BoxRec

This is what I think people don't get, Demps...they judge fighters on their records, on the basis of what is the, "done-thing" now, as I outlined above.

It creates false perceptions, & severe distortions.

I would have:
Moorer over Jones (Close. Either Jones wins a decision or the southpaw by KO)
Charles over Calzaghe (If Charles could stay close to Marciano he would beat Joe C.)
Tunney over Foster (Decision)
Spinks over Moore (also close call but would have a Spinks stoppage with today's refs)


Now re-seed the tournament.

actjac wrote:I would have:
Moorer over Jones (Close. Either Jones wins a decision or the southpaw by KO)
Charles over Calzaghe (If Charles could stay close to Marciano he would beat Joe C.)
Tunney over Foster (Decision)
Spinks over Moore (also close call but would have a Spinks stoppage with today's refs)


Now re-seed the tournament.

jones over moorer
charles by walkover over calzaghe, joe wouldn't have fought a great fighter in their prime
foster by walkover over tunney, gene didn't fight blacks
spinks over moore

bjermaine wrote:

actjac wrote:I would have:
Moorer over Jones (Close. Either Jones wins a decision or the southpaw by KO)
Charles over Calzaghe (If Charles could stay close to Marciano he would beat Joe C.)
Tunney over Foster (Decision)
Spinks over Moore (also close call but would have a Spinks stoppage with today's refs)


Now re-seed the tournament.

jones over moorer
charles by walkover over calzaghe, joe wouldn't have fought a great fighter in their prime
foster by walkover over tunney, gene didn't fight blacks
spinks over moore

Foster, "walking over" Tunney...get real, mate

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

bjermaine wrote:

actjac wrote:I would have:
Moorer over Jones (Close. Either Jones wins a decision or the southpaw by KO)
Charles over Calzaghe (If Charles could stay close to Marciano he would beat Joe C.)
Tunney over Foster (Decision)
Spinks over Moore (also close call but would have a Spinks stoppage with today's refs)


Now re-seed the tournament.

jones over moorer
charles by walkover over calzaghe, joe wouldn't have fought a great fighter in their prime
foster by walkover over tunney, gene didn't fight blacks
spinks over moore

Foster, "walking over" Tunney...get real, mate

walkover means by default

I can see Foster TKOing or getting the nod over Tunney.

...& how, precisely, in a tournament designed with the combatants to meet one another, does a, "default" happen?

Are you saying Tunney, what, just doesn't show up on fight night, because Foster is black?

Well he has that right...

after all he came from such a racially proud and superior era. :P

It'd be to Foster's benefit if Tunney didn't show up.

I can see Foster winning this fight, but he'd need more than one crack at it. Tunney'd be the favourite in my book. Beating Greb & Dempsey --- among others --- is enough to justify favouritism, IMO. That said, Foster was a hell of a fighter, I just think he'd be the one struggling to adapt to Tunney's style, moreso than vice-versa.

I think its no easy fight for either man, That being said I can see Foster
at 175lbs putting Tunney down. I know one thing GI..it would be good
watching this at ringside.

Semis:

Tunney vs Spinks

Charles vs Moorer

Tunney clsoe decision over Spinks

Charles by TKO anytime after 7 rounds...

Using your eight light heavyweights and recognizing that Tommy Loughran, Harold Johnson and most of all Billy Conn is missing. Here is the list.

1. Gene Tunney
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Archie Moore
4. Bob Foster
5. Roy Jones Jr
6. Micheal Spinks
7. Joe Calzaghe
8. Michael Moorer

I also think that there is not much arguement to add Billy Conn to the top 5 move Roy Jones to 6 and mix the order in any combination between those 5 fighters. Anyone of them is arguably the greatest light heavy of all time.

Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles

How does this fight go?

actjac wrote:Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles

How does this fight go?

Down to the wire

Desperately close fight. Would need more than one bout --- perhaps a trilogy. Anyone who thinks Tunney wouldn't claim a minimum of one of those fights is delusional.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

actjac wrote:Gene Tunney vs Ezzard Charles

How does this fight go?

Down to the wire

Desperately close fight. Would need more than one bout --- perhaps a trilogy. Anyone who thinks Tunney wouldn't claim a minimum of one of those fights is delusional.

A trilogy would be needed to settle this all time tournament

Watching Tunney progressively figure Charles out & going on to win would be a glorious spectacle. Tunney was a brilliant, brilliant tactician. I do suspect Charles' athleticism & overall ability would win him a trilogy, though.

actjac wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

It is doing well except that I have always had a hard time with Archie Moore. For example during what should have been his prime years as a light heavy over a three year period (1945-48) he fought 22 times winning 15, losing 5 and drawing 2. Does that sound like an elite boxer in his prime? I understand an off night but there were seven off nights in a three year period. I will have to go with Spinks.

considering today that it takes a fighter in his prime 5-8 years to rack up 22 fights, I dont think you can call a guy out for losing a few over that number of fights in 3 years.

Looking at who some of the the losses are too is insane.... Ezzard Charles (x2), Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins etc.
Look at the constant level of competition.
Look at the fact that to that point in his career he had already fought almost 3x as many fights as Spinks fought in his entire career
Consider how travel was back then.
Consider the state of judging and refereeing at the time.

"considering today that it takes a fighter in his prime 5-8 years to rack up 22 fights, I dont think you can call a guy out for losing a few over that number of fights in 3 years.

Looking at who some of the the losses are too is insane.... Ezzard Charles (x2), Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins etc.
Look at the constant level of competition.
Look at the fact that to that point in his career he had already fought almost 3x as many fights as Spinks fought in his entire career
Consider how travel was back then.
Consider the state of judging and refereeing at the time." - Hamilton

Why don't more people understand this simple fact?

"Oh, Cotto is undefeated (once), but Basilio lost a lot of fights. Cotto isn't as inconsistent..."

JAHamilton77 wrote:

actjac wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:IMO, & without a detailed analysis...

Moorer over Jones (Tough to call, could always change my mind)
Charles over Calzaghe
Tunney over Foster
Moore over Spinks

It is doing well except that I have always had a hard time with Archie Moore. For example during what should have been his prime years as a light heavy over a three year period (1945-48) he fought 22 times winning 15, losing 5 and drawing 2. Does that sound like an elite boxer in his prime? I understand an off night but there were seven off nights in a three year period. I will have to go with Spinks.

considering today that it takes a fighter in his prime 5-8 years to rack up 22 fights, I dont think you can call a guy out for losing a few over that number of fights in 3 years.

Looking at who some of the the losses are too is insane.... Ezzard Charles (x2), Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins etc.
Look at the constant level of competition.
Look at the fact that to that point in his career he had already fought almost 3x as many fights as Spinks fought in his entire career
Consider how travel was back then.
Consider the state of judging and refereeing at the time.

The fact remains--he lost time and again and again. If Moore was truly great he would not lose so much. What is Gene Tunney's record? Jack Dempsy? Joe Louis? They lived in a similar environment and only had a handful of losses. I will stand by my opinion that though Archie Moore was a very good fighter with endurance and remarkable longevity he is not at the same level as many of the others.

"...If Moore was truly great he would not lose so much..." - Actjac



Archie Moore = 23 Losses

Ray Robinson = 19 Losses

Joey Maxim = 19 Losses

Jake LaMotta = 19 Losses

Fritzie Zivic = 65 Losses (What a bum this guy musta been!!!)

None of these men, apparently, were truly great. All hail the greatest, the undefeated, "Money May!" You just don't seem to grasp how to compare eras. They've tried to show you in this thread.

Hamilton's post articulates everything you aren't capable of factoring into your reasoning. What is so difficult about it?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...If Moore was truly great he would not lose so much..." - Actjac



Archie Moore = 23 Losses

Ray Robinson = 19 Losses

Joey Maxim = 19 Losses

Jake LaMotta = 19 Losses

Fritzie Zivic = 65 Losses (What a bum this guy musta been!!!)

None of these men, apparently, were truly great. All hail the greatest, the undefeated, "Money May!" You just don't seem to grasp how to compare eras. They've tried to show you in this thread.

Hamilton's post articulates everything you aren't capable of factoring into your reasoning. What is so difficult about it?

No, I don't buy the argument. Moore lost multiple fights during his prime. Again I will use Tunney, Dempsey and Louis as examples. Sugar Ray lost most of his fights (thirteen in the 1960's) well past his prime when he was fighting to pay the bills.

Okay. Forget the numbers, let's go to the tape. How much of Moore do you own on film, or have seen, then?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Okay. Forget the numbers, let's go to the tape. How much of Moore do you own on film, or have seen, then?

I have seen a few of Moore's fights either on ESPN Classic, You Tube or highlights over the years. My OPINION is that though he used that unique cross armed defense he was not hard to hit, fairly stationary however was a great counter puncher, intelligent and crafty. He was not unlike James Toney today.
His one great strength was his durability which led to longevity. The Yvonne Durrel fight would have either been stopped by today's refs or a more ordinary fighter would have been KO'd. So for this tournament (which is the subject at hand) I would have Spinks beating Moore (Spinks actually beat an all time great heavyweight champion - Larry Holmes twice). That would end the issue in this tournament.