BoxRec

In your opinion, is this fighter, "washed-up," or not?

He's in his late-30's, & is clearly & undisputedly not the boxer he was during the halcyon days of his 20's. However, through changes in his approach & conservative, smart boxing, he has managed to stay near the top of his weightclass, challenging younger contenders & perhaps even threatening the Champ.

He has definitely passed his best days, but still remains a legit world-class fighter. Is he washed-up, or not, by your definition?

To help illustrate, let me use some real-world instances --- Foreman, Holmes, Hopkins (though they were more about their 40's).

Washed up to me would be like Shane Mosley is now. I'd classify something like Erik Morales now or your three examples as past their best. Matchmaking is so key for older fighters. Most of the guys still relevant late will take on anyone and you kind of have to keep them out of their own way.

No, not washed-up. Past-prime but not a shell.

Generally speaking if a guy still holds a title or is champ then I don’t think he can be seen as washed-up. Hopkins is an old man but anyone who beats him has achieved quite a feat after all he’s been holding titles and beating top guys.

Same when Marciano beat Moore (Walcott too). Archie was not as good as he had been but he was a proven Heavy who had beaten just about everyone else in the division).

Guys who are “shot”…

Honeyghan v Breland
Leonard v Norris
Duran v Joppy (though Duran looked finished at many points in his career)
Ali v Holmes

Those are fights that should never have really happened.

No. This fighter is past his best, but he is not washed up. To me those are two different things that some people conflate. In this case the fighter is still producing the type of performances that rightfully earn him a high ranking and he is still able to compete with the best in his division. If a fighter was washed up they would not be capable of that imo.

Same when Marciano beat Moore (Walcott too). Archie was not as good as he had been

Actually, Archie in 1955 was fighting as good as he had ever been. Name me a period of time when Archie Moore was fighting better than 1952-1955. You can't.

A better example would be Marciano beating a past his prime but still very good Ezzard Charles of the 1st fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Same when Marciano beat Moore (Walcott too). Archie was not as good as he had been

Actually, Archie in 1955 was fighting as good as he had ever been. Name me a period of time when Archie Moore was fighting better than 1952-1955. You can't.

A better example would be Marciano beating a past his prime but still very good Ezzard Charles of the 1st fight.

What does 1952 have to do with a guy, 39 years old at a minimum, at the end of 1955? Archie wasn't shot as some want to make him, but he certainly was a better fighter 10 years earlier. To suggest he wasn't is silly.

Actually he was better in 1955 than 1945. Going into 1955 he was on the best winning streak of his career 45-1 in his last 46 fights including wins over hall of famers harold johnson, joey maxim, and bobo olsen, and also defeated top rated heavyweight contenders nino valdes, bob baker, and clarence henry. In 1945, Archie got knocked out by Jimmy Bivins, but archie got better as a fighter and turned the trick on bivins 4x. He was also coming off losses to Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and a knockout loss to eddie booker. Archie took his lumps during this time and improved and grew as a fighter later on. All of these men would have lost to a 1955 light-heavyweight version of Archie Moore.

I challenge you to prove to me on film, or in resume when Archie was performing better as a fighter than the early 1950s? I believe his prime came later on, archie was a fighter who built his style on experience, and gaining ring savvy from his early losses in the mid 1940s. Archie grew bigger stronger, and wiser. Archie was a complete fighter by 1952. I don't think Archie started to age until right around after 1955. Take note I have film of Archie Moore dating back to 1940, so this is what I base my opinion off of.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Actually he was better in 1955 than 1945. Going into 1955 he was on the best winning streak of his career 45-1 in his last 46 fights including wins over hall of famers harold johnson, joey maxim, and bobo olsen, and also defeated top rated heavyweight contenders nino valdes, bob baker, and clarence henry. In 1945, Archie got knocked out by Jimmy Bivins, but archie got better as a fighter and turned the trick on bivins 4x. He was also coming off losses to Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and a knockout loss to eddie booker. Archie took his lumps during this time and improved and grew as a fighter later on. All of these men would have lost to a 1955 light-heavyweight version of Archie Moore.

I challenge you to prove to me on film, or in resume when Archie was performing better as a fighter than the early 1950s? I believe his prime came later on, archie was a fighter who built his style on experience, and gaining ring savvy from his early losses in the mid 1940s. Archie grew bigger stronger, and wiser. Archie was a complete fighter by 1952. I don't think Archie started to age until right around after 1955. Take note I have film of Archie Moore dating back to 1940, so this is what I base my opinion off of.

Yes, Archie was at his very peak the night he lost to Rocky.

As was Charles the first time he fought Rocky.

As was Walcott the first time he fought Rocky.

Even Louis was damn near his peak the night he fought Rocky.

All irrefutable, concrete evidence that Rocky's 49-0 record was based upon beating the best at their best.

Do I have it right??

deleted.

yancey wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Actually he was better in 1955 than 1945. Going into 1955 he was on the best winning streak of his career 45-1 in his last 46 fights including wins over hall of famers harold johnson, joey maxim, and bobo olsen, and also defeated top rated heavyweight contenders nino valdes, bob baker, and clarence henry. In 1945, Archie got knocked out by Jimmy Bivins, but archie got better as a fighter and turned the trick on bivins 4x. He was also coming off losses to Charley Burley, Holman Williams, and a knockout loss to eddie booker. Archie took his lumps during this time and improved and grew as a fighter later on. All of these men would have lost to a 1955 light-heavyweight version of Archie Moore.

I challenge you to prove to me on film, or in resume when Archie was performing better as a fighter than the early 1950s? I believe his prime came later on, archie was a fighter who built his style on experience, and gaining ring savvy from his early losses in the mid 1940s. Archie grew bigger stronger, and wiser. Archie was a complete fighter by 1952. I don't think Archie started to age until right around after 1955. Take note I have film of Archie Moore dating back to 1940, so this is what I base my opinion off of.

Yes, Archie was at his very peak the night he lost to Rocky.

As was Charles the first time he fought Rocky.

As was Walcott the first time he fought Rocky.

Even Louis was damn near his peak the night he fought Rocky.

All irrefutable, concrete evidence that Rocky's 49-0 record was based upon beating the best at their best.

Do I have it right??

Ahh, the classic bringing up other points to hide away from the main point at hand. Charles, Louis, Walcott are not on trial here. Archie Moore is. State your case if you disagree with me, but make it have to do with Archie Moore next time


Where is your evidence Archie was a better fighter in 1945? Did his 6 round dominating knockout loss to Jimmy Bivins convince you?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:In your opinion, is this fighter, "washed-up," or not?

He's in his late-30's, & is clearly & undisputedly not the boxer he was during the halcyon days of his 20's. However, through changes in his approach & conservative, smart boxing, he has managed to stay near the top of his weightclass, challenging younger contenders & perhaps even threatening the Champ.

He has definitely passed his best days, but still remains a legit world-class fighter. Is he washed-up, or not, by your definition?

To help illustrate, let me use some real-world instances --- Foreman, Holmes, Hopkins (though they were more about their 40's).

no, honestly when i was reading this i imagined barrera's so called comeback where he became a cagier fighter and took pac and marquez on

Well, he certainly was made to look washed-up in two fights with Pacquiao (he clearly was by the time of the second fight, his temporary retirement bout). Fought a better fight against Marquez.