Archie's in my top 5

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

Archie and Ezzard are both top 10 to me, Marciano might be top 75 or 80. Like I said earlier, this isn't a barkley/hearns situation, these are two of the most talented fighters ever, that faced the best opposition and excelled at the highest level. One of them dominated the other. It really is just love, if they never fought it would be tight.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

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.

I think Hearns beats leonard in a best of seven, sadly they didn't have the series and I'm wrong every week. I think Joshua would destroy Fury or Wlad, it has to happen to make it real.

[BoxBuzz]

Sort of like the Bowe/Lewis timelines. Time passes, things change, But the events never happened so it's pie in the sky.

I like pie.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You love your Archie pie, just weird because he's so great anyway.

[davie]

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.

My bad I misread what you said, though you had said another 15 guys (on top of the original top 10)
I was going to say, you must really not like the guy if you can't find a space in your top 25

[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?

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

[gilgamesh]

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.

My bad I misread what you said, though you had said another 15 guys (on top of the original top 10)
I was going to say, you must really not like the guy if you can't find a space in your top 25

I don't let my feeling on a fighter affect the way I'd rank them. Or the way I'd score their fights or anything else. I don't have as big an issue with Floyd as a lot of people. Floyd has far, far bigger haters than me. I'm not a fan of his nor do I particularly dislike him. I don't really feel one way or the other about him, though I did root against him a great deal of the time. That usually had to do with the fact that I liked the guy he was fighting more though.

I was glad to see him beat Pac though.

[BoxBuzz]

You love your Archie pie, just weird because he's so great anyway.

Now now, just because you have no imagination is no reason to go after a great and celebrated visionary such as I.

Archie is great enough just as he is, but his losses to Ezz are more about style than general competence.

Those numbers skew the actuary tables.

Just ask granberry. But don't ask Jaclem, he's under the ether on this one.

Anyway That's my point. But don't get all impaled on it.

I assure you there is no bromance between myself and Archie, I simply regard him highly.

[gilgamesh]

I think pretty much all educated Boxing fans have a great deal of respect for Archie, and rate him highly (if they don't they got some learning to do about this sport). He's almost always in the Top 3 or 4 among All Time Light Heavyweights in discussions.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

You love your Archie pie, just weird because he's so great anyway.

Now now, just because you have no imagination is no reason to go after a great and celebrated visionary such as I.

Archie is great enough just as he is, but his losses to Ezz are more about style than general competence.

Those numbers skew the actuary tables.

Just ask granberry. But don't ask Jaclem, he's under the ether on this one.

Anyway That's my point. But don't get all impaled on it.

I assure you there is no bromance between myself and Archie, I simply regard him highly.

Oh, I appreciate your imagination. Nice to watch a kid try to make his favorite greater than their conqueror. Somewhere in Spain there are minions thinking nadal is greater than Novak.

[Counter-puncher]

I suppose what interests me about Moore most, after the eyepopping KO stats, is his style. Imagining that kind of crafty, relaxed counterpunching knockout puncher in my minds eye, I simply cant think of another fighter who resembles Moore stylistically, certainly not from the 80s onwards. I guess maybe you could say Toney was somewhat of an inferior variant of the style but I cant think offhand of anyone who really comes close. Anyone?

[davie]

I suppose what interests me about Moore most, after the eyepopping KO stats, is his style. Imagining that kind of crafty, relaxed counterpunching knockout puncher in my minds eye, I simply cant think of another fighter who resembles Moore stylistically, certainly not from the 80s onwards. I guess maybe you could say Toney was somewhat of an inferior variant of the style but I cant think offhand of anyone who really comes close. Anyone?

He's very easy on the eye, when watching him and with the numbers of stoppage wins (and losses) he was involved in you just know he'd have been worth every penny to watch throughout his career.
I'd like to see what he was like when he was a younger fighter, something tells me that more relaxed style was something he developed rather than how he fought in his early 20s

[Counter-puncher]

That's three really good points in that post, my friend.

[BoxBuzz]

You love your Archie pie, just weird because he's so great anyway.

Now now, just because you have no imagination is no reason to go after a great and celebrated visionary such as I.

Archie is great enough just as he is, but his losses to Ezz are more about style than general competence.

Those numbers skew the actuary tables.

Just ask granberry. But don't ask Jaclem, he's under the ether on this one.

Anyway That's my point. But don't get all impaled on it.

I assure you there is no bromance between myself and Archie, I simply regard him highly.

Oh, I appreciate your imagination. Nice to watch a kid try to make his favorite greater than their conqueror. Somewhere in Spain there are minions thinking nadal is greater than Novak.

I see you didn't get the memo....he is the King of Clay. And that is static. There is nothing you or your mother can do to change that which is.

Loss does not loosen the Crown.

[Counter-puncher]

I think Hearns beats leonard in a best of seven, sadly they didn't have the series and I'm wrong every week. I think Joshua would destroy Fury or Wlad, it has to happen to make it real.

Ha, that's real talk right there brutha. Preach it.

On topic, I have quite a lot of sympathy for the argument that Ezzard's head to head with Moore was favourable to him more on the level of styles than their relative 'greatness'

Unfortunately I'm nowhere near fucken qualified to say who belongs at 5-10 and who belongs at 10-30, or whatever, in the alltime stakes.

But a crafty, kinda longlimbed, athletic boxer-puncher is pretty good kryptonite to a similarly-crafty but slightly-less-longlimbed-and-athletic counterpuncher. If you know what I mean.

[elmersalsa]

I am glad that posters are talking about the great Archie Moore. The Ol' Mongoose. Keep up with the good points

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Now now, just because you have no imagination is no reason to go after a great and celebrated visionary such as I.

Archie is great enough just as he is, but his losses to Ezz are more about style than general competence.

Those numbers skew the actuary tables.

Just ask granberry. But don't ask Jaclem, he's under the ether on this one.

Anyway That's my point. But don't get all impaled on it.

I assure you there is no bromance between myself and Archie, I simply regard him highly.

Oh, I appreciate your imagination. Nice to watch a kid try to make his favorite greater than their conqueror. Somewhere in Spain there are minions thinking nadal is greater than Novak.

I see you didn't get the memo....he is the King of Clay. And that is static. There is nothing you or your mother can do to change that which is.

Loss does not loosen the Crown.

I have less of an appreciation for your constant tomfoolery to try and pretend that Ezz and Archie aren't nip and tuck without a h2h. Like i said, all you have is you love him.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That certainly wasn't a proper response. Nadal thinks Novak is playing histories greatest tennis. Take it up with him.

[BoxBuzz]

That certainly wasn't a proper response. Nadal thinks Novak is playing histories greatest tennis. Take it up with him.

I'm just promoting the Spanish take on things.

And I'm absolutely objective about all things Archie. I think my autographed picture and signed pair of gloves are solid proof of same.

[BoxBuzz]

That certainly wasn't a proper response. Nadal thinks Novak is playing histories greatest tennis. Take it up with him.

Nadal was certainly swatted this week. Ouch.

[davie]

Will you 2 get of my thread with your tennis pish

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That certainly wasn't a proper response. Nadal thinks Novak is playing histories greatest tennis. Take it up with him.

Nadal was certainly swatted this week. Ouch.

That was a hell of a match. I had a couple bucks on verdasco. Novak against the field.