys like Folley, Machen and Williams (especially Williams) have pretty padded records and relatively shallow resumes when it actually comes to beating top fighters of their eras. On the other hand, guys like Valdes, Baker and Satterfield have uglier win-loss averages, but by and large this is a result of the fact that they were actually mixing it up with the other top guys on an extremely consistent basis, and in a sort of trade-off for the sparkling records their successors would boast, they do, in fact, have deep resumes (though people tend to scoff at this claim, at least in large part because it's the "Marciano era"). I absolutely believe, for example, that it is a reasonable claim that Jimmy Bivins (even an older one), Joe Baksi, Coley Wallace (twice), Rex Layne (three times), Nino Valdes (twice), and George Chuvalo- all wins of Bob Baker's- constitute a winning resume at least as strong as any of the late '50s through '60s guys we've brought up here.

There is a reason why Moore fought many heavyweights in the late 1950's but none of these three. (Though he found the time to fight journeyman heavyweight Howard King 5 times.)I don't think Moore would have beat them and he knew it.

Well, gee, Folley fought Howard King three times himself. Why do you assume that if a fight between Moore and a given top heavyweight didn't happen, it must be because Moore was doing the ducking and not the other way around? Have you looked through the kind of opposition Williams and Folley were fighting through most of the late '50s? You're not talking about some kind of dream team by a long shot, here; in fact, by and large, you're talking about a long string of ham-and-eggers, while Moore was at least facing gatekeepers at heavyweight and top contenders in defending his light heavyweight title.
Think about it: you're a young top heavyweight in the late '50s through early '60s, and there's a fellow around who is an extremely old light heavyweight, who already cleaned up on about half the top heavyweights of the previous generation and is still successfully defending his light heavyweight title and battering any heavyweights who will get in the ring with him. The guy is very old and relatively small, yet still extremely capable and dangerous. Think, then, from a risk/reward standpoint- if you should win, your win will be derided as picking on an extremely old smaller guy, and if you should lose, to much of the public it will be like a millstone around your neck to have been beaten by an extremely old small guy. Unless you're extremely confident you're a champ and can take him out (though even then it won't be good for your public image), the wise choice is to stay the heck away from the guy. Given Archie Moore's track record- the guy was fighting anyone and everyone from clear back in the mid-1940s into the mid-50s and was even fighting future Hall-of-Famers through the last three fights of his career- it seems extremely presumptuous and unfair to assume that Moore was ducking someone else.
As to whether he would have beaten them, I would be confident in Moore beating these guys at his best (c. 1949-56), but he was slowing up some by this stage. Even still, Moore did as well or better than these guys did against pretty well every common opponent you can muster and is superior in resume, consistency and longevity to all of them. Even into the '60s, Moore brutalized Alejandro Lavorante within a year of Lavorante's KO over Zora Folley. Certainly a fair examination of his career indicates that- at heavyweight, not in some general sense- Moore was a superior fighter overall to any of these three, all of whom were vulnerable to defeat by journeymen, gatekeepers, and lesser contenders within that division, while Moore was astoundingly dominant over the field of heavyweight journeymen and contenders, though he fell to the absolute cream of the crop.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

There's a sort of "trickle-down" effect at work, here; guys who fought in Marciano's time period tend to have their resumes poo-pooed, while ones from Ali's are pretty much automatically accredited with having faced great opposition and having numerous big wins to prove their pedigree, even when this is not the case..

- Ali in particular gets a golden pass, though Rock has his fair share of blind fans also.

Rock takes heat for giving title rematches to aging Walcott and Charles after they gave him tough fights, and then criticized for the Moore bout. Doesn't seem to bother them that Ali faces Moore almost a decade later in building his career.

Liston around the same age as Walcott quits on his stool, so there's Ali giving him a rematch with zip criticism. Fans instead tout him up as Ali's biggest wins. Now, I do like that he gave Williams and Folley their shots, but at that phase in their careers, they were no longer relevant, particularly Williams. Patterson was a very unhealthy version of the knocked out former champ Charles. LaStarza and Cockell easily a class overall above London, Mildenberger and Cooper.