Tony Zale versus Archie Moore

[goose 5]

15 rounds- middleweights.

[elmersalsa]

The Ol' Mongoose should win this one. By knockout.

[Scypion]

Probably Archie.

[Ambling Alp II]

Actually like Zale in this one. Middleweight was not Moore's best weight. Of course he would have a chance, but leaning towards Zale. Would have been great to watch.

[HomicideHenry]

Zale is one of those guys who got a lot of hype in my dad's childhood because he was from Indiana like my grandfather and grandmother and great grandparents, etc--- but I don't hold him much higher than I would Rocky Graziano who he split losses with.

Zale lost to the middleweight version of Billy Conn twice, who like Archie Moore was a superior light heavyweight in later years. He also lost to Billy Soose, and of course to Marcel Cerdan danced rings around him.

Archie lost to the likes of Charley Burley as a middleweight, but it's clear that this weight class was where he really learned the craft of boxing--- he failed to win the California title, back when state championships actually had merit and wait to them.

But he did have a lot of catchweight fights with people like Lloyd Marshall, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, and won those--- there was no super middleweight division then so they were technically light heavyweight fights although they were matches where someone was 155+ versus 165+.

I think it would have been a very competitive fight, but it might be too difficult for me to decide. I want to lean towards Archie Moore, but the mutual opponents that these men did have Zale won those bouts--- and if the Marciano fight tells us anything, a pressure fighter with great conditioning will keep Archie Moore on the defensive rather than being offensive.

In a one-off encounter I might go with Tony Zale, but in a series I go with Archie Moore.

[scorpio83]

Actually like Zale in this one. Middleweight was not Moore's best weight. Of course he would have a chance, but leaning towards Zale. Would have been great to watch.

I'm with you that Zale was the beast at middleweight while Moore's early career at middleweight wasn't his best weight, but he was learning through. Under 15 rounds, Zale would outhustle Moore for a decision win, but Moore would out-box and out-punch Zale for a decision above the middleweight limit.

[Ambling Alp II]

Zale is one of those guys who got a lot of hype in my dad's childhood because he was from Indiana like my grandfather and grandmother and great grandparents, etc--- but I don't hold him much higher than I would Rocky Graziano who he split losses with.

Zale lost to the middleweight version of Billy Conn twice, who like Archie Moore was a superior light heavyweight in later years. He also lost to Billy Soose, and of course to Marcel Cerdan danced rings around him.

Archie lost to the likes of Charley Burley as a middleweight, but it's clear that this weight class was where he really learned the craft of boxing--- he failed to win the California title, back when state championships actually had merit and wait to them.

But he did have a lot of catchweight fights with people like Lloyd Marshall, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, and won those--- there was no super middleweight division then so they were technically light heavyweight fights although they were matches where someone was 155+ versus 165+.

I think it would have been a very competitive fight, but it might be too difficult for me to decide. I want to lean towards Archie Moore, but the mutual opponents that these men did have Zale won those bouts--- and if the Marciano fight tells us anything, a pressure fighter with great conditioning will keep Archie Moore on the defensive rather than being offensive.

In a one-off encounter I might go with Tony Zale, but in a series I go with Archie Moore.

"Zale lost to the middleweight version of Billy Conn twice"
Homicide: They only fought once. And Conn was not a middleweight, he weighed about 175.

[HomicideHenry]

Zale is one of those guys who got a lot of hype in my dad's childhood because he was from Indiana like my grandfather and grandmother and great grandparents, etc--- but I don't hold him much higher than I would Rocky Graziano who he split losses with.

Zale lost to the middleweight version of Billy Conn twice, who like Archie Moore was a superior light heavyweight in later years. He also lost to Billy Soose, and of course to Marcel Cerdan danced rings around him.

Archie lost to the likes of Charley Burley as a middleweight, but it's clear that this weight class was where he really learned the craft of boxing--- he failed to win the California title, back when state championships actually had merit and wait to them.

But he did have a lot of catchweight fights with people like Lloyd Marshall, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, and won those--- there was no super middleweight division then so they were technically light heavyweight fights although they were matches where someone was 155+ versus 165+.

I think it would have been a very competitive fight, but it might be too difficult for me to decide. I want to lean towards Archie Moore, but the mutual opponents that these men did have Zale won those bouts--- and if the Marciano fight tells us anything, a pressure fighter with great conditioning will keep Archie Moore on the defensive rather than being offensive.

In a one-off encounter I might go with Tony Zale, but in a series I go with Archie Moore.

"Zale lost to the middleweight version of Billy Conn twice"
Homicide: They only fought once. And Conn was not a middleweight, he weighed about 175.

I stand corrected. Had to look at the record again. My mistake.

[Nile4000]

Zale by UD in a good fight.

[Crease]

Think this is a great fight...

At Light Heavy - I'd strongly favour Archie to overpower and stop Tony, as tough as he was...

But at Middleweight it could be a very different story. Would Archie be drained, would he still have that explosive power down at a lighter weight class? I'm not sure - I think Tony may give him a torrid time... But you know what? I'll give it to Archie to do the business, but I would not be confident...