Marciano vs Moore (1955)

Tony1244 · Post by **Tony1244** » 28 May 2017, 13:28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPfPUQopfg

Tony1244 · Post by **Tony1244** » 30 May 2017, 17:59

Hey I want more people answering this question. I thought it was a good question.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 30 May 2017, 18:16

Are you purely referring to Marciano and his entire career or just the Moore fight?

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 30 May 2017, 18:41

Rocky was overrated... He hit a very fortuitous seam in Heavyweight History between a badly slipping Ezzard Charles---who was suffering the early ramifications of ALS, a slowly creeping nerve disease that would eventually disable Charles completely and kill him---and a blazing fast 21-year-old Floyd Patterson.. The year before he fought Marciano, in 1953, Charles lost to turtle slow Heavyweight Nino Valdes and lost to Light Heavyweight Harold Johnson.

A prime Ezzard Charles beat a prime Archie Moore 3 X without a loss.. And Charles also beat Charlie Burley twice, a guy who also beat Moore badly.. Young Floyd Patterson quickly overpowered Archie Moore and disposed of him a lot faster than Marciano did...to become the next Heavyweight Champion when Rocky quit

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 30 May 2017, 20:15

The question should be rather,How would Archie Moore have done,if the preceeding heavyweight champions had given him a shot at the title,
Joe Louis in 1948-49
Ezzard Charles in 1951
Jersey Joe Walcott in early 1952.

My feeling is perhaps if Archie Moore had really wanted to campaign for the Heavyweight champion ship,
maybe he should have strictly fought in that division beginning in 1946.
How could he have otherwise been avoided for a title fight ?
His actual fighting weight during training was about 190 lbs at least I think( at 5 ft 11"),prior to all that struggling to get down to 175 lbs
to fight and defend as a light-heavyweight over the years.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 31 May 2017, 01:48

In 1946 Moore fought Heavyweights... He turned 30 that year, but gave up as much as 19 pounds to a guy who weighed 189... He would have campaigned at higher weights against Heavyweights if he could hold the poundage and it did him good. He was in the low 170's then but put on weight as he aged.

What happens to most boxers as they get into their late 30's and 40's -- their middle gets thicker. They find it more difficult to take off the weight. Some guys like Hopkins can take off the weight in their 40's like they were 20. Most guys can't do that. It has more to do with diet and lifestyle than genetics.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 31 May 2017, 03:35

I'm a big Marciano fan but he was lucky he was in a fairly weak era in HW boxing, post WW2. Had he been about in the 60s or 70s there is no way he would have stayed unbeaten. I know some people try and make arguments that Louis, Charles and Walcott were as good as they ever were when Marciano beat them but those arguments don't really stand up to scrutiny.

Ambling Alp II · Post by **Ambling Alp II** » 31 May 2017, 10:57

Tony1244 wrote:Hey I want more people answering this question. I thought it was a good question.

Well, some people do overrate Marciano. Some people who don't really know the sport are overly impressed by the undefeated record. (Though some people are obsessed by great win/loss record but make an exception for Marciano. ahem )

He would not have been undefeated in most other eras. He wasn't the best heavyweight ever. However he was one of the best. Top 10 or close to it. He wasn't good defensively and he was not an accurate puncher. However, he had a good chin, great power, and threw a high volume of punches.

Moore was a great heavyweight and a very good light heavy. Moore was actually not past his prime. He is the exception to the age rule. He was better at this time than he was in his 20s. However, outside of the knockdown by Moore, Marciano dominated most of the rest of the fight. It was actually a pretty impressive performance by Marciano.

Tony1244 · Post by **Tony1244** » 31 May 2017, 11:32

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:Hey I want more people answering this question. I thought it was a good question.
Well, some people do overrate Marciano. Some people who don't really know the sport are overly impressed by the undefeated record. (Though some people are obsessed by great win/loss record but make an exception for Marciano. ahem )

He would not have been undefeated in most other eras. He wasn't the best heavyweight ever. However he was one of the best. Top 10 or close to it. He wasn't good defensively and he was not an accurate puncher. However, he had a good chin, great power, and threw a high volume of punches.

Moore was a great heavyweight and a very good light heavy. Moore was actually not past his prime. He is the exception to the age rule. He was better at this time than he was in his 20s. However, outside of the knockdown by Moore, Marciano dominated most of the rest of the fight. It was actually a pretty impressive performance by Marciano.

I agree with almost all of this, so I'll harp on the exceptions. I would say Moore was a great light heavyweight and a very good HW. And while no one would confuse Rocky for Wille Pep or Pernell Whitaker defensively, I think The Rock's defensive abilities were slightly underrated. The Rock's weaving and crouching occasionally made his opponent miss. Similar to Joe Frazier. The most impressive thing about Marciano besides the record and power was his unbelievable stamina. Man that guy was in condition.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 31 May 2017, 15:26

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:Hey I want more people answering this question. I thought it was a good question.
Well, some people do overrate Marciano. Some people who don't really know the sport are overly impressed by the undefeated record. (Though some people are obsessed by great win/loss record but make an exception for Marciano. ahem )

He would not have been undefeated in most other eras. He wasn't the best heavyweight ever. However he was one of the best. Top 10 or close to it. He wasn't good defensively and he was not an accurate puncher. However, he had a good chin, great power, and threw a high volume of punches.

Moore was a great heavyweight and a very good light heavy. Moore was actually not past his prime. He is the exception to the age rule. He was better at this time than he was in his 20s. However, outside of the knockdown by Moore, Marciano dominated most of the rest of the fight. It was actually a pretty impressive performance by Marciano.

Moore was a great Light Heavyweight but not a good Heavyweight. He was too short and too light to be real good at Heavyweight.

Archie fought 4 Heavyweight Champions and they all knocked him out... Moore was too small to be Champion in any era from the 1910's on. You can't go by Moore's fight with Marciano. Rocky was too small, slow, clumsy, and unskilled to wipe Moore out quickly such as Tyson did to Spinks... Rocky floored Moore repeatedly but lacked the size and power to ice Archie like Iron Mike did to Spinks and would have done to Moore.. You have to go with the Patterson fight. Patterson was very fast, more skilled, and a much slicker boxer than Marciano. Patterson gave Archie a real boxing lesson and got rid of him quick.

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 31 May 2017, 16:37

I think 5 ft 11" and 196 lbs would have been fairly big for a heavyweight in the 1950's.
(Nino Valdes was 6 ft 2" and 210 lbs when Moore fought him)
actually I had read somewhere,that Archie Moore did want to fight Joe Louis for the title back in 1945
after he defeated Lloyd Marshall and then took on the number 2 ranked Heavyweight Jimmy Bivins
hoping to get a title shot,but was knocked out by Bivins (I think Moore was just floored then Bivins knocked him out with a punch when Moore was still on his knees)

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 31 May 2017, 16:41

Perhaps for reference who should list all of Archie Moore's heavyweight opponents height and weight since 1945.
btw I think Archie Moore was more a natural heavyweight (for the time).
He had 16.5 inch biceps after all.
(Jersey Joe Walcott only had 16 inch biceps)

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 31 May 2017, 19:43

Caractacus wrote:I think 5 ft 11" and 196 lbs would have been fairly big for a heavyweight in the 1950's.
(Nino Valdes was 6 ft 2" and 210 lbs when Moore fought him)
actually I had read somewhere,that Archie Moore did want to fight Joe Louis for the title back in 1945
after he defeated Lloyd Marshall and then took on the number 2 ranked Heavyweight Jimmy Bivins
hoping to get a title shot,but was knocked out by Bivins (I think Moore was just floored then Bivins knocked him out with a punch when Moore was still on his knees)

Moore went up and down in weight like a yo-yo at that time... He astounded sportswriters and boxing trainers with his weight regimen...

Moore turned 39 in 1955.. He fought 3 fights that year.. His last fight for 1954 was a KO over his nemesis, Harold Johnson, at 173.. Next he beat Nino Valdes at 196.5... But the following month he defended the Light Heavyweight Title against Bobo Olson at 175... How do you drop over 20 pounds in a month when you have to do a "same day" weigh-in? ... 3 months later he fought Marciano for the Heavyweight Title at 188... He didn't look real strong to me vs Rocky.. You need to keep your weight consistent if you want to get some brutal strength going -- because your body doesn't respond to big and frequent weight changes that well.. How do you jump up and down in weight like that and keep winning?

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 31 May 2017, 19:58

Caractacus wrote:Bivins knocked him out with a punch when Moore was still on his knees

Moore was knocked down about 6 or 7 times in that fight and knocked out TWICE!!! ... After the 1st KO Moore was given a 5 minute rest because of the foul KO blow by Bivins as Moore was on his knees... After the rest Bivins continued to beat the crap out of Moore and knocked him cold again.

The boy had a tough life. I believe he fought again like a month after that miserable KO loss to Bivins -- and then another tough loss a month after that... and 2 more fights the following month after that... The man was crazy. Even for that era his fight schedule was nuts.

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 31 May 2017, 20:20

Kalan wrote:
Caractacus wrote:Bivins knocked him out with a punch when Moore was still on his knees
Moore was knocked down about 6 or 7 times in that fight and knocked out TWICE!!! ... After the 1st KO Moore was given a 5 minute rest because of the foul KO blow by Bivins as Moore was on his knees... After the rest Bivins continued to beat the crap out of Moore and knocked him cold again.

The boy had a tough life. I believe he fought again like a month after that miserable KO loss to Bivins -- and then another tough loss a month after that... and 2 more fights the following month after that... The man was crazy. Even for that era his fight schedule was nuts.

yeah,but his busy schedule probably kept him out of the pool halls.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 01 Jun 2017, 20:27

He'd run into fewer left handers and right handers in those places... I wonder if Moore holds the record for all World Champions for getting knocked down.

Rider51 · Post by **Rider51** » 02 Jun 2017, 14:45

What makes Rocky "overrated" is his 49-0 record. Had he fought another couple years, had fought a couple better fighters, and finished his career, say 51-2, he'd likely be remembered as a hard hitting small guy with a great chin and endurance, but maybe a top 20 ATG. Not the top 10 he seems to have cemented himself into on every list.

Moore was an extremely skilled fighter, at any age. But does anyone really think of him as a great heavyweight?

Ambling Alp II · Post by **Ambling Alp II** » 02 Jun 2017, 22:28

Tony1244 wrote:
Ambling Alp II wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:Hey I want more people answering this question. I thought it was a good question.
Well, some people do overrate Marciano. Some people who don't really know the sport are overly impressed by the undefeated record. (Though some people are obsessed by great win/loss record but make an exception for Marciano. ahem )

He would not have been undefeated in most other eras. He wasn't the best heavyweight ever. However he was one of the best. Top 10 or close to it. He wasn't good defensively and he was not an accurate puncher. However, he had a good chin, great power, and threw a high volume of punches.

Moore was a great heavyweight and a very good light heavy. Moore was actually not past his prime. He is the exception to the age rule. He was better at this time than he was in his 20s. However, outside of the knockdown by Moore, Marciano dominated most of the rest of the fight. It was actually a pretty impressive performance by Marciano.

I agree with almost all of this, so I'll harp on the exceptions. I would say Moore was a great light heavyweight and a very good HW. And while no one would confuse Rocky for Wille Pep or Pernell Whitaker defensively, I think The Rock's defensive abilities were slightly underrated. The Rock's weaving and crouching occasionally made his opponent miss. Similar to Joe Frazier. The most impressive thing about Marciano besides the record and power was his unbelievable stamina. Man that guy was in condition.

Sorry I meant to say that Moore was a great light heavyweight and a very good heavyweight.

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 03 Jun 2017, 13:24

Kalan wrote:He'd run into fewer left handers and right handers in those places... I wonder if Moore holds the record for all World Champions for getting knocked down.

I dunno either,but I know he was knocked down at least 20 times
in various fights going back 18 years just before his fight with Marciano.
but Ezzard Charles may have been the only fighter to have knocked him out cold (I think).

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 03 Jun 2017, 14:03

Moore was stretched for the full count 4 times... Once against Leonard Morrow... Twice in the same fight by Jimmy Bivins... Those 3 had more finality than the Charles KO, which was also really horrific... He was floored some 33 times but you have to look in the paedia to get some of them.

Caractacus · Post by **Caractacus** » 03 Jun 2017, 14:25

yeah,but he got up after the first knockdown in those fights.
He never even saw the punch ( a wide right)coming from Ezzard Charles when he was against the ropes.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 03 Jun 2017, 15:40

For the great Archie Moore to go up and down in weight between light-heavyweight and heavyweight was amazing! He was consistent, too. Other fighters would have not had that consistency like the Ol' Mongoose had. And he did it for a long time fighting the VERY BEST of his career, win, lose or draw.

And to someone in here to criticize his career of who he didn't beat, is laughable. The man is an all-time great top 15 fighter. His sin was that he couldn't handle the great Ezzard Charles. There's no shame in that. With the exception of Jersey Joe Walcott, what other top fighters he missed fighting? He even fought the greats Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano. That's how brave this man was. Unbelievable! I got him rated at #2 at light-heavyweight. We voted him as the best light-heavyweight ever. Well, in many ways, with the exception of the Cincinnati Cobra, he is the best light-heavyweight fighter of all-time.

I also had rated Moore at #12 all-time pound per pound and he is deservedly so. I think he is greater than Marciano in the pound per pound ratings, even though Marciano beat him. Marciano didn't had the longevity, neither the top fighting men in his resume like Moore had. Plus, Moore was a better light-heavyweight than Marciano was at heavyweight, even though Marciano never lost a fight. I got Rocky rated at #4 at heavyweight and Moore rated at #2 at 175lbs all time.

Kalan · Post by **Kalan** » 03 Jun 2017, 16:13

Light Heavyweights I see beating Moore include: Tunney.. Conn.. Charles.. Burley.. Spinks.. Foster.. Kovalev.. Beterbiev.. Ward.. and Tommy Gibbons...

Moore was the greatest of his era except for Charles and Burley... Burley wasn't a Light Heavyweight, but he could kick ass in that division.