BoxRec

I'm going for Foreman. Yes some of his opponents were awful, but winning the heavyweight championship at his age is pretty hard to top. He also fought a good fight against Holyfield.

......a long time definition of insanity is when one repeats the same action over and over again and expects different results.

ezzard charles beat moore every time they fought....can we therefore assume boxbuzzy is nuts?

..alas....computers have severly challenged the above definition. ...i've learned on my computer that i can write in one thing over and over....exactly the same way.....and what doesn't work the first time usually will eventually.....maybe that means the computer is coo coo..

plus...buzzy knows he has me in a squeeze here because he's aware archie is one of my favorite all time fighters....so i can't do what is so common here....build up ezzard by knocking archie...

They are both greats. However with each loss to Ezzard Archie improved and continued to improve........and eventually eclipsed the great Chas.

Pundit.......3 and 0 does draw one toward conclusions if you limit the input to math only.

Ambling Alp wrote:I'm going for Foreman. Yes some of his opponents were awful, but winning the heavyweight championship at his age is pretty hard to top. He also fought a good fight against Holyfield.

Ditto. Something to note, the only guy I've seen make Holyfield stop and think about what he was doing every time he hit him was Foreman. Older ande clumsier yes but most if not all of the power was still there

Holyfield did say that Foreman hit him the hardest.

..archie improved so much against ezzard that the mongoose nearly was decapitated when the cobra kayoed him in the third fight...


....hey..doesn't this reverse what is found in nature..that the mongoose can beat the cobra? maybe this is who....or what..buzzo is thinking about....confusing the animals with the nicknames....

Bernard Hopkins. Showed the upper body movement of a young Pernell Whitaker, throughout nearly all rounds, against Jermaine Taylor
2X. Backed that up in a breeze against Tarver.

Of course, his footwork, at his age no less, was top-notch...better, arguably, most probably, than even PBF Mayweather, the #1 P4P man lately (another boxer the oldtimers underrate, btw...he could beat Duran just like Leonard embarrassed Duran...and Leonard was just a bit wild throwing compared to Mayweather, who was trained by the best since he was three years old).

Archie Moore is a clear #2.

Syntax Error wrote:Who do you think is the greatest fighter to box on after the ripe old age of 40?

Archie Moore?

Bernard Hopkins?

George Foreman?

Other nominee?

BHOP!!!!

..i think i'll wait until bhop has the same career after 40 that archie did before i give him my vote....

Jaclem....I'm going to give this matter some further thought.

Gene Tunney belongs above Archie Moore too.

no way. archie beat far better competition and had far better longevity than gene tunney, plus i think archie moore was the more all around complete fighter than tunney and fares better in head to head matchups.



the 2nd fight could have gone to archie moore, so the charles-moore series could be 2-1 charles(though jaclem strongly disagrees)

Seems I've heard that old adage "Styles make fights" which would confirm your words Decagon. But it does not confirm general superiority only one on one superiority. And if Archie could have taken him into the 40's with him perhaps even that tide word turn. I'm thinkin best 4 out of 7. But that would have taken great longevity from the ChasMan.

"Going into the Championship years" could be another motto here.

Decagon wrote:At some point, you have to step back and accept the fact that Moore was Charles's bitch. Is "only two of their three bouts were blowouts" the best you can muster?

blowouts?? none of there fights were blowouts. all 3 were very very close fights, the first a close but clear decision win for ezzard, the 2nd a controversial very close win for ezzard, and the third a very close battle with moore leading up till the 8th and nailiong knocking charles out before charles made a great comeback


moore-charles bouts hardly fits the definition of a blowout. i also believe that moore had not yet reached his prime in the first charles fight. in fact i dont think moore reached his peak till the early 1950s

..brockton...i'm still waiting for your reasons for calling the charles win over moore in fight#2 controversial. it was a good fast fight until charles knocked archie down in the seventh round, i think (not going to look it up) and then moore just stopped fighting and went into his shell. one judge, who was never friendly to charles, called it a draw. the other two and the crowd clearly thought otherwise. ( in the pittsburgh fight one writer thought charles won every round, though ezz's folks didn't think it was that wide, but charles clearly won. )

because the fight was in cincinnati,archie, in his various bios liked to say it was a home town decision, which sounds credible to those who don't know much, if anything , about the match.

now, if you want to know about a cincinnati fight in which ezzard got a blatant long count after being really iced, i'll post it...but only if buzzy demands it too. i should tell you in advance, though, that ezz came back and knocked the guy cold and a count of twenty five wouldn't have brought him back.

..plus...i guess i should point out again that the only knockdowns scored were by charles....one in each fight..the last one for the count. yes....he was behind and in a bit of trouble in the third one....but he came back and scored a devastating kayo. hey, that's what great fighters do...especially when they are in there being put to the test by another nearly as great a fighter.

Decagon wrote:You know what I mean.

Anyway, isn't it better to rank fighters based on fact, rather than hypothesis?

Your right....based on the fact of longevity Moore is clearly the better fighter...however I hold Charles in high regard as he gave great training to the young and impressionalbe Archie by defeating him while Archie was just a kid. But then Moore eventually matured (a bit later than most) and of course the rest is history.

It is entirely possible that without those character/skill building moments with Ezzard, Moore would never have gone on in those later years and actually eclipsed his mentor. So without Ezzard, Archie would not get the nod as the greatest LHW.

You can't make this stuff up.....that's why facts beat fiction everytime.

..good heavens...don't ask the buzzbomb to list all those fighters!!! he's got about 8,000 posts now and he'll list them one at a time to get a number no one will ever reach...which will give him an appearance of longevity those in the future who don't check the dates of the entries.

How do you measure longevity? Age? Number of bouts? Number of rounds? Career span? One thing is for sure age seems less of a barrier for today's fighters with many fighting way into their 30s and remaining at the top level. I guess it's improved conditioning etc...

Archie's achievements in the protracted autumn of his career is something to marevl at.

Archie Moore is the greatest 40+ fighter by a long way, Bob Fitzsimmons is number 2

All factors and dynamics must be taken in context and given rationale reflection. It appears that Dr Devious has done his homework quite well in this area.

Decagon that is a good question.......rankings are overated. And maddening. Because there are so many circular patterns.

Barkley beats Hearns who beats Duran who beats Barkley
Do we rank them pound for pound?
Do we rank them overall skill level?
Do we rank them one on one?
Do we factor in age? and if so how? What about longevity?
Should styles themselves have "foundational value" when assessing?

How can a fighter lose to another fighter and yet be rated above the very fighter that defeated them? Especially if both are at or near their peak?

Frazier vs Ali?
Foreman Vs Frazier?
Moore vs Charles X3?
Hatton Vs Tszyu?
Duran Vs Benitez?
Hearns vs Barkley?

Some of these examples are more maddening than others.

Good luck to the list makers....I'd rather critique the lists.

Sentimentality always affects the listmakers no matter how loud they protest that they are purely objective. Except in the case of Moore vs Charles which I clearly base on empirical evidence only. Why? Because I am the exception that proves the rule. The man who stands out in the crowd. The swimmer that chooses upstream as the "norm". Counter intuitive? yes....Scandalizing the intellect of the room temperature IQer's? You Betcha....and yet my precision and correclty calibrated calculations are based on quantum physics equations that can not be debated or challenged even in the hallowed halls of Cambridge or Oxford.

..buzz...i think you know damn well that "the exception that proves the rule" is one of the stupidest statements of all time......exceptions weaken rules. the exception does "test" the rule, though, which is the correct wording. you will do anything in your power to negate the good my medication does me......i am hyper and must be tanquilized....even at that, people often think i am on speed....and you just get my nervous system in an uproar with comments like this.

I have studied your response and it shows some promise young grasshopper.

Decagon wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:How can a fighter lose to another fighter and yet be rated above the very fighter that defeated them? Especially if both are at or near their peak?

Frazier vs Ali?

Ali's the better fighter, and he won 2/3. No one ranks Frazier above Ali. No problem there.

BoxBuzz wrote:Foreman Vs Frazier?

Most people do rank Foreman over Frazier.

BoxBuzz wrote:Moore vs Charles X3?

Almost everyone ranks Charles over Moore

BoxBuzz wrote:Hatton Vs Tszyu?

Tszyu was closer to the North Pole than his peak.

BoxBuzz wrote:Duran Vs Benitez?

Yeah, a loss at 154's supposed to hurt his legacy at 135?!?!?! Duran did some nice stuff after his lightweight run, but his true legacy is at lightweight, and no one should ever forget it.

BoxBuzz wrote:Hearns vs Barkley?

Again, Hearns was very, very far past his peak in weight or years. At middleweight, few rank him higher than #40 or #50 all time. This was just a fight between two good middleweights.

Stop being lazy, or shut up.

I believe what your are trying to say is that I am in the minority when it comes to the Moore/Charles debate, (but I am hardly the only one. ) Some will not allow Charles to be ranked in the LHW stakes due to his participation in the HW division so they have no problem with Moore topping the class (by default yes). Others like myself, and of course Stephen Hawkings clearly see that Moore simply learned lessons from Charles in a unique and diverse way, quite in line with the sage moves of a mongoose. (Though when mongoose' are struck down they do not rise again.) Leaving Moore as the pre-eminent "Lazarus of the Mongoose population".

As for your statement by statement dissection of my earlier thoughts I will redirect you to ponder them carefully as it appears that your statements.. "aint neccesarily so".

In regards to your final directive "Stop being Lazy" I plead Not Guilty in any way shape or form. And your suggestion as to what I should do should I choose to be lazy ( How did you phrase it? Oh yes "Shut Up") would appear on the surface to be a very lazy thing to do unless coupled with sincerely resolved and meditative reflection and followed by vigilant action.

To summarize then:

I suggest you aspire to more congruent advice, especially to those you wish to inspire or motivate to greater heights of discriminate thinking.

And to you sir I will now state with all due respect...I beleive it will be in your interest to cease and desist with any manner of incongruency on every level.

Jaclem wrote:..buzz...i think you know damn well that "the exception that "the exception that proves the rule" is one of the stupidest statements of all time......exceptions weaken rules. the exception does "test" the rule, though, which is the correct wording. you will do anything in your power to negate the good my medication does me......i am hyper and must be tanquilized....even at that, people often think i am on speed....and you just get my nervous system in an uproar with comments like this.

I agree with you in regards to "proves" vs "tests" and yes the purpose of such statements that I make is to "test" the power of your medications. .

Test me will you regarding my knowledge of the english language?

It simply means that if you are an ex-con you should not bark out orders to other citizens in a gruenting fashion. Since you have no crim record I did in fact use it incorrectly and am sorry for my cavalier attitude.


However on a more serious point......when you say that the upsets mentioned earlier were due to fighters who were "past their prime" I would argue that Prime itself should be based on Moores career and many of these fighters had simply not made it to their respective primes and gave up and stopped working far too soon.

So actually they possibly were lazy and simply never achieved their respective primes due to a lacadaisacal work ethic and fear of maturity.