if johnson was so concerned about bulking up, why would johnson feel the need to "bulk up" to 181 vs small eddie machen yet decide to come in at 175lb vs big dangerous nino valdes?? as u see ur comment about johnson bulking up made no sense. had johnson really been so concerned about bulking up, he would have come in heavier when he fought the big dangerouc nino valdes. but fact is johnson felt more comfortable fighting at around 175lb even when he fought the best heavyweights.
when harold johnson fought top heavyweight contenders ezzard charles and clarence henry.....johnson weighed in at 176lb and 177lb. not much different than 175lb huh? u see harold johnson was a natural light-H. he wasnt cutting from over 200lb every fight like moore was. so its not like a 175lb harold johnson was more weight drained than a 177lb johnson. not at all.
since harold johnson fought almost all of his top heavyweight fights close to the 175lb mark, i see no reason why we cant give archie credit for beating a heavyweight version of harold johnson. would it have really mattered if johnson stepped into the ring against moore at 177lb vs 175lb??
i might also add that harold johnson DID NOT bulk up vs eddie machen. that was natural weight 181lb, johnson was older now 33 and he naturally put on the weight. HOWEVER if u watch the films johnson is slower and his reflexes have diminished in the machen fight compared to the archie moore fight. so archie beat a younger faster better version of harold johnson. in comparsion machen lost to a 33 year old slower harold johnson. had it been the early-mid 1950s harold johnson, he most surely would have won a wide points decision over machen
And yes it does make a difference that Johnson weighed "only" 6 pounds more than the lightheavyweight limit. Obviously, Johnson thought he would be a better heavyweight at 181 than 175; other wise he wouldn't have bulked up. Moore didn't beat this version of Johnson. He beat the lightheavyweight Harold Johnson
moore beat a faster better younger version of johnson. 33 year old johnson looked slower in the machen fight than when he was in his prime vs moore. johnson came in heavier against machen cause of his age, not because he thought it would help.
even in johsnons prime he would come into heavyweight fights at around 175-178lb. is there any reason to believe a 175lb version of harold johnson is any different than a 177lb version of harold johnson? i say not. hell archie moore was weight drained in there 1954 encounter and he still knocked out harold johnson. NOW IMAGINE if harold johnson had to tangle with a 185-190lb version of moore. he would get even more hammered.
moore beat everyone he faced as a heavyweight except ali, patterson, marciano. these 3 fighters were FAR BETTER than machen and folley. out of over 75 fights as a heavyweight, only 3 men were able to beat archie moore and they were ATG's. thats amazing. archie was far more consistent than machen and folley.
it took an ATG at heavyweight to beat archie moore. were machen and folley ATG's??? no they were at the bob baker, clarence henry, nino valdes, harold johnson, jimmy bivins level.
archie didnt just beat these guys he DOMINATED THEM. domination counts.
TKO 9 jimmy bivins
TKO 14 harold johnson
2 unanimous decisions over nino valdes
TKO 9 bob baker
WIDE 10 unanimous clarence henry
as u seee moore dominated them. if moore had such litttle trouble with these guys, wut makes u think he would have trouble with machen and folley??
folley in his prime was knocked out by young jack johnson, johnny summerlin, alejandro lavorante, doug jones. NOW HOW THE HELL DO U RATE HIM OVER ARCHIE MOORE WHEN HES LOSING TO GUYS LIKE THAT?
LOSSES COUNT. archie in his heavyweight career never lost to fighters like that, LET ALONE getting knocked out 4 times in his prime by a fighter of that calibre. this is a really bad mark on folleys record. it shows far less fighters than moore were able to beat folley. surely if these guys can beat folley, then a master boxing wizard powerpunching sharpshooter like archie moore could. folley is vunerable to being knocked out. moore is the all time KO king, im sure he could find a way to knock out folley.
u expect me to believe folley can beat moore when light-H doug jones knocked out folley? doug jones was nowhere near the class of archie moore as a fighter, puncher, or a light-h.
hell alp, u should start by trying to make a case that folley can beat a 1962 archie moore. forget a prime early-mid 1950s moore, he was way above folley.
45 year old archie moore dominated and knocked out alejandro lavorante, the same man who knocked out a prime zora folley. now imagine if it had been the other way around, u would have been all over archie moore for this. this is a very bad mark on folleys record.
however it seems u like to ignore folley and machens losses and count the wins only. go figure
archies 3 heavyweight losses--- rocky marciano, floyd patterson, muhaammad ali
machens lost to- ingemar johannsen, past his prime harold johnson, zora folley, floyd patterson. can u imagine moore getting flattened in one round by ingo johannsen??
folley lost to-- johnny summerlin, young jack johnson, light-h doug jones, alejandro lavorante........ok ill stop right there before i embarras folley even more.
as u see folley and machen losses are a lot worse than moores. moores consistency vs world class competition is far better than machen and folleys.
how did machen fare vs the best boxers he faced??
L to 33 year old harold johnson
L unanimous to zora folley
L wide shutout decision to floyd patterson, machen down 5 times
this is not good. machen did not do well vs the best boxers he faced. this leads me to believe he would not be able to handle a boxer of moores calibre.
Baker was past his prime when Machen beat him? He was only 30. Yet another case of one of your favorites being past it earlier than most heavyweights.
bob baker was a old 30. he was far past his prime when he fought machen.
baker had lost 4 out of his last 6 fights going into the machen fight including losses to journeyman willie besmanoff and roy harris. NOT THE SIGN OF A PRIME FIGHTER TO ME. baker had considerable aged by the time he fought machen. the hand injuries he suffered over the years had finally caught up to him and he was suffering from terrible brittle hands as well as diminished reflexes. he wasnt training anymore cause of the hand injuries and didnt have confidence in himself anymore. he was losing consistently to low level competition. baker wasnt even in the top 10 anymore when machen beat him.
bakers prime was the early 1950s when he was consistently beating world class opposition and being ranked in the top 5 in the world.
had baker fought guys like roy harris, dick richardson, and willie besmanoff in his prime, he would have killed them.
* baker did beat hurricane jackson but was robbed in the rematch. AP scored the fight 8 rounds to 4 baker and new york times scored it 7 rounds to 5 for baker.
baker was a very good boxer, excellent handspeed for a big heavyweight and had solid power as well. he was also big 6'2 220lb. at his peak, baker would be a handle for anyone. a true big man with skills and power. a matchup between machen and prime baker would have been a very good one. this is a hard pickem.
if u think machen beat a near prime bob baker, then i suggest u start researching more on bob baker and marcianos era.
As for Valdes being past his prime when Folley beat him,well he was only 31. Your favorites always seem to have such short primes.
Quarry beat a green when Machen beat him? Well actually he was 21, already had 20 fights and would fight to a draw with Patterson the next year. Machen himself was a day short of 34. That's a nice win for Machen.
quarry had faced no world class opponents up to the time of the machen fight. quarry best win prior to the machen fight was over 8-2 average tony doyle. the best fighter quarry faced prior to the machen fight was fringe contender tony doyle who quarry couldnt even beat. quarry was very young and inexperienced vs world class opposition. quarry had clearly not reached his prime yet. machen used his experience to beat green quarry. quarry improved a lot the next year by the time he fought patterson. young fighters improve a lot in one year. but i have no doubt archie moore would have used his incredible experience to outclass the green 21 year old quarry.
in fact i think moore would have easily beaten the 1966 quarry
valdes was past his prime when he fought folley. he was still a dangerous contender, but that was not the peak nino in there. nino had lost 4 out of his last 7 going into the folley fight and was falling out of the top 10. he was clearly on the downcline.
favorites seem to have short primes?? well how long do u define prime?? u simply have an agenda against marcianos era, and u seem to highly favor the late 1950s heavyweights. just cause theres a lot of info on machen and folley does not mean they are better than some of the less known heavyweight contenders of the early 1950s. of course machen and folley are well known, they fought during the great muhammad alis era.
Jimmy Bivins may have been the best heavyweight not to win the title? My lord. He lost to among others, Maxim, Murray, a washed up Joe Louis, and journymen Sid Peaks and Leonard Morrow.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the guys from the 1940's that Bivins beat. I guess I agree with most people that the 1940's wasn't that good of decade for heavyweights. Most people said so at the time and there isn't much evidence since to contradict this. You keep naming names from the 1940's. So what. Every decade has names.
wow do u know who jimmy bivins is?? hes a hall of famer. have u ever seen bivins on film?? he was a master boxer, one of the best pure boxers in history. treat the man with more respect.
- bivins was past his prime when he lost to morrow, sid peaks, joe louis, aand maxim. bivins prime was 1943-47. sid peaks WAS NOT A JOURNEYMAN. he was a big 225lb HUGE PUNCHING dangerous contender. peaks was a threat to any top contender cause of his size and power. SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR OTHER ERAS!
bivins was the duration heavyweight champ and # 1 contender during the whole WW II. most experts believe he defintley should have got a title shot vs louis and some believe he would have given louis quite a bit of trouble.
- watch bivins on film(pre 1948), he was perhaps a better boxer than both machen and folley. certainly just as good a heavyweight.
-i wouldnt call joe louis in 1951 washed up. he was the # 1 contender.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed with the guys from the 1940's that Bivins beat.
exuse me if i can see u clearly do not know anything about the heavyweight division in the 1940s. u have not studied it, not bothered to watch any film, and clearly have not read newspaper articles from that era. u give no respect to that era. just cause the era isnt as popular as the "incredible godly like" 70s era doesnt mean it was not good. cause the 1940s HW division had a lot of depth.
u simply use boxrec to make up ur mind about the 1940s heavyweight division. why dont u get off ur lazy ass and start researching it.
I guess I agree with most people that the 1940's wasn't that good of decade for heavyweights
speak for urself buddy
have u ever heard of
harry bobo
* jimmy bivins
eddie blunt
roscoe toles
lee q murray
hatchetman sheppard
buddy walker
turkey thomspon
elmer ray
otis thomas
lem franklin
big boy brown
gene tiger jones
kid riveria
johnny haynes
sid peaks
all these guys were avoided black contenders at some point in the 1940s. some of these guys were damm good fighters who unquestionably deserved a shot at joe louis title.
and im not even including guys like joe louis, jersey joe walcott ,ezzard charles and all the top white contenders which would make this seem like a good era.
Most people said so at the time and there isn't much evidence since to contradict this. .
please provide ur source of the people who said this.
- theres plenty of evidence, open ur eyes
You keep naming names from the 1940's. So what. Every decade has names
im sorry that u hadvnt done enough studying of this era to recgonize the names. start studying the era then come back and talk to me.
My favorite comment may have been that Mike DeJohn was an "Incredible Man" I thought so little of him that I didn't even list him as a guy that both Folley and Machen knocked out. Mike De John? Wow. Sorry if I'm not impressed that Bivins won a 6 round decison over the legendary Mike DeJohn.
im simply pointing out that a shot version of a fighter was able to score a huge upset win over a dangerous ranked contender like dejohn. and dejohn was dangerous, one of the hardest hitters of that era. this is a very good win on bivins resume considering the circumstances.
As for Archie Moore, you actually think he would be competitive against Liston and go 15 rounds? And you say you are an expert on films. Watch Liston. He would have absolutely destroyed Moore. Many other fighters got through Moore's defense and hurt him. I like Moore, and I don't like Liston at all; however I can be realistic at what would happen in this fight. It would ugly. Moore would lucky to make to the middle rounds.
i could look at it the other way and say if far less skilled guys like bert whitehurst, eddie machen, marty marshall could go the distance with liston, so could archie moore.
im sorry but ur not giving archie enough credit here. archie was a true master boxer in every defintion. he had a lot of heart, great recup powers, incredible ring smarts, excellent awareness, top notch defense. not to mention archie moore has incredible amounts of world class experience, he knows all the tricks of the trade.
based on these traits moore has, its very realistic to believe moore has a excellent chance at surviving the distance with liston, especially when far less fighters like bert whitehurst was able to do it twice.
And you say you are an expert on films. Watch Liston. He would have absolutely destroyed Moore.
obviosely u are not an expert. go watch the films again. archie moore matches up very well vs liston. WERE TALKING STYLES HERE.
- liston did not have the speed of charles or patterson nor did he put on pressure and aggresion like marciano did.
archie moore had a history of doing well vs the big skilled but slower sluggers. archie moore will have a lot easier time avoiding listons slower bombs than he would patterson and ezzard charles. archie moore was a master craftsmen.
- of course if liston catches and hurts archie bad, its over. but i dont see that happening. i see this being a boxing match with liston winning it based on his jab and physical advantages.
liston was a big standup boxer who liked to sit back and box and wait for the opening. liston was cautious, he never rushed things. he didnt go in there widly aggresive like foreman trying to knock ur head off.
only when u got aggresive and offensive with liston did he get very aggresive with u. but archie moore is too smart to mix it up with liston. he will sit back and counterpunch and make a boring fight out of it. difference is archie had better boxing skills than machen so archie will make a more interesting fight out of it for liston. archies old school shell defense, cute tricks, counterpunching, and survival mode will enable him to give liston some problems.
archie wont come out against liston like patterson and williams did. no way.
however i see liston winning a comfortable unanimous decision over moore with moore being floored. i see listons jab doing a good deal on moore. listons physical advantages and underated boxing skills will be too much on moore. but liston will have respect for archie since he is the all time KO king, and he will not wildy advance on archie. liston will be smart about his advances.
however in this fight moore wont get hit as much as u think. listons slower punches will be easier to avoid by archie. archie will also fight in survival mode like machen making it harder to knock him out.
liston 15 unanimous
its all about styles. moore matches up well vs liston.
Is this what’s called a redundant question?