BoxRec

Decagon wrote:Actually, I rank Moore as a middleweight, so he's ineligible for 175. That leaves Spinks #2 behind Ezzard Charles.

By the way, is there really such thing as a good all-time list? Or just one you agree with?

how could u rate him as a middleweight only?? his prime was as a light-h


moore had not peaked yet when he was a middleweight, he became a better fighter with age.

i think moores a top 35 middleweight and heavyweight of all time, but hes a top 2 light-h of all time

1.Michael Spinks
2.Maxie Rosenbloom
3.Ezzard Charles
4.Archie Moore
5.Bob Foster
6.Sam Langford
7.Tommy Loughran
8.John Henry Lewis
9.Gene Tunney
10.Harold Johnson

That's my list.

If you don't like it I got 2 words for ya

http://i2.tinypic.com/1zv3eqh.jpg

Grimm wrote:1.Michael Spinks
2.Maxie Ronsenbloom
3.Ezzard Charles
4.Archie Moore
5.Bob Foster
6.Sam Langford
7.Tommy Loughran
8.John Henry Lewis
9.Gene Tunney
10.Harold Johnson

That's my list.

If you don't like it I got 2 words for ya

http://i2.tinypic.com/1zv3eqh.jpg

I don't like any of those names over Moore's but you of course have the right to be incorrect...we allow for this

HOWEVER Maxie Ronsenbloom? The barber from New Jersey? He wasn't really that good was he? And he never had a single pro fight.

I know you can't mean Maxie Rosenbloom....that would be daft.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Grimm wrote:1.Michael Spinks
2.Maxie Ronsenbloom
3.Ezzard Charles
4.Archie Moore
5.Bob Foster
6.Sam Langford
7.Tommy Loughran
8.John Henry Lewis
9.Gene Tunney
10.Harold Johnson

That's my list.

If you don't like it I got 2 words for ya

http://i2.tinypic.com/1zv3eqh.jpg

I don't like any of those names over Moore's but you of course have the right to be incorrect...we allow for this

HOWEVER Maxie Ronsenbloom? The barber from New Jersey? He wasn't really that good was he? And he never had a single pro fight.

I know you can't mean Maxie Rosenbloom....that would be daft.

Yes nice correction on that one.

But as I have said if you don't like it I got two words for ya.

Harold Johnson (smaller and far less experienced than Ezzard Charles when they met) BEAT Ezzard Charles.

actually ezzard charles beat harold johnson, a highway robbery


i scored it 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even for charles and charles knocked him down in round 10

Decagon wrote:

The Great John L wrote:People question his quality of opposition? Are you kidding? He beat some top notch fighters at LH.

Hey, I'm the guy ranking him #2 of all time at light heavyweight. Not that I endorse these views, but here's what I generally get:

• Sutherland was small, and he lost whenever he fought the best in the division.
• Lopez was old.
• Johnson was past his prime.
• Spinks only beat Muhammad because of the thumb, and the rematch never happened because of the fixed scales.
• (Usually, some reason comes up for not liking Qawi)
• Holmes was old, and he still beat Spinks twice.
• Cooney was old.
• Tyson was the first top fighter in his prime that Spinks faced, and
  the same would've happened if the others had been in their respective primes.
• Spinks was afraid of Tyson, so he'd probably be afraid of Archie Moore, Bob Statterfield, Bob Foster and any light heavyweight with a pulse.
• Leon was better.

Brock, it was a joke based on the previous post. Wait a couple of posts and see how people react to what I said above.

Decagon,
I take it that you don't really believe most of this stuff either.
Sutherland was prboably better at Super Middleweight, but he was a pretty decent lightheavy. He was ptetty even with Saad Muhammed in their fight, before the referee stopped it. I remember Sutherland complaining bitterly about it being stopped..although I can't remember if the stoppage was justified or not. Maybe someone else can recall.

At any rate, spinks beat fighters better than Sutherland.
Lopez was only 29 when Spinks stopped him.He had been in some wars but he was still pretty tough.
Marvin Johnson was too old? He wasn't even 27 when Spinks knocked him out.He won the WBA belt after Spinks moved up to heavyweight.

I have know idea about this thumb business with Mustapha Muhammad. I remember someone talking on this forum about this a while back, but I don't remember anything about this when the fight happened or anyone else ever mentioning it.

I would hope that people wouldn't be factoring in Spinks heavyweight fights when rating him as a lightheavyweight. (Though moving up from lightheavyweight and beating Larry holmes even at stage in Holmes career is still an accomplishment. He looked pretty good in destroying Cooney.
However, I also suspect that the Tyson fight at least subconciously affects people when rating Spinks at lightheavyweight.
As far as being afraid of lightheavyweights, if he wasn't afraid of Qawi, Mustapha Muhammad Johnson etc.he wasn't going to be afraid of any lightheavyweight.
Spinsk came along at time when the lightheavyweight division may have been at it's highest level and he dominated it. It just seems like common sense that he would be seriously considered when thinking of who the the greatest lightheavyweight of all time was.

I rate Spinks in top 5 and don't have a problem with him being higher. he unified a very competitive division. I don't think there's been anyone since who could have beaten him.

Harold Johnson beat the hell out of Ezzard Charles. He had Charles hurt a number of times.

Don Dunphy was there. He mentioned repeatedly that Johnson hurt Charles at various times.

Harold Johnson won that fight overwhelmingly.


Archie Moore lost to Charles THREE times.

granberry wrote:Harold Johnson beat the hell out of Ezzard Charles. He had Charles hurt a number of times.

Don Dunphy was there. He mentioned repeatedly that Johnson hurt Charles at various times.

Harold Johnson won that fight overwhelmingly.


Archie Moore lost to Charles THREE times.

So what are you trying to say, that Johnson was better than Moore? I believe Moore won their series 4-1.

Charles in his prime was just in a class of his own. On the same level of fighting skills as Robinson, Duran, Armstrong and Pep.

granberry wrote:Harold Johnson beat the hell out of Ezzard Charles. He had Charles hurt a number of times.

Don Dunphy was there. He mentioned repeatedly that Johnson hurt Charles at various times.

Harold Johnson won that fight overwhelmingly.


Archie Moore lost to Charles THREE times.

did u even see the fight???? johnson had charles hurt only once in round 5 but charles hurt johnson alot more times during the fight and landed the harder punches. charles even scored the only knockdown in the fight in round 10. charles dominated johnson down the stretch and outboxed johnson. johnson scored a lot of points with his jab though, he outjabbed ezz( johnson had one of the best jabs in light-h history)


i scored the fight 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of charles not to mention charles floored johnson.

most other people who scored this fight scored it for ezzard. 2 guys i know from this forum scored it 7 rounds to 3 for ezzard.

charles called it a "hometown decision" and a "robbery"



charles defintley beat harold johnson

Don Dunphy scored it for Harold Johnson. So did the judges.

Ezzard knew he was badly outpointed and didn't object.

granberry wrote:Don Dunphy scored it for Harold Johnson. So did the judges.

Ezzard knew he was badly outpointed and didn't object.

ezzard didnt object??? why dont u ask jaclem. jaclem once said that charles called the fight a "robbery and hometown decision".

jaclem perhaps you could quote wut charles said about the harold johnson loss??


actually one judge scored it for ezzard charles, it was a split decision.



all u need to do is watch the film.........most people who watch the film score it for ezzard. go watch the film score it and get back to me


i had it 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even for harold johnson.


if i were to score it under modern scoring. i would have to give a 10-8 round to charles because of the knockdown..........

so my scorecard would be 96-92 charles

I score it a lopsided win for Harold Johnson.

granberry wrote:I score it a lopsided win for Harold Johnson.

wow u must be very bias against ezzard charles.


everyone i know who has watched the fight has scored it clearly for ezzard charles with the exception of doublem who thought it was a draw

Wow u must be very biased against Harold johnson

granberry wrote:Wow u must be very biased against Harold johnson

no i love harold johnson. i rank him # 8 light-H of all time , higher than most rank him. i think johnsons vastly underated and i always defend him.


i just think charles clearly won there fight.

decagon i have taken more consideration about archie moore as a middleweight(since u rated him # 1 of the 40s) and i have moved him up on my middleweight list. archie was a great middleweight.

archies now a top 35 middlewweight and heavyweight of all time and top 2 light-H of all time on my lists, THATS DAMM IMPRESSIVE!


ARCHIE WAS one of the greatest middleweight punchers of all time.


look at who archie knocked out


KO 9 jack chase
TKO 10 lloyd marshall
KO 11 holman williams
KO 2 shorty hogue
KO 10 ron richards


archie knocked out 3 great middleweights


archies power really had an effect on middleweights




isnt moores fight with richards in 1940 filmed???

i think in a lot of those fights you listed archie was a light heavy.also moore did not seem to have the most reliable chin even at middle.

Harold Johnson knocked Archie Moore FLAT ON HIS FACE with a single right hand in the 10th round of their title fight.

The film is available.

Referee Ruby Goldstein gave Moore a standing 8-count after he got up (wrong-by the rules of the time in NY in a title fight),

so that the bell rang without Johnson able to get off another punch against Moore.

Goldstein saved Moore's neck.

Rocky Marciano, acting as announcer on the tape of the fight, said, "Oh. The referee just cost Johnson a lot of money."

Decagon wrote:

granberry wrote:Harold Johnson knocked Archie Moore FLAT ON HIS FACE with a single right hand in the 10th round of their title fight.

The film is available.

Referee Ruby Goldstein gave Moore a standing 8-count after he got up (wrong-by the rules of the time in NY in a title fight)

Actually, that's not a standing eight-count; it's a mandatory eight-count. Here's the difference:

• Standing eight-count: Controversial rule, where a fighter who's out on his feet can be deemed "down" without hitting the canvas, to which the referee counts to eight.
• Mandatory eight-count: After a fighter is down, the referee counts to eight before letting the fight continue, giving the referee time to see if the fighter can continue.

Thanks for your definitions.

They have nothing to do with the Johnson-Moore title fight

which took place in New York

where the rules in a title fight were that when a fighter gets up from being knocked down the referee wipes off his gloves and the fight resumes immediately.

When Harold Johnson knocked Archie Moore flat on his face with a right hand in the 10th round,

referee Ruby Goldstein gave Moore EXTRA time after he was up as if the mandatory eight count applied

which it DID NOT in this title fight.

Goldstein cut Johnson's throat by depriving him of a chance to get off any punches at his hurt opponent before the bell rang.

That is what Marciano was commenting on when he said, "Oh. The referee just cost Johnson a lot of money."

It's YOUR job to find the NY rules at the time.

Marciano certainly knew the rules. His success depended knowing them.

So you don't know that there was no mandatory count in title fights in NY.

Marciano was not given a count once he got up.

Archie Moore complained that the referee gave Marciano an extra second and a too vigorous shake when he brushed off his gloves.

Moore had no such complaints when he got the benefit of Ruby Goldstein's lapse less than a year earlier in his title fight with with Harold Johnson.

Decagon wrote:So, you don't actually know the rules. Then how come Rocky Marciano was issued a mandatory eight-count a year later against Moore in New York?

actually dec, rocky wasnt issued a standing eight count. watch the film, marciano is up at 2-3 and the ref counts to 4 then lets the fight continue. NO STANDING EIGHT COUNT


marciano getting a "standing eight count" was a classic archie bullshit tale that he made up so it could look like he got robbed against marciano. just one of the many myths archie made up during his career.


film proves archie wrong in this case

grandberry i will go watch the moore-johnson fight i will see wut i find.

all i know is moore legite knocked harold johnson out in the 14th round in a marvelous battle. johnson was great, but archie was greater. johnson got hit with a huge counter right hand which knocked him down and then the greatest finisher of all time finished johnson off when harold got up.

Moore lost the title fight with Harold Johnson all the way.

Johnson's jab was like a rapier.

Johnson knocked Moore flat on hiis face (spreadeagled on his stomach) in the 10th.

Moore was way behind on points in the 14th, sure to lose his title on a decision when he knocked Johnson down.

The same referee who saved Moore's neck after the knockdown in the 10th round now DID NOT MAKE MOORE GO TO A NEUTRAL CORNER when Johnson was down.

That enabled Moore to get at Johnson sooner when he got up.

Two huge lapses by refereee Ruby Goldstein, both helping Archie Moore.

Moore said after the fight, "This is the best Johnson I've fought. He's sure to win the title someday."

Moore refused to fight Johnson after that.