Archie Moore vs todays heavyweights

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2005, 16:49

archie moore was in the top 3 greatest light-H of all time in my opinion. the man with the most KOs of all time dominated the light-H division even when he was past his prime. however, he also started to fight a lot of heavyweight contenders and beat most of the top contenders including nino valdez. moore also fought very wel lagainst the rock. u think his boxing skills, crab style, ring smarts and great finishing power will enable him to give up a huge size advantage and beat the big guys today?

do u think he could have done if he tried to step up and gain the heavyweight crown today liek roy jones did and beat the klitschkos bryds or ruizs ???

it might be harder for him than jones cause jones had the speed to outspeed and dance around these guys well archie liked to overpower outsmart and even outphysical his opponents.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:32

Moore wasn't as fast as Jones but when he was younger he was pretty fast and had excellent reflexes.

Against today's sorry crop?

I see him beating a lot of them-Brock, McCline, Ruiz, Oquendo etc. have nothing that Nino Valdez didn't have. I think he'd beat Byrd too in an entertaining fight.

But I see him getting overwhelmed by Vitali Klitschko, whose size and style would give Moore fits, but he'd have a shot vs little brother Wladimir's chin

You know how people are giving (or gave) Toney a good chance of being the MAN at HW. Moore was Toney and a bag of potato chips.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 17 Aug 2005, 17:35

I think Moore would have enough to take care of all the top Heavies of today... they are such a poor bunch and he'd outsmart and outbox them etc... different class. The only one who I could see perhaps beating Moore would be Vitali but I still favour Moore against him.
Moore Actually prefered fighting big heavies. He had his problems when he got older with the faster guys and the high workrate fighters... which is why he lost to Marciano and Patterson.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Aug 2005, 18:08

I truly love the old mongoose. My all time fav. However, he may not be big enough to clean out the division, but he sure as hell would be competitive. I ask myself could he beat Lennox? I come up with a No which also brings me to a no With Vitali.

But a Toney/Moore fight would be just amazing what a war! I'm ready to invent a time machine just to watch that one. I can not call a winner, Because I don't want to call one. I have argued that I think Toney has a chance with these big guys like Vitali but I have come up with a no for Archie. Convoluded thinking I know. Go figure.

Logic is a hell of a ruthless taskmaster when you dealing with your all time favorite fighters. I probably have to set this one out from pure bias. It is very encouraging to see Silkov agreeing regarding Archie's competivness in today's group of HW's.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Aug 2005, 18:45

i think the archie moore that fought patterson was a different fighter than silkov, when he fought marciano. he got himself in excellent physaical shape for marciano fight and really wanted it and it showed and he looked tough, boxing very well and giving marciano the hardest punch in his 49 fight career. he legite hurt marciano, though marciano wont admit it. he did take a lot of punishment from marciano though and he fought a couragious battle lasting until the 9th. he earned a lot of respect in that fight and his strong preformance over marciano made him a pretty solid favorite. but he came out and seemed slower, less mobile, and didnt have the same snap in his punches. he did outbox floyd early, but lacked the snap in his punches and his refexes seemed slower and the very fast handed floyd patterson took advatange of that. i think that beating from marciano took a lot out of him physically and his heart didnt seem to be into the patterson fight. he should have waited another year before taking the patterson fight. i think patterson was too young at that point for archie to lose to, and had archie brought his true self into the ring against the young patterson, he would have Koed young floyd that night.

he still hadnt recovered from the fight with marciano. he never really did. that was the fight he wanted, he got his chance and lost. then against patterson, i dont know what happened, but he should have won. my explanation is he really started to slow down after the marciano fight.

anyone else think archie spent himself against marciano and didnt have his same stuff against young floyd????

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Aug 2005, 22:18

That may account for some of it. But sometimes even when a better fighter steps in the ring it's just not his night. I think it was a very good night for Floyd and a very bad night for Archie. Sometimes championships are won on a fluke. Like Sharkey Schmeling. I'm not sure the Marciano fight took as much out of the mongoose as you say. But I can't be sure.

A fluke is why I will continue to rate Byrd above Vitali until it has been undone.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Aug 2005, 06:20

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i think the archie moore that fought patterson was a different fighter than silkov, when he fought marciano. he got himself in excellent physaical shape for marciano fight and really wanted it and it showed and he looked tough, boxing very well and giving marciano the hardest punch in his 49 fight career. he legite hurt marciano, though marciano wont admit it. he did take a lot of punishment from marciano though and he fought a couragious battle lasting until the 9th. he earned a lot of respect in that fight and his strong preformance over marciano made him a pretty solid favorite. but he came out and seemed slower, less mobile, and didnt have the same snap in his punches. he did outbox floyd early, but lacked the snap in his punches and his refexes seemed slower and the very fast handed floyd patterson took advatange of that. i think that beating from marciano took a lot out of him physically and his heart didnt seem to be into the patterson fight. he should have waited another year before taking the patterson fight. i think patterson was too young at that point for archie to lose to, and had archie brought his true self into the ring against the young patterson, he would have Koed young floyd that night.

he still hadnt recovered from the fight with marciano. he never really did. that was the fight he wanted, he got his chance and lost. then against patterson, i dont know what happened, but he should have won. my explanation is he really started to slow down after the marciano fight.

anyone else think archie spent himself against marciano and didnt have his same stuff against young floyd????

I see what you're saying but don't agree totally. The fight against Marciano could have taken something out of Archie who was already 42 by then at least but if you look at his record he still scored some good wins after the Marcino fight against Heavies as well as Light-heavies.
In fact Moore was still a rated Heavy right up to when Ali beat him.
Also in the year leading up to his fight with Marciano Archie had only 3 or 4 fights while in the year leading up to the Patterson bout Archie had about 11 bouts... so I don't think he was out of shape. Stale maybe?.
But I think the reason Floyd won so 'easily' was because he fought a very good fight, certainly the best of his title fights and his speed was a problem for Moore. Moore always had trouble with boxers that were faster than him which is one of the reasons why Ezzard Charles gave him so much trouble. Moore couldn't deal with Floyds handspeed and his power was good too and Archie was never able to get into the fight.
People forget that Patterson could probably have been one of the all time best lightheavyweight champs had he stuck to that division....

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 18 Aug 2005, 07:12

On the subject of Marciano ruining fighters I saw Henry Cooper make a similar assessment to BB (not in respect to Moore but in geenral). Cooper said that fighting someone like Rocky was a nightmare because of his power, his relentless agression and his crowding. He mentioned how Rocky would be fighting harder in the 15th than he was in the first and with all that in fighting and crowding there'd be power punches, elbows, body punches... Cooper claimed that this kind of fighting took its toll on opponents and that many fighters aged quickly after fighting Rocky.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 18 Aug 2005, 10:40

Ezzard wrote:On the subject of Marciano ruining fighters I saw Henry Cooper make a similar assessment to BB (not in respect to Moore but in geenral). Cooper said that fighting someone like Rocky was a nightmare because of his power, his relentless agression and his crowding. He mentioned how Rocky would be fighting harder in the 15th than he was in the first and with all that in fighting and crowding there'd be power punches, elbows, body punches... Cooper claimed that this kind of fighting took its toll on opponents and that many fighters aged quickly after fighting Rocky.

Yeah, I agree up to a point but it should also be remembered that Marcianos top opponents, Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore were all well into their 30s when they faught Rocky so were on the slide anyway to be honest. When your that age also your recovery from hard fights is that much more difficult. Don Cockell was 'ruined' by his fight with Marciano but this was also connected to his illness which kept him from getting into the sort of shape he should of been in to face someone like Rocky.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Aug 2005, 12:37

Moore would school Toney. Harder puncher, much better conditioned, and had as many tricks in the bag as Toney and more. Toney brags about having fought over 60 times . . .Moore has over twice as many knockouts!!!! Toney emulates Moore but the real deal would prevail in that one.