ezzard charles vs archie moore fantast matchup PEAKS

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Dec 2005, 05:51

- i know charles beat him 3 times, but IMO the only fight where moore was in his prime was the 3rd fight. moore perhaps was t the beginning of his prime for 2nd charles fight. moore fought tough competiton in his earlier years, but it wasnt until late 40s-early 50s i felt he reached his peak as a fighter, he became better boxer, better defense, smarter, stronger, classic late bloomer
.
- i even think jaclem said he was faster against oakland smith(40s fight), but was a better fighter later on

notice how charles spanks mooore the first time, then 2nd fight moore loses a close controversial(though jaclem says charles won) decision, and in the 3rd fight charles was behind on points and nearly got knocked out before landing a paralysizing punch and finishing him off.

but IMO moores prime was 48-55 but moores peak was very early 50s

so very early 50s moore vs peak 46-48 charles

ill go with charles by close decision, as i believe moores incredible new found ring smarts would not let him be caught like in the 3rd fight, but i still lean toward charles since he beat moore in the 2nd and especially 3rd fight when moore was at the beginning of his prime.

i hope im not confusing anyone, but i felt the very early 50s moore had basically the same speed or reflexes as late 40s moore, but WITH BETTER RING SMARTS which would make this an even better fight,

- also charles and moore never fought a 15 round fight which would have been more interesting in late rounds.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Dec 2005, 06:05

There's no dount that 15 rounds would have some show. These 2 are both as good as it gets in the sport.

At their peaks this is always going to be a very close fight but I think that it's impossible to go against Ezzard when you consider he did win 3 of 3 (however close they may have been).

Jacelm's post on Ezz talking about Archie was very interesting.

Anyway, for me Ezzard is unbeatable from 165-175. There I've said it. That's my personal bais and I'm sticking to it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Dec 2005, 06:20

great points ezzard!

yeah like i said i think moore was in his prime for 3rd fight, but i think the ring smart he developed a little later when he was at his peak would have made this aneven more competitive and incredibly tactical 15 round fight but i still lean toward charles.

- i would like to know what jaclem thinks moore and chaarles peak fights were?

IMO charles peak was marshall III, moore III, maybe even ray II

moores peak was when he dominated harold johnson in early 50s over 10 rounds in one of there fights and annihalted joey maxim I.

barry · Post by **barry** » 05 Dec 2005, 07:53

At his best, Ezz could beat any light heavyweight that ever lived and unless Moore caught him with some hard shots and kncoked Charles out, then I would say Charles certainly wins, possibly stopping Moore in the later rounds.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:06

i agree charles was the greatest light-h of all time!

- the only fighter i could see beating him at 175 is sam langford whom i rank 2nd on light-H all time

- i rank moore 3rd

barry · Post by **barry** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:29

My top five goes:

1. Sam Langford
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Gene Tunney
5. Archie Moore

But on any given night Ezz could have beaten any of the four others.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Dec 2005, 08:31

barry, im guessing ur counting fitz when we was 168-175lblb heavyweight champion????

because the fitz who won the light-H title was 40 and by now past his prime.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 05 Dec 2005, 17:49

I don`t agree with most when they say Archie Moore improved as he got (alot) older.

In his autobiography he admits that the best fighters he faced were the ones he lost to before he won the Lt-heavy title.

I would also say Archie faced a better group of fighters in his early years than the later years.(obviously not counting when he fought out of his weight class).

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 05 Dec 2005, 21:18

Do I have to express my dissapointment in the assessments here?

Very very competitive fight I'll say that much.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 06 Dec 2005, 03:48

..i agree with tonyevs here.....when archie was in his younger lightheavy years the divison was loaded with great fighters....as well as some middleweights who were competitive with the light heavies. archie simply stayed a quality fighter for a longer time...outlasted the murderers row and while still facing good fighters the great ones were no longer as great. plus....he did change his style a little from when i first saw him. he did say a couple of times that he started to develop a style that would minimize his footwork so as he got older he wouldn't need his legs as much. that's how smart the old guy was. he'd seen how charles, bivins, marshall and burley..to name a few...never got their title shots...and he planned to be around a long time and finally get his turn.

as for peak times.....i determine them in years rather than in specific fights....so it's hard to say whose years were their best ones.

ezzard versus archie? i think the record that stands speaks for itself.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 06 Dec 2005, 03:51

...boxbuzz...no, you don't have to express your disappointment here. you don't have to express anything anywhere.

(this post has nothing to do with the fact that more people picked buzz as the funniest poster here than they did me. nothing at all. in fact it is so insignificant that i'm surprised i've even mentioning it.)

barry · Post by **barry** » 06 Dec 2005, 03:57

I also think tonyevs hit it right about Moore's earlier years...160 to 175 during the 1930s & 1940s was absolutely loaded with some of the best fighters ever...and the best thing about that time...they all actually fought each other, several times in some cases!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Dec 2005, 04:01

Jaclem wrote:..i agree with tonyevs here.....when archie was in his younger lightheavy years the divison was loaded with great fighters....as well as some middleweights who were competitive with the light heavies. archie simply stayed a quality fighter for a longer time...outlasted the murderers row and while still facing good fighters the great ones were no longer as great. plus....he did change his style a little from when i first saw him. he did say a couple of times that he started to develop a style that would minimize his footwork so as he got older he wouldn't need his legs as much. that's how smart the old guy was. he'd seen how charles, bivins, marshall and burley..to name a few...never got their title shots...and he planned to be around a long time and finally get his turn.

as for peak times.....i determine them in years rather than in specific fights....so it's hard to say whose years were their best ones.

ezzard versus archie? i think the record that stands speaks for itself.

well moore defintley was more consistent in his later years, and in the 40s besides losing to some great underated fighters, he was caught a lot by lesser 2nd teir fighters.

- moore probably didnt reach his best till late 40s when he grew into a fully flegded light-H.

the 3rd fight was defintley moores prime, but perhaps a better ring smarter moore of early 50s wouldnt have been caught like that, but then again ezzard was special!!!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Dec 2005, 09:30

Jaclem.....often the understudy is given undue consideration....I am but a student humbly studying the various masters.......Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Jaclem, Pringle.......You know....the iconic greats.

With that said...It would be a very competitive fight. I know Archie pulls one out of the trilogy at their peaks. The other two I'm not so sure what happens as the image from the crystal ball faded after the first match in which Archie scored a UD.

Unfortunately for Archie there is a very clear record on this subject. How Ezzard pulled it off is still a mystery. I think it was a combination of loose ropes,steroids, fixed fights, and of course mob intimidation and perhaps interference by the Nation of Islam.

Oh and as I recall his cornerman had something aside from water in the bottle that Ezzard was drinking from in each encounter.

Any other theories?

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 06 Dec 2005, 10:47

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Jaclem wrote:..i agree with tonyevs here.....when archie was in his younger lightheavy years the divison was loaded with great fighters....as well as some middleweights who were competitive with the light heavies. archie simply stayed a quality fighter for a longer time...outlasted the murderers row and while still facing good fighters the great ones were no longer as great. plus....he did change his style a little from when i first saw him. he did say a couple of times that he started to develop a style that would minimize his footwork so as he got older he wouldn't need his legs as much. that's how smart the old guy was. he'd seen how charles, bivins, marshall and burley..to name a few...never got their title shots...and he planned to be around a long time and finally get his turn.

as for peak times.....i determine them in years rather than in specific fights....so it's hard to say whose years were their best ones.

ezzard versus archie? i think the record that stands speaks for itself.

well moore defintley was more consistent in his later years, and in the 40s besides losing to some great underated fighters, he was caught a lot by lesser 2nd teir fighters.

- moore probably didnt reach his best till late 40s when he grew into a fully flegded light-H.

the 3rd fight was defintley moores prime, but perhaps a better ring smarter moore of early 50s wouldnt have been caught like that, but then again ezzard was special!!!

Once a boxer becomes CHAMPION he can then better choose who he has to face, and who he is best not to face.

This has happened in this sport as long back as you want to look...and it still happens today.

This is not a knock on the Great Archie Moore in any way, but merely to remember that some of the myths that follow past boxers are not always the full story.

Ezzard Charles in his prime, against Archie Moore in his prime happened, and the records show who was the better man.

It puzzles me why the question is being asked..maybe its like the Toney V Roy Jones argument...excuses bordering on the insane get thrown up...but fought they did and a winner was proven...

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Dec 2005, 10:50

tonyevs wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Jaclem wrote:..i agree with tonyevs here.....when archie was in his younger lightheavy years the divison was loaded with great fighters....as well as some middleweights who were competitive with the light heavies. archie simply stayed a quality fighter for a longer time...outlasted the murderers row and while still facing good fighters the great ones were no longer as great. plus....he did change his style a little from when i first saw him. he did say a couple of times that he started to develop a style that would minimize his footwork so as he got older he wouldn't need his legs as much. that's how smart the old guy was. he'd seen how charles, bivins, marshall and burley..to name a few...never got their title shots...and he planned to be around a long time and finally get his turn.

as for peak times.....i determine them in years rather than in specific fights....so it's hard to say whose years were their best ones.

ezzard versus archie? i think the record that stands speaks for itself.

well moore defintley was more consistent in his later years, and in the 40s besides losing to some great underated fighters, he was caught a lot by lesser 2nd teir fighters.

- moore probably didnt reach his best till late 40s when he grew into a fully flegded light-H.

the 3rd fight was defintley moores prime, but perhaps a better ring smarter moore of early 50s wouldnt have been caught like that, but then again ezzard was special!!!
Once a boxer becomes CHAMPION he can then better choose who he has to face, and who he is best not to face.

This has happened in this sport as long back as you want to look...and it still happens today.

This is not a knock on the Great Archie Moore in any way, but merely to remember that some of the myths that follow past boxers are not always the full story.

Ezzard Charles in his prime, against Archie Moore in his prime happened, and the records show who was the better man.

It puzzles me why the question is being asked..maybe its like the Toney V Roy Jones argument...excuses bordering on the insane get thrown up...but fought they did and a winner was proven...

Loud applause please...

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Dec 2005, 11:01

w/e forget it, i was trying to make a point that i thought charles was at his peak while moore though in his prime still not had totally developed as much as charles as i thought a early 50s moore was a smarter, and stronger fighter, better defense(though probably not as aggresive as late 40s moore which would cost him to lose points deciision)

too bad they never fought 15 rounds, it would have been interesting to see championship rounds.

perhaps i worded this whole thread wrong, and confused everyone.

a prime consist of a period of time when ur at or close to ur fighting best,

a peak is that short period of time where u look better than ever.

in moores case his prime was 48-55 but i thought very early 50s was perhaps his peak.

w.e the 3rd fight was a good example of what happened, though moore showed how great he was by outboxing charles and nearly finishing him.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 06 Dec 2005, 11:16

In that case...we forgive you

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:14

This just in, Oral Roberts reports that God Almighty actually favors Moore in the theoretical "peak" of which BB speaks.

This should settle this once and for all. Very sorry Ezzard.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:25

Sorry, I have a signed contract from the big man upstairs confirming his allegaince to my man. I keep it framed with the certificate of authentication I got from ebay.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 06 Dec 2005, 12:36

Well in that case I suppose that settles it. No argueing with that.

Next Theoretical.