Archie's in my top 5

[davie]

Well it's looks like I'm fairly well outnumbered here
Maybe I'm wrong after all

but I still like The old mongoose, think he's become my first BOTP favourite and maybe I'm viewing him as a fan rather than being objective. But I like to think it's a bit of what you like and I'm sticking with Archie and his longevity (He's staying in my top 5 by the way)
Still, I've spent a bit of time going over Ezzards record and watching what I could of him and between that and this discussion, I've learnt a little more about another legendary fighter.

Just wish there was more footage of both, particularly their bout against each other so we could see for ourselves how good these guys were

[Tomasino]

He proved conclusively he was the better man vs SRR and therefore ATG no1
No?

That's a poor example Davie, what are you getting at? I know you don't believe what you posted there...do you?

I was being ridiculous to make a point.

Of course that's all silly talk but the point I'm trying to make was, yes Ezzard was the better man over those 3 fights, you may even say prime for prime, p4p he was the better fighter, I wouldn't contest that.
But I'm arguing that taking everything into account, I feel his overall record/resume and the number of top level fights, wins and knockouts he had in addition to the number of years he fought at the highest level just push him higher up the list on an ATG basis, which should rate over all acheivement over how good they were on any given day.
I appreciate the arguments to the contrary and respect people who don't agree, I can see where their coming from, but if we say simply Archie cannot be above Ezzard on an ATG list because he lost to him 3 times then the same argument must be applied to Pep and Langford (not so much Pender )

It's not just that Ezzard comprehensively best Archie. It's that Ezz won the heaveyweight title and defended it successfully a number of times. He almost beat Rocky, I know Archie floored him but I pick the Rock 10 out of 10 against Moore, not so with Charles. I don't think Archie would have beaten any version of Joe Louis either. Its not a large margin however, as obviously both were utterly incredible fighters.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Well it's looks like I'm fairly well outnumbered here
Maybe I'm wrong after all

but I still like The old mongoose, think he's become my first BOTP favourite and maybe I'm viewing him as a fan rather than being objective. But I like to think it's a bit of what you like and I'm sticking with Archie and his longevity (He's staying in my top 5 by the way)
Still, I've spent a bit of time going over Ezzards record and watching what I could of him and between that and this discussion, I've learnt a little more about another legendary fighter.

Just wish there was more footage of both, particularly their bout against each other so we could see for ourselves how good these guys were

I don't have a huge issue with him in your top 5, certainly belongs more than Ali or Leonard. Charles just has to be in your top 4!

[davie]

That's a poor example Davie, what are you getting at? I know you don't believe what you posted there...do you?

I was being ridiculous to make a point.

Of course that's all silly talk but the point I'm trying to make was, yes Ezzard was the better man over those 3 fights, you may even say prime for prime, p4p he was the better fighter, I wouldn't contest that.
But I'm arguing that taking everything into account, I feel his overall record/resume and the number of top level fights, wins and knockouts he had in addition to the number of years he fought at the highest level just push him higher up the list on an ATG basis, which should rate over all acheivement over how good they were on any given day.
I appreciate the arguments to the contrary and respect people who don't agree, I can see where their coming from, but if we say simply Archie cannot be above Ezzard on an ATG list because he lost to him 3 times then the same argument must be applied to Pep and Langford (not so much Pender )

It's not just that Ezzard comprehensively best Archie. It's that Ezz won the heaveyweight title and defended it successfully a number of times. He almost beat Rocky, I know Archie floored him but I pick the Rock 10 out of 10 against Moore, not so with Charles. I don't think Archie would have beaten any version of Joe Louis either. Its not a large margin however, as obviously both were utterly incredible fighters.

There's no doubt the heavy weight acheivements of Ezzard are outstanding but I can weigh that against Archies greater volume of work at middleweight as well as his long reign at LHw. I can't mark Archie down for not matching Ezzards acheivements at heavy, he was in his 40's when he attempted a tilt at HW and still only lost to the very best.
And perhaps he was just not best suited to the weight, there's not much in it but Ezzard was taller and as I said younger when he took on the big boys.
Heavy weight should not IMO be rated any different from acheivements at other weight classes, and I go back to Archie had a greater volume of work, more top names and a helluva lot of wins and KOs at MW, LHW and HW. These all have to be taken into account and if it's actual heavy weight title you are counting, lets not forget Ezzard never held a title at LHW (or middle for that matter) I don't think any additional credit should be given to one title or the other.

Of course you could argue that Ezzard should have been given a shot at a title at LHW and been given world title shot's long before he did but the same argument can be applied to both men

I do agree with you on the last part, I don't think I can imagine any version of the Moore I've watched would best a Marciano or Louis at any point.

Out of interest. How would you rate the chances of the Ezzard that beat Louis against the Cassius Clay that beat Moore?

[davie]

Well it's looks like I'm fairly well outnumbered here
Maybe I'm wrong after all

but I still like The old mongoose, think he's become my first BOTP favourite and maybe I'm viewing him as a fan rather than being objective. But I like to think it's a bit of what you like and I'm sticking with Archie and his longevity (He's staying in my top 5 by the way)
Still, I've spent a bit of time going over Ezzards record and watching what I could of him and between that and this discussion, I've learnt a little more about another legendary fighter.

Just wish there was more footage of both, particularly their bout against each other so we could see for ourselves how good these guys were

I don't have a huge issue with him in your top 5, certainly belongs more than Ali or Leonard. Charles just has to be in your top 4!

To be honest, even as a Moore fan, I'm struggling with who to drop out of the top 5 I listed at the start of SRR, Armstrong, Langford, Greb & Pep, so I'm thinking maybe Archie at 6, you've all talked me into Ezzard at 7 with Duran, Ali and it pains me to say it Mayweather making up 8-10

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep can't hold a candle to Ezzard or Archie.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- TUE can't even hold up a jockey's jock, he's pure sissy.
Keep the conversation to real men of the ring, otherwise you must include Chrissy Martin, Laila, and by Jove forbid Anne Wolfe who'd tear his little pinky to shreds to sell back to him as PEDs sucker.

[davie]

Pep can't hold a candle to Ezzard or Archie.

So does that mean I can have Archie in my top 5 then?

Nice to see you've finally came round to the idea

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep can't hold a candle to Ezzard or Archie.

So does that mean I can have Archie in my top 5 then?

Nice to see you've finally came round to the idea

You can have Vinny Pazienza in your top 5. I couldn't care less. I have Archie like 7th, though I think there is a drop off there. Doesn't really matter, no rational explanation for Archie over Ezzard.

[BoxBuzz]

Oh there's a rationale all right.....just not one you would sign off on.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Oh there's a rationale all right.....just not one you would sign off on.

No, I can't sign off on 'I love him'.

[King Carlos]

I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal to my last post, BoxBuzz, since it seems you haven't changed your tune.

[Tomasino]

I was being ridiculous to make a point.

Of course that's all silly talk but the point I'm trying to make was, yes Ezzard was the better man over those 3 fights, you may even say prime for prime, p4p he was the better fighter, I wouldn't contest that.
But I'm arguing that taking everything into account, I feel his overall record/resume and the number of top level fights, wins and knockouts he had in addition to the number of years he fought at the highest level just push him higher up the list on an ATG basis, which should rate over all acheivement over how good they were on any given day.
I appreciate the arguments to the contrary and respect people who don't agree, I can see where their coming from, but if we say simply Archie cannot be above Ezzard on an ATG list because he lost to him 3 times then the same argument must be applied to Pep and Langford (not so much Pender )

It's not just that Ezzard comprehensively best Archie. It's that Ezz won the heaveyweight title and defended it successfully a number of times. He almost beat Rocky, I know Archie floored him but I pick the Rock 10 out of 10 against Moore, not so with Charles. I don't think Archie would have beaten any version of Joe Louis either. Its not a large margin however, as obviously both were utterly incredible fighters.

There's no doubt the heavy weight acheivements of Ezzard are outstanding but I can weigh that against Archies greater volume of work at middleweight as well as his long reign at LHw. I can't mark Archie down for not matching Ezzards acheivements at heavy, he was in his 40's when he attempted a tilt at HW and still only lost to the very best.
And perhaps he was just not best suited to the weight, there's not much in it but Ezzard was taller and as I said younger when he took on the big boys.
Heavy weight should not IMO be rated any different from acheivements at other weight classes, and I go back to Archie had a greater volume of work, more top names and a helluva lot of wins and KOs at MW, LHW and HW. These all have to be taken into account and if it's actual heavy weight title you are counting, lets not forget Ezzard never held a title at LHW (or middle for that matter) I don't think any additional credit should be given to one title or the other.

Of course you could argue that Ezzard should have been given a shot at a title at LHW and been given world title shot's long before he did but the same argument can be applied to both men

I do agree with you on the last part, I don't think I can imagine any version of the Moore I've watched would best a Marciano or Louis at any point.

Out of interest. How would you rate the chances of the Ezzard that beat Louis against the Cassius Clay that beat Moore?

60/40 in Ali's favour. Ali's foot speed and athleticism being greater than Ezzards. I rate Charles higher overall than I do Ali however. With Moore I wouldn't say he's being marked down in anyway by being behind Ezzard. You could have them both up there. It's all by baw hairs though isn't it and opinions. I think Ezzard was malnourished and skint as a middleweight and really hit his stride at lt heavy. His run from 1946 to mid 1951 is incredible he was near unbeatable and avenged all his loses in that time against great fighters across two weights. I am a huge Moore fan be was a very interesting guy and also a noted story teller. He said Charley Burley was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Ezzard Charles beat him twice and they might not even be his best victories.

[davie]

It's not just that Ezzard comprehensively best Archie. It's that Ezz won the heaveyweight title and defended it successfully a number of times. He almost beat Rocky, I know Archie floored him but I pick the Rock 10 out of 10 against Moore, not so with Charles. I don't think Archie would have beaten any version of Joe Louis either. Its not a large margin however, as obviously both were utterly incredible fighters.

There's no doubt the heavy weight acheivements of Ezzard are outstanding but I can weigh that against Archies greater volume of work at middleweight as well as his long reign at LHw. I can't mark Archie down for not matching Ezzards acheivements at heavy, he was in his 40's when he attempted a tilt at HW and still only lost to the very best.
And perhaps he was just not best suited to the weight, there's not much in it but Ezzard was taller and as I said younger when he took on the big boys.
Heavy weight should not IMO be rated any different from acheivements at other weight classes, and I go back to Archie had a greater volume of work, more top names and a helluva lot of wins and KOs at MW, LHW and HW. These all have to be taken into account and if it's actual heavy weight title you are counting, lets not forget Ezzard never held a title at LHW (or middle for that matter) I don't think any additional credit should be given to one title or the other.

Of course you could argue that Ezzard should have been given a shot at a title at LHW and been given world title shot's long before he did but the same argument can be applied to both men

I do agree with you on the last part, I don't think I can imagine any version of the Moore I've watched would best a Marciano or Louis at any point.

Out of interest. How would you rate the chances of the Ezzard that beat Louis against the Cassius Clay that beat Moore?

60/40 in Ali's favour. Ali's foot speed and athleticism being greater than Ezzards. I rate Charles higher overall than I do Ali however. With Moore I wouldn't say he's being marked down in anyway by being behind Ezzard. You could have them both up there. It's all by baw hairs though isn't it and opinions. I think Ezzard was malnourished and skint as a middleweight and really hit his stride at lt heavy. His run from 1946 to mid 1951 is incredible he was near unbeatable and avenged all his loses in that time against great fighters across two weights. I am a huge Moore fan be was a very interesting guy and also a noted story teller. He said Charley Burley was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Ezzard Charles beat him twice and they might not even be his best victories.

Well as long as it's only baw hairs, that'll do for me

[davie]

Pep can't hold a candle to Ezzard or Archie.

Where do you have the best featherweight in history and arguably the best defensive fighter all time then?

[BoxBuzz]

I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal to my last post, BoxBuzz, since it seems you haven't changed your tune.

I think Archie is one remarkable fighter, and Saad was mentioning my sentiment. And honestly there is a whole lot of subjectivity to these discussions.

There are two sets of stats in boxing that I don't take to seriously. I don't think Marciano's perfect record against all opponents place him automatically in the elite, and I don't think Ezz's perfect record against Archie places him in another league from Archie. And I fully understand for those who love math, why they feel differently.

I also do believe that if they had fought four more times, Archie would would have won all 4.

But it's just conjecture.

Archie's not that far from Ezz's league, even if a good case can be made that their styles clearly favored Ezz.

You might make the case that Johnson and Bivins may be in their league as well. This was a very talent rich era for LHW's.

And Ezz was one amazing fighter. In my top five favorites.

[King Carlos]

I never said they were far apart. One is top 5, the other top 15. One just holds a clear edge. They fought 3 times, but if you want to diminish that with the belief that Archie would've won the next 4 I guess you're entitled to. More than a bit strange to me, but to each his own.

[Tomasino]

Oh there's a rationale all right.....just not one you would sign off on.

No, I can't sign off on 'I love him'.

Old buzzy can't resist !

[BoxBuzz]

I never said they were far apart. One is top 5, the other top 15. One just holds a clear edge. They fought 3 times, but if you want to diminish that with the belief that Archie would've won the next 4 I guess you're entitled to. More than a bit strange to me, but to each his own.

Yep, it's strange....and Just follow the timelines.

[gilgamesh]

...and I'm not sold that Marciano should be rated above Ezz......but he has the better side of the debate since he did beat him.

As a Heavyweight he's above Ezz. I have Ezzard rated far higher as an overall fighter though.

[gilgamesh]

Well it's looks like I'm fairly well outnumbered here
Maybe I'm wrong after all

but I still like The old mongoose, think he's become my first BOTP favourite and maybe I'm viewing him as a fan rather than being objective. But I like to think it's a bit of what you like and I'm sticking with Archie and his longevity (He's staying in my top 5 by the way)
Still, I've spent a bit of time going over Ezzards record and watching what I could of him and between that and this discussion, I've learnt a little more about another legendary fighter.

Just wish there was more footage of both, particularly their bout against each other so we could see for ourselves how good these guys were

I don't have a huge issue with him in your top 5, certainly belongs more than Ali or Leonard. Charles just has to be in your top 4!

To be honest, even as a Moore fan, I'm struggling with who to drop out of the top 5 I listed at the start of SRR, Armstrong, Langford, Greb & Pep, so I'm thinking maybe Archie at 6, you've all talked me into Ezzard at 7 with Duran, Ali and it pains me to say it Mayweather making up 8-10

Hell if it pains you to put Mayweather in your all time Top 10, dig a little deeper in Boxing history. You can find at least 15 guys to rank ahead of Mayweather all time.

[davie]

I don't have a huge issue with him in your top 5, certainly belongs more than Ali or Leonard. Charles just has to be in your top 4!

To be honest, even as a Moore fan, I'm struggling with who to drop out of the top 5 I listed at the start of SRR, Armstrong, Langford, Greb & Pep, so I'm thinking maybe Archie at 6, you've all talked me into Ezzard at 7 with Duran, Ali and it pains me to say it Mayweather making up 8-10

Hell if it pains you to put Mayweather in your all time Top 10, dig a little deeper in Boxing history. You can find at least 15 guys to rank ahead of Mayweather all time.

I'd be interested to see your top 25 if Mayweather could not make it in there.
Dislike the man as much as we want, what he has acheived in his career is still top class.
He's been the best fighter on the planet for over a decade, he's fought some great fighters and dominated many of them.
His undefeated record may not be without the odd criticism but he still has it.

I can think of maybe 5 guys I would have challenge him, for one reason or another, for that top 10 slot but ultimately I think it would be my dislike of the man that would see me take him out.

Anyway, let's not turn this into another Floyd thread (wish I'd never mentioned the pudendum) let's talk about the top 5 ATG that is Archie Moore

[BoxBuzz]

When you are including fighters that have never been seen, you might want to think about Rosenbloom. One of my favorites, and a record that deserves attention. But like Greb, there is no film of him, and he's difficult to rate as a result. Greb's record is great, I only wish I could see him just once in a viewable performance, instead of relying on second hand accounting.


It might be sensible to do a top 10 list that includes asterisks where there is no viewable way to assess performance.

In which case Rosenbloom would be another that would rate above Mayweather.

And your top 10 list becomes a top 15 if the asterisked fighters are included.

[gilgamesh]

Hell if it pains you to put Mayweather in your all time Top 10, dig a little deeper in Boxing history. You can find at least 15 guys to rank ahead of Mayweather all time.

I'd be interested to see your top 25 if Mayweather could not make it in there.
Dislike the man as much as we want, what he has acheived in his career is still top class.
He's been the best fighter on the planet for over a decade, he's fought some great fighters and dominated many of them.
His undefeated record may not be without the odd criticism but he still has it.

I can think of maybe 5 guys I would have challenge him, for one reason or another, for that top 10 slot but ultimately I think it would be my dislike of the man that would see me take him out.

Anyway, let's not turn this into another Floyd thread (wish I'd never mentioned the pudendum) let's talk about the top 5 ATG that is Archie Moore

I didn't Mayweather didn't make my Top 25. I said he doesn't make my Top 10.

1. Harry Greb
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Sam Langford
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Benny Leonard
7. Willie Pep
8. Archie Moore
9. Roberto Duran
10. Muhammad Ali
11. Joe Louis
12. Barney Ross
13. Joe Gans
14. Tony Canzoneri

From there it's not hard to argue a spot for Floyd to be in. I'd have him towards the tail end of my Top 20, but if someone had him Top 15 it'd be reasonable.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pep can't hold a candle to Ezzard or Archie.

Where do you have the best featherweight in history and arguably the best defensive fighter all time then?

I haven't done a list in quite some time, I'd have pep & whitaker both in the top 20.