BoxRec

funny thing is even in 1962 at age 50, moore still was a top ten contender.



- to show u how good harold johnson was even for heavies, a past his prime harold johnson beat a prime eddie machen

Decagon wrote:Don't shit on a plate and call it chocolate cake. Aside from Johnson and Maxim, the fighters Moore beat in the 1950s and 1960s were CRAP! Moore almost lost to a part-time fighter in Yvonne Durelle. The only reason he won that fight was that Durelle had to work full time and couldn't train. His win in that fight was akin to Tex Cobb's "knockout" of Earnie Shavers, only with Shavers a stevedore from some shithole port in the Arctic Ocean.

sure moore beat more quantity of great fighters in late 40s, but moore also lost to some journeyman who werent even as good as the opponents moore faced in the 50s and 60s! moore was a lot more consistent and didnt lose or get caught by SOME 3rd rate fighters like he did in 40s.

Decagon wrote:Oh, and which "journeymen" did Moore lose to in the 1940s?

1948

- knocked out in one round by leonard morrow : a early 50s moore would never get caught or lose to a fighter like morrow

- lost to 35-8 fringe contender henry hall, who i would say is a notch above journeyman but defintley isnt a top contender


ur telling me a prime moore lost to leonard morrow and henry hall??




1945



- moore lost to holman williams despite weighing 175lb to williajms 162lb. now u think a earlys 50s 175lb moore would lose to a 162lb holmes williams???

now holman williams was DEFINTLET NOT a journeyman but moore lost to him despite having a 11lb weight advtange on williams. it shows moore had not reached his fighting best


1943


- lost decision to 2nd rate aaron wade

Holmes fought a bunch of bums. Witherspoon, Cooney, and the rest of that crowd of no-talent gym-rats wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds with Archie Moore or Billy Miske or even Max Baer. All they had going for them was size and weight. Big deal. And as for Ken Norton. When was the last time anyone rated him in the top 30 all-time?

Geez. How soon they forget.

Cap

jezzamundo wrote:Am I going crazy here? Has no one mentioned Ali yet?

He beat Liston twice (first time possibly suss, second almost definitely)
He beat Frazier twice (although closely, and Frazier was def on the decline by their third fight)
He beat Norton twice (both close, one suss)
He easily beat a much younger Spinks (who he never should have lost to)
He KNOCKED OUT George Foreman
He beat Floyd Patterson twice
He beat Henry Cooper twice

the circumstances were not always the best, but surely he has to be right up there?!

well without a doubt ali faced the best competition out of any champ... but the first post has a selection of champs and BB left out ali, im guessing because he woudla won hands down.

-Leonard Morrow a journeyman? He was ranked #2 in 1948, #4 in 1949 by Ring magazine at 175. And let's not forget that Durelle caught Moore just as easily, or that Moore was coming off a knockout loss to Ezzard Charles.

-Henry Hill won a hometown decision against Moore. Yeah, that's really a good one to bring up, especially since he was ranked #9 at 175 by Ring magazine that year, and cemented that ranking by going 2-0-1 with Bert Lytell, who was ranked #5 at light heavyweight by Ring magazine the following year, and was a fixture in Ring magazine‘s rankings throughout the decade

leonard morrow was # 2 contender by the END of 1948 which was AFTER HE BEAT MOORE. before he beat moore, he was unranked an 11-2.



- i never said holman williams was a bad fighter, in fact hes a great fighter whos terribly underated. i simply said a early 50s 175lb moore does not lose to any version of holman williams.



- moore was 47 and by now past his prime when he fought durelle. moore's best days were early 50s.

i would have loved to see charles vs early 50s archie moore,


- i think moore was at the beginning of his prime when he fought charles in there 2nd and 3rd fights but still hadnt reached his peak.


- moore was lighter and faster in the 40s, but in the early 1950s though he wasnt as fast, he was better boxer, much better ring smarts, better defensively, just as much power, and still fast quick reflexes and hand speed.

Decagon wrote:Um, most of Morrow's early record has been lost. He wasn't 11-2. Stop taking Boxrec at face value!

i was simply making a point about moore getting caught more or being more inconsistent when he was younger.

Decagon wrote:No. You thought that Morrow was 11-2 because you read it on Boxrec. Now stop talking shit about it.

tough guy



- fact was yes morrows record was incomplete, but as far as i know right now, moore got knocked out by an inexperienced young novice in one round.

now moore never suffered defeats like that from 1949 through the rest of his career!!!

Before anyone talks about Yvon Durelle they should read "The Fighting Fisherman" by Raymond Fraser. That Yvon was one tough SOB.

Cap

Cap wrote:Holmes fought a bunch of bums. Witherspoon, Cooney, and the rest of that crowd of no-talent gym-rats wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds with Archie Moore or Billy Miske or even Max Baer. All they had going for them was size and weight. Big deal. And as for Ken Norton. When was the last time anyone rated him in the top 30 all-time?

Geez. How soon they forget.

Cap

Are you serious about Norton? I certainly have him in the top 30 alltime and I think many other people do as well. It might be a good idea for you to watch the Holmes-Norton fight.
Witherspoon and Cooney would certainly not only last more than 5 rounds with Moore and Miske, but beat them.
I'm not saying that the 1980's was a great era for heavyweights, but lets be realistic here.

I'm not saying that the 1980's was a great era for heavyweights, but lets be realistic here.

You're asking for too much. Alot of minds here seem to believe that all the great fighters from before the sixties are vastly superior to their more comtemporary counterparts. Realisticly prime Holmes would have been at least as successful as Louis if he fought in his era, and much more successful in Johnson's, Dempsey's and Marciano's era, than they were.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Cap wrote:Holmes fought a bunch of bums. Witherspoon, Cooney, and the rest of that crowd of no-talent gym-rats wouldn't have lasted 5 rounds with Archie Moore or Billy Miske or even Max Baer.

Cap

wait... why is it... or even max baer. you act like billy miske and archie moore are better then max baer. yet max baer would murder both of them. along with witherspoon and cooney for that matter.

witherspoon would beat moore and miske


but i dont know about cooney. did he ever beat anyone close to the level of archie moore??? (lyly, norton, young were living in the retirement home for senior citizens)


i mean u really think cooney could handle someone of moores ring smarts, boxing skills, caginess, defensive wizardy for 15 rounds??

i mean of course cooney has a size advantage and a left hook that could KO moore, but i dont see that being very likely as cooney was uncoordinated, sloppy, and wide punching.

- i just think moore could outsmart him



miske is a very underated boxer who is much like a eddie machen, except maybe even more cagey and slippery.

Decagon wrote:Witherspoon beats Moore, but loses to Bigfoot Martin?!?!?! If he'd simply trained for that fight, we wouldn't have had to see clips of Martin's "greatest win" three Tuesdays per year for the next half-decade.

if witherspoon fights like that against moore hes in for a spanking.



but i always thought higher of witherspoon than some of the other 80s heavies, he basically went even with a prime holmes or at least close to his prime holmes. he looked very good that night.

drugs ate him away.

Decagon wrote:Witherspoon's performance against Holmes is sooooooooooooo overated.

i partially agree, because people say witherspoon that night was an all time great and would have beat a lot greats.. ya da ya da ya


it was witherspoons peak fight, but he defintley was not an all time great that one fight. many people just say it to cover for holmes.


holmes should have gave spoon a rematch