>>>You like doing the splits do you!??... <<<
No, I like watching them!
ARSENAL VS BARRY...
this thread is still here? Ok how can we convert it to an "on topic" thread.
I have several suggestions
1. The Archie Moore vs Jersey Joe fight that never happened.
Discuss why Archie would have added another notch in his KO belt
2. The weaknesses and ineptness of Floyd Patterson as a Heavyweight.
3. Why Jim Jeffries had a very good chance against Jack Dempsey despite popular opinion.
4. Why was Caros Monzon so far down Bert Sugars ATG list?
I have several suggestions
1. The Archie Moore vs Jersey Joe fight that never happened.
Discuss why Archie would have added another notch in his KO belt
2. The weaknesses and ineptness of Floyd Patterson as a Heavyweight.
3. Why Jim Jeffries had a very good chance against Jack Dempsey despite popular opinion.
4. Why was Caros Monzon so far down Bert Sugars ATG list?
I think with the amount of arguing we've got on here this thread is quite topical and also a safe place to thrash out those differences of opinion while not offending the minors among us....BoxBuzz wrote:this thread is still here? Ok how can we convert it to an "on topic" thread.
I have several suggestions
1. The Archie Moore vs Jersey Joe fight that never happened.
Discuss why Archie would have added another notch in his KO belt
2. The weaknesses and ineptness of Floyd Patterson as a Heavyweight.
3. Why Jim Jeffries had a very good chance against Jack Dempsey despite popular opinion.
4. Why was Caros Monzon so far down Bert Sugars ATG list?
BoxBuzz wrote:this thread is still here? Ok how can we convert it to an "on topic" thread.
I have several suggestions
1. The Archie Moore vs Jersey Joe fight that never happened.
Discuss why Archie would have added another notch in his KO belt
2. The weaknesses and ineptness of Floyd Patterson as a Heavyweight.
3. Why Jim Jeffries had a very good chance against Jack Dempsey despite popular opinion.
4. Why was Caros Monzon so far down Bert Sugars ATG list?
1. I'd pick a peak Moore over Walcott...
2. Patterson was actually a better fighter in the mid- and late 60s than he was during his title reign... I think cus's fear of matching Patterson with a decent heavyweight ruined his confidence...
3. I'm pretty sure Jeffries would have beaten Dempsey, he would have been too strong and durable for Jack...
4. Where does Sugar rate Monzon?
Sugars list...probably should have it's own thread I suppose.
Hagler ahead of Monzon? Not in my book, but at least Moore is ahead of Charles.
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Jack Johnson
11.Mickey Walker
12.Tony Canzoneri
13.Gene Tunney
14.Rocky Marciano
15.Joe Gans
16.Sam Langford
17.Julio Cesar Chavez
18.Jimmy Wilde
19.Stanley Ketchel
20.Barney Ross
21.Jimmy McLarnin
22.Archie Moore
23.Marcel Cerdan
24.Ezzard Charles
25.Sugar Ray Leonard
26.Joe Walcott
27.Jake LaMotta
28.Eder Jofre
29.Emile Griffith
30.Terry McGovern
31.George Foreman
32.Johnny Dundee
33.Jose Napoles
34.Pasqual Perez
35.Billy Conn
36.Ruben Olivares
37.Joe Frazier
38.Tommy Loughran
39.Sandy Saddler
40.Kid McCoy
41.Abe Attell
42.Evander Holyfield
43.George Dixon
44.Maxie Rosenbloom
45.Larry Holmes
46.Ted Kid Lewis
47.Marvin Hagler
48.Pernell Whitaker
49.Carlos Zarate
50.Thomas Hearns
51.Battling Nelson
52.Beau Jack
53.Ricardo Lopez
54.John L. Sullivan
55.Carlos Monzon
56.Alexis Arguello
57.Carmen Basilio
58.Pete Herman
59.Charley Burley
60.Ike Williams
61.Kid Gavilan
62.Jack Britton
63.Dick Tiger
64.Pancho Villa
65.Panama Al Brown
66.Bob Fitzsimmons
67.Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68.Tiger Flowers
69.James J. Corbett
70.Tony Zale
71.Tommy Ryan
72.Georges Carpantier
73.Sonny Liston
74.Kid McCoy
75.Bob Foster
76.Freddie Welsh
77.Joe Jeanette
78.Jim Driscoll
79.Jersey Joe Walcott
80.Peter Jackson
81.Ad Wolgast
82.Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
83.Manuel Ortiz
84.James J. Jeffries
85.Salvador Sanchez
86.Jimmy Barry
87.Carlos Ortiz
88.Roy Jones Jr.
89.Wilfredo Gomez
90.Aaron Pryor
91.Bernard Hopkins
92.Mike Gibbons
93.Jack Delaney
94.Johnny Kilbane
95.Willie Ritchie
96.Wilfred Benitez
97.Packy MacFarland
98.Rocky Graziano
99.Lew Jenkins
100.Mike Tyson
Hagler ahead of Monzon? Not in my book, but at least Moore is ahead of Charles.
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Jack Johnson
11.Mickey Walker
12.Tony Canzoneri
13.Gene Tunney
14.Rocky Marciano
15.Joe Gans
16.Sam Langford
17.Julio Cesar Chavez
18.Jimmy Wilde
19.Stanley Ketchel
20.Barney Ross
21.Jimmy McLarnin
22.Archie Moore
23.Marcel Cerdan
24.Ezzard Charles
25.Sugar Ray Leonard
26.Joe Walcott
27.Jake LaMotta
28.Eder Jofre
29.Emile Griffith
30.Terry McGovern
31.George Foreman
32.Johnny Dundee
33.Jose Napoles
34.Pasqual Perez
35.Billy Conn
36.Ruben Olivares
37.Joe Frazier
38.Tommy Loughran
39.Sandy Saddler
40.Kid McCoy
41.Abe Attell
42.Evander Holyfield
43.George Dixon
44.Maxie Rosenbloom
45.Larry Holmes
46.Ted Kid Lewis
47.Marvin Hagler
48.Pernell Whitaker
49.Carlos Zarate
50.Thomas Hearns
51.Battling Nelson
52.Beau Jack
53.Ricardo Lopez
54.John L. Sullivan
55.Carlos Monzon
56.Alexis Arguello
57.Carmen Basilio
58.Pete Herman
59.Charley Burley
60.Ike Williams
61.Kid Gavilan
62.Jack Britton
63.Dick Tiger
64.Pancho Villa
65.Panama Al Brown
66.Bob Fitzsimmons
67.Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68.Tiger Flowers
69.James J. Corbett
70.Tony Zale
71.Tommy Ryan
72.Georges Carpantier
73.Sonny Liston
74.Kid McCoy
75.Bob Foster
76.Freddie Welsh
77.Joe Jeanette
78.Jim Driscoll
79.Jersey Joe Walcott
80.Peter Jackson
81.Ad Wolgast
82.Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
83.Manuel Ortiz
84.James J. Jeffries
85.Salvador Sanchez
86.Jimmy Barry
87.Carlos Ortiz
88.Roy Jones Jr.
89.Wilfredo Gomez
90.Aaron Pryor
91.Bernard Hopkins
92.Mike Gibbons
93.Jack Delaney
94.Johnny Kilbane
95.Willie Ritchie
96.Wilfred Benitez
97.Packy MacFarland
98.Rocky Graziano
99.Lew Jenkins
100.Mike Tyson
Thats a nonsense really, lists like this are always hard to do but Marciano at 14 while Liston is at 73!!!.... Arguello should be much higher too amongst others and no way should Monzon be so low.... how many of the greats were unbeaten for the last 10 years of their career and against the opposition Carlos faced too... he should be top 15 at least imo... maybe top 10.... I'll have to think about it a bit more... he even rated Cedan over Monzon????........BoxBuzz wrote:Sugars list...probably should have it's own thread I suppose.
Hagler ahead of Monzon? Not in my book, but at least Moore is ahead of Charles.
1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10.Jack Johnson
11.Mickey Walker
12.Tony Canzoneri
13.Gene Tunney
14.Rocky Marciano
15.Joe Gans
16.Sam Langford
17.Julio Cesar Chavez
18.Jimmy Wilde
19.Stanley Ketchel
20.Barney Ross
21.Jimmy McLarnin
22.Archie Moore
23.Marcel Cerdan
24.Ezzard Charles
25.Sugar Ray Leonard
26.Joe Walcott
27.Jake LaMotta
28.Eder Jofre
29.Emile Griffith
30.Terry McGovern
31.George Foreman
32.Johnny Dundee
33.Jose Napoles
34.Pasqual Perez
35.Billy Conn
36.Ruben Olivares
37.Joe Frazier
38.Tommy Loughran
39.Sandy Saddler
40.Kid McCoy
41.Abe Attell
42.Evander Holyfield
43.George Dixon
44.Maxie Rosenbloom
45.Larry Holmes
46.Ted Kid Lewis
47.Marvin Hagler
48.Pernell Whitaker
49.Carlos Zarate
50.Thomas Hearns
51.Battling Nelson
52.Beau Jack
53.Ricardo Lopez
54.John L. Sullivan
55.Carlos Monzon
56.Alexis Arguello
57.Carmen Basilio
58.Pete Herman
59.Charley Burley
60.Ike Williams
61.Kid Gavilan
62.Jack Britton
63.Dick Tiger
64.Pancho Villa
65.Panama Al Brown
66.Bob Fitzsimmons
67.Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68.Tiger Flowers
69.James J. Corbett
70.Tony Zale
71.Tommy Ryan
72.Georges Carpantier
73.Sonny Liston
74.Kid McCoy
75.Bob Foster
76.Freddie Welsh
77.Joe Jeanette
78.Jim Driscoll
79.Jersey Joe Walcott
80.Peter Jackson
81.Ad Wolgast
82.Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
83.Manuel Ortiz
84.James J. Jeffries
85.Salvador Sanchez
86.Jimmy Barry
87.Carlos Ortiz
88.Roy Jones Jr.
89.Wilfredo Gomez
90.Aaron Pryor
91.Bernard Hopkins
92.Mike Gibbons
93.Jack Delaney
94.Johnny Kilbane
95.Willie Ritchie
96.Wilfred Benitez
97.Packy MacFarland
98.Rocky Graziano
99.Lew Jenkins
100.Mike Tyson
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
1. I'd pick a peak Moore over Walcott...
i disagree, I pick walcott over moore. moore was an all time light-H, and a very good heavy but NOT a great heavy like walcott.
i rate moore in my top 35 heavyweights of all time and walcott in my top 15 heavyweights of all time
- walcott beat charles twice and moore gave charles 3 close fights(especially 2nd) but lost all 3 times including one by KO.
moores peak was probably the early 50s. I think if a walcott moore fight took place in 50-52 walcott would have won. walcott was simply the better heavyweight.
when moore stepped up in class to face the very best heavies, he lost. walcott on the other hand beat joe louis, ezzard charles and nearly beat rocky marciano. all great heavies
take some of there common opponents............
- walcott outboxed marciano for 12 rounds and floored the rock
- moore outside of knocking marciano down was dominated for 9 rounds and took a huge beating from marciano
and moore was a fighter who got better with age, moore was at/or near his best when he fought rocky as was walcott. but walcott did a lot better vs marciano than moore did.
- if we take both of walcott and moores first 3 fights with charles.....walcott also did better against charles than archie did as walcott was able to at least beat charles and did so by KO.
- walcott also beat better competition at heavyweight than moore did. walcott beat joe louis and was robbed. louis thought past his prime was still a great fighter and still had his power and punching arsenal. louis was much better than any heavy moore beat.
i think moore-walcott would be a tactical boxing match but walcott was bigger, stronger, and probably the better puncher at heavyweight and I can see him dropping moore a couple times and win a close decision. walcotts slick moving style will cause problems for moore and walcott had was a very good puncher like patterson and had a sneaky right hand and powerful left hook. Both were all time master boxers and counterpunchers, and i see moore using his long reach, great counterpunchers and offensive combinations to score points on walcott and i see walcotts jab, sneaky punches, and power punches, and storng inside fighting skills to score points for walcott. this will be a very even boxing match but i see walcott as stronger and slightly more powerful though moore was the greater puncher. I see the knockdowns walcott score in this fight as the deciding factor. I think moore is more likely to be kayoed in this matchup than walcott. this fight could turn into a slugout on the inside and will be filled with cute tricks and sneaky out of nowhere punches!
walcott 15 split moore - moore down twice
i think if walcott had beat marciano, he would have next defended his title in 1953 vs archie moore.
archie moores prime was 1946-56
jersey joe walcotts prime was 1947-52
i would say if u compare there peak years it would be
1947 jersey joe walcott
6' 195lb 74" reach
http://www.dvrbs.com/Boxing/Walcott-Louis-47-001.jpg
vs
1952 archie moore
5'11 185lb 76-78" reach
http://www.writestuffautographs.com/sho ... xing58.jpg
Well we seem to have had this discussion before, but tell me why you think Walcott was near his peak when he fought Marciano while Dick Tiger was washed up when he fought Bob Foster?.... Tiger went on to put in some very good performances post Foster....BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1. I'd pick a peak Moore over Walcott...
i disagree, I pick walcott over moore. moore was an all time light-H, and a very good heavy but NOT a great heavy like walcott.
i rate moore in my top 35 heavyweights of all time and walcott in my top 15 heavyweights of all time
- walcott beat charles twice and moore gave charles 3 close fights(especially 2nd) but lost all 3 times including one by KO.
moores peak was probably the early 50s. I think if a walcott moore fight took place in 50-52 walcott would have won. walcott was simply the better heavyweight.
when moore stepped up in class to face the very best heavies, he lost. walcott on the other hand beat joe louis, ezzard charles and nearly beat rocky marciano. all great heavies
take some of there common opponents............
- walcott outboxed marciano for 12 rounds and floored the rock
- moore outside of knocking marciano down was dominated for 9 rounds and took a huge beating from marciano
and moore was a fighter who got better with age, moore was at/or near his best when he fought rocky as was walcott. but walcott did a lot better vs marciano than moore did.
- if we take both of walcott and moores first 3 fights with charles.....walcott also did better against charles than archie did as walcott was able to at least beat charles and did so by KO.
- walcott also beat better competition at heavyweight than moore did. walcott beat joe louis and was robbed. louis thought past his prime was still a great fighter and still had his power and punching arsenal. louis was much better than any heavy moore beat.
i think moore-walcott would be a tactical boxing match but walcott was bigger, stronger, and probably the better puncher at heavyweight and I can see him dropping moore a couple times and win a close decision. walcotts slick moving style will cause problems for moore and walcott had was a very good puncher like patterson and had a sneaky right hand and powerful left hook. Both were all time master boxers and counterpunchers, and i see moore using his long reach, great counterpunchers and offensive combinations to score points on walcott and i see walcotts jab, sneaky punches, and power punches, and storng inside fighting skills to score points for walcott. this will be a very even boxing match but i see walcott as stronger and slightly more powerful though moore was the greater puncher. I see the knockdowns walcott score in this fight as the deciding factor. I think moore is more likely to be kayoed in this matchup than walcott. this fight could turn into a slugout on the inside and will be filled with cute tricks and sneaky out of nowhere punches!
walcott 15 split moore - moore down twice
i think if walcott had beat marciano, he would have next defended his title in 1953 vs archie moore.
archie moores prime was 1946-56
jersey joe walcotts prime was 1947-52
i would say if u compare there peak years it would be
1947 jersey joe walcott
6' 195lb 74" reach
http://www.dvrbs.com/Boxing/Walcott-Louis-47-001.jpg
vs
1952 archie moore
5'11 185lb 76-78" reach
http://www.writestuffautographs.com/sho ... xing58.jpg
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
first of, tiger was not washed up when he fought foster. not at all. in fact, tiger was in his light-H prime when he fought foster. he also looked very good early on in the fight with quick reflexes and speed like a young man when he fought foster.
tiger was coming off two impressive wins over jose torres and was at his best as a 175lb. however, tiger never fully proved himself ay 175lb or stayed long enough to call him great.
walcott was coming off 2 very impressive wins over ezzard charles and walcott was at or near his best when he fought marciano. walcott was a late bloomer, a fighter who got better with age. his record backs up my accesment.
u can say tiger went on to score a couple big victories over light-H contenders after that but remember his victory over benvenuti was a middleweight win.
walcott was in his prime in first marciano fight. however, that was the last fight he was in his prime. walcott was never the same. walcott was not in his prime in the marciano rematch. now silkov, u can say walcott never went on to score big victories after marciano fight, however i remember u once said marciano ruined fighters. well this is a classic example of marciano ruining a fighter. rocky ruined walcott in that first fight. walcott was never the same again. rocky as u know had a big history of ruining fighters judging by there records before and then after they fought marciano.
well if u dont believe walcott was ruined by marciano, then excplain to me what the hell happen in there 1953 rematch and walcott looked like a complete different fighter and got starched out in 1 round?
also walcott chose to retire after the 2nd marciano fight, because he had accomplished what he had set out for and bocchichio had walcotts retirement planned ONLY if walcott were to lose the marciano rematch. had walcott continued fighting who knows what would have happened. but walcott got out at the right time. it was clear from that 2nd marciano fight that walcott wasnt the same fighter, and walcott and boccichio knew it.
and remember, going into the marciano fight, walcott was coming off a knockout win over ezzard charles and walcotts confidence was at his peak entering the rocky fight. read the newspaper reports of walcott before marciano fight. all high praise, walcott looking great in training knocking out sparring partners, and all of walcott talks about is how well prepared he is, how confident he is, and hes never felt this good in his life. well walcot backed it up in the ring.
walcott recalled years after 1st marciano fight "I felt the great deep of losing a fight that was so one sided. no fight that i ever fought did i ever feel better or more confident. but after a few days if thinking it over, i realized i was very fortunate to have had the title and to have lost it to a guy proved to be a great american and champion."
jersey joe walcott was a natural heavyweight, dick tiger wasnt a natural light-H.
- walcotts best weight was heavyweight and he proved himself a great heavyweight and top 20 heavy of all time
- tigers best weight was middleweight and he proved himself a very good but not great light-H and he was not a top 20 light-H of all time
i simply think walcott was a better heavy, than tiger was a light-H.
tiger was coming off two impressive wins over jose torres and was at his best as a 175lb. however, tiger never fully proved himself ay 175lb or stayed long enough to call him great.
walcott was coming off 2 very impressive wins over ezzard charles and walcott was at or near his best when he fought marciano. walcott was a late bloomer, a fighter who got better with age. his record backs up my accesment.
u can say tiger went on to score a couple big victories over light-H contenders after that but remember his victory over benvenuti was a middleweight win.
walcott was in his prime in first marciano fight. however, that was the last fight he was in his prime. walcott was never the same. walcott was not in his prime in the marciano rematch. now silkov, u can say walcott never went on to score big victories after marciano fight, however i remember u once said marciano ruined fighters. well this is a classic example of marciano ruining a fighter. rocky ruined walcott in that first fight. walcott was never the same again. rocky as u know had a big history of ruining fighters judging by there records before and then after they fought marciano.
well if u dont believe walcott was ruined by marciano, then excplain to me what the hell happen in there 1953 rematch and walcott looked like a complete different fighter and got starched out in 1 round?
also walcott chose to retire after the 2nd marciano fight, because he had accomplished what he had set out for and bocchichio had walcotts retirement planned ONLY if walcott were to lose the marciano rematch. had walcott continued fighting who knows what would have happened. but walcott got out at the right time. it was clear from that 2nd marciano fight that walcott wasnt the same fighter, and walcott and boccichio knew it.
and remember, going into the marciano fight, walcott was coming off a knockout win over ezzard charles and walcotts confidence was at his peak entering the rocky fight. read the newspaper reports of walcott before marciano fight. all high praise, walcott looking great in training knocking out sparring partners, and all of walcott talks about is how well prepared he is, how confident he is, and hes never felt this good in his life. well walcot backed it up in the ring.
walcott recalled years after 1st marciano fight "I felt the great deep of losing a fight that was so one sided. no fight that i ever fought did i ever feel better or more confident. but after a few days if thinking it over, i realized i was very fortunate to have had the title and to have lost it to a guy proved to be a great american and champion."
jersey joe walcott was a natural heavyweight, dick tiger wasnt a natural light-H.
- walcotts best weight was heavyweight and he proved himself a great heavyweight and top 20 heavy of all time
- tigers best weight was middleweight and he proved himself a very good but not great light-H and he was not a top 20 light-H of all time
i simply think walcott was a better heavy, than tiger was a light-H.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
boxbuzz,
just wondering,
where do u rate archie moore on ur all time heavyweight list?
i personally feel hes top 35 all time. i used to not rate him at all and then i studied his heavyweight career and really couldnt believe i was leaving him out as he had a very succesful heavyweight career and on film he looks incredible. i think moore is underated as a heavyweight.
its too bad archie never got to fight folley, machen or a williams a wins over them would have enhanced his legacy. i feel moore would have soundily outboxed every single one of them. also a rematch vs patterson i think moore had a good chance and the fight would have been close, though i favor patterson.
but u have to look at it other ways and i mean fact is the only 3 heavyweights to beat moore were all time great heavies patterson, marciano, and ali.
- also when moore was now well past his best in 1962, moore nearly killed top 10 contender big alejandro lavorante knocking him out. that win doesnt sound too good right? until u hear alejdrano lavorante recentley knocked out a prime zora folley
- moore even beat harold johnson in an over the weight heavyweight match in the early 50s and moores win over johnson adds to moores heavyweight legacy when u take it into fact that a well past his prime harold johnson beat the highly rated heavyweight eddie machen whos considered a very good heavyweight by most fans.
not to mention some of the big things moore accompolished at heavyweight in his prime in late 40s-mid 50s.
just wondering,
where do u rate archie moore on ur all time heavyweight list?
i personally feel hes top 35 all time. i used to not rate him at all and then i studied his heavyweight career and really couldnt believe i was leaving him out as he had a very succesful heavyweight career and on film he looks incredible. i think moore is underated as a heavyweight.
its too bad archie never got to fight folley, machen or a williams a wins over them would have enhanced his legacy. i feel moore would have soundily outboxed every single one of them. also a rematch vs patterson i think moore had a good chance and the fight would have been close, though i favor patterson.
but u have to look at it other ways and i mean fact is the only 3 heavyweights to beat moore were all time great heavies patterson, marciano, and ali.
- also when moore was now well past his best in 1962, moore nearly killed top 10 contender big alejandro lavorante knocking him out. that win doesnt sound too good right? until u hear alejdrano lavorante recentley knocked out a prime zora folley
- moore even beat harold johnson in an over the weight heavyweight match in the early 50s and moores win over johnson adds to moores heavyweight legacy when u take it into fact that a well past his prime harold johnson beat the highly rated heavyweight eddie machen whos considered a very good heavyweight by most fans.
not to mention some of the big things moore accompolished at heavyweight in his prime in late 40s-mid 50s.
BB he is a very understudied and underated fighter. I don't mean to be a one man advertizing campain for the guy but it's true. I'm sort of surprised at your positive impression of him based on some of your contributions. One thing I don't think he had was luck but he sure made plenty of his own.
You know I have never really sat down and composed any ratings lists so I can't answer your specific question on that. I'm sure I would have him in the top 30. And for all the things that Bert Sugar had wrong I do beleive he rated Moore over Charles correctly. He was probably placing Moore on a sliding scale placing Charles more in the HW class and Moore in the LHW class but I still think it is clear thinking on his part.
Unlike his rating of Monzon.
You know I have never really sat down and composed any ratings lists so I can't answer your specific question on that. I'm sure I would have him in the top 30. And for all the things that Bert Sugar had wrong I do beleive he rated Moore over Charles correctly. He was probably placing Moore on a sliding scale placing Charles more in the HW class and Moore in the LHW class but I still think it is clear thinking on his part.
Unlike his rating of Monzon.