Archie Moore overrated??

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 13 Feb 2004, 15:24

A lot is said about Moore being an all time great and his 130 KO's. It seems like he was a much better fighter in his old age (40's) at light heavyweight than in the years people ussually think of as their "prime years". While in his 20's and 30's he was beaten by Shorty Hogue 3 times before avenging the loss just once. He was knocked out by Leonard Morrow (who?) in the first round! Also stopped by Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Booker, and beaten badly by Charly Burley. As for all of the knockouts on his record, most are against bums or fringe guys. Any real contenders he went the distance with so his power was neutralized against quality opponents. When he won the Light Heavyweight belt in 1952 he said it should have happened a long time ago. It may be that he probably should have gotten a title shot when he was younger but by no means was it a travesty that he didn't after losing so many fights when he was younger.

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 13 Feb 2004, 15:44

Early losses don't indicate a poor fighter, especially in those days. They learned on the job. No amateur seasoning to speak of. You'll see much the same today in many Latin American and third world fighters.
Just looking at the roll call on a fighter's record can be deceiving. It doesn't tell the whole story. Seeing Archie's fights on tape, now there's the proof. I'll agree he really wasn't a KO puncher despite the high percentage. It's not that his "power was neutralized". He was a boxer/puncher/defensive tactician and he knew how to go the distance. But even when he found himself in trouble (Durelle), he could reach down for that extra something great champions have. No way would I use the word "overrated" to describe The Mongoose.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 13 Feb 2004, 15:52

I understand with what you are saying and mostly agree. We look at today's fighters differently now than we do then. If Roy Jones or someone like that ever got KO1 by a 10-2 fighter he would never hear the end of it. But like I said, I don't necesarrily believe he is overated but I am just playing devil's advocate since the arguement CAN be made.

How do you rank him all time P4P by the way?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 13 Feb 2004, 18:49

I don;t think Archie was overrated, except perhaps by those who rank him #1 at light-heavy - IMO that honor goes to Ezzard Charles, whose only losses close to his prime came to naturally bigger heavyweights, and mostly all-time greats (Walcott and Marciano) at that. (Though it's hard to really say whether Charles should be considered as a light-heavy or heavyweight.)

TheRiverCityHippy · Post by **TheRiverCityHippy** » 13 Feb 2004, 20:47

i`m not sure if charles actually won the light heavy title, i know he campaigned at that weight because he had three wins over both moore and maxim in the light heavy division, if he never its begs another interesting question, can a fighter who has never won the title be considered the best all timer at that weight? (even if he beat all the main players.)

crooked nose · Post by **crooked nose** » 14 Feb 2004, 00:30

Sure we can consider a non-title holder the best. Strong arguments are made for Sam Langford and Charley Burley.
Moore's place on the all-time P4P? Hard to say. Top 20 somewhere. The elites on my all-time list are Ali, Robinson and Pep - the kind who won with more than just power. Then there's bulldozers like Armstrong, Pryor and Duran who also have a high place. I'd place Moore just after them. Archie had a more subtle blend of skills, a thinking fan's fighter.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 14 Feb 2004, 11:45

Was lightheavy Charley Burley`s best division? Sam Langford could have been the best all time, though if you look through the lightheavy weight history there have been quite a few great fighters,Bob Foster for one, who for different reasons fought at the higher weight.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Feb 2004, 15:03

Archie overrated!... give me a break! ...Perry, just because you don't know most of Archies opponents does not make them bums or stiffs.... Moore actually spent most of his career fighting guys who were being avoided by the other contenders (as he was) ...his losses to Ezzard Charles are no disgrace as Charles was a great fighter in his own rights who was really a natural Light-heavy but moved up and became World heavyweight champion... Moores punch power is indisputable... he managed to floor Rocky Marciano among others and was still knocking them over in his late 40s.... when he continued to beat ranked contenders at both Light-heavy and Heavy.... the fact that he lasted so long is a testament to his intelligence and toughness and is more than enough by itself to assure him greatness.
But if you doubt the quality of his early opponents you are really very mistaken and need to read up on these guys records before you dismiss them as bums!...

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 16 Feb 2004, 01:41

tonyguy....middleweight was charlie burley's best division. he fought light heavys because he had too..got ducked by middleweights.

silkov has an excellent overview here of archie moore. moore fought in an era of the greatest light heavyweights who ever lived..charles being the greatest. bivins, lloyd marshall were also greats..which is why there are no undefeated records in that group. they had to fight each other and on any given night any one could beat the other. although charles beat moore three out of three, ironically it was the third, in which charles scored the knockout, that archie gave him the most trouble...had charles near a kayo himself when ezzard uncorked a terrific punch and flattened him. (one boxing writer at ringside said it was the hardest single punch he had ever seen) (incidentally charles also scored one punch kayos over marshall and bivins in reversing his defeats by them.)

the fact that moore could compete in this division for so remarkably long....and be successful against heavyweights too, as they all were....shows he was a true great.. a real phenomonem. after his loss to marciano he had what would be a full career by today's standards...and fought on after his loss to patterson, too.
as to the question..can a fighter who never held a title in his division be considered great....certainly....because they were so good they couldn't get a chance to WIN a title.

p.s. the loss to leonard morrow .....morrow caught archie cold in the first round with a solid punch. when they fought again moore kayoed him in the tenth, i think. moore was not unbeatable..no fighter is...but he was an all time great.

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 18 Feb 2004, 18:52

Eric the Viking wrote:I don;t think Archie was overrated, except perhaps by those who rank him #1 at light-heavy - IMO that honor goes to Ezzard Charles...

Agreed there. A lot of people assume that because Archie was champ for so long when he was past his prime, that he must surely have been the BEST LH ever when he was actually in his prime. But Archie may not have even been the best LH in his OWN time let alone all time. Still, aside from Burley and Charles (both all-time greats for sure), there were very few other fighters who were Moore's masters. Many guys he did beat, like Bivins, Marshall, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, etc., were all Hall of Fame worthy. (Of those guys, only Marshall is not yet in the Hall, I think.)

Moore was a great one, no question.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 18 Feb 2004, 19:55

Next up: is Bob Foster overrated? Seems he's remembered more for the great heavyweigths he stepped up in weight to face - and lost to, every one. But do his achievements at light-heavy warrant his being in the all-time top 5 there, as most writers seem to have him?

The Keed · Post by **The Keed** » 19 Feb 2004, 20:29

Eric the Viking wrote:Next up: is Bob Foster overrated? Seems he's remembered more for the great heavyweigths he stepped up in weight to face - and lost to, every one. But do his achievements at light-heavy warrant his being in the all-time top 5 there, as most writers seem to have him?

One interesting thing I noticed about Bob Foster is that arguably the three best light-heavies he ever fought - Doug Jones, Mauro Mina, and Jorge Ahumada - he all failed to beat. Sure, you can excuse them all - saying he was still inexperienced when he fought Jones, past his prime when he fought Ahumada, etc. - but that fact still remains, on paper. And the best light-heavy he himself beat was old, blown-up middle Dick Tiger. (guys like Andy Kendall, Frank DePaula, and Roger Rouse were also being beaten by Tiger at around the same time Foster was fighting them)

Foster would've battered Roy Jones, though. :P

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 19 Feb 2004, 21:19

silkov wrote:But if you doubt the quality of his early opponents you are really very mistaken and need to read up on these guys records before you dismiss them as bums!...

I think that his resume in his late career far exceeds that when he was younger. Keed said what I was trying to express beautifully here:

A lot of people assume that because Archie was champ for so long when he was past his prime, that he must surely have been the BEST LH ever when he was actually in his prime.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 19 Feb 2004, 21:48

perrycarter wrote:A lot is said about Moore being an all time great and his 130 KO's. It seems like he was a much better fighter in his old age (40's) at light heavyweight than in the years people ussually think of as their "prime years". While in his 20's and 30's he was beaten by Shorty Hogue 3 times before avenging the loss just once. He was knocked out by Leonard Morrow (who?) in the first round! Also stopped by Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Booker, and beaten badly by Charly Burley. As for all of the knockouts on his record, most are against bums or fringe guys. Any real contenders he went the distance with so his power was neutralized against quality opponents. When he won the Light Heavyweight belt in 1952 he said it should have happened a long time ago. It may be that he probably should have gotten a title shot when he was younger but by no means was it a travesty that he didn't after losing so many fights when he was younger.

It's just not true that all major fighters went the distance with Moore. He KO'd Durelle twice, TKO'd Harold Johnson in their last fight against each other, even had KO wins over heavyweight contenders in Bob Satterfield and Bob Baker. Moore's power was top-notch.

As to the Leonard Morrow loss, I would note that out of 225+ pro fights, it is normal to have a strange loss to a seeming nobody, much like Jack Dempsey's loss to Jim Flynn. The accounts of those who were ringside that I've heard said that Moore was practically asleep in the ring, not even watching Morrow, when he got caught and knocked out in a very embarassing situation. He then mercilessly pounded Morrow in a rematch. Moore had the longest title reign of any light heavyweight champ, and his wins over Joey Maxim(twice), Harold Johnson(4 times out of 5), etc., are not to be overlooked. He did lose to Ezzard Charles 3 times, but I think that was more of a styles thing, and Charles was an extremely great fighter himself.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 19 Feb 2004, 21:53

Jaclem wrote:tonyguy....middleweight was charlie burley's best division. he fought light heavys because he had too..got ducked by middleweights.

silkov has an excellent overview here of archie moore. moore fought in an era of the greatest light heavyweights who ever lived..charles being the greatest. bivins, lloyd marshall were also greats..which is why there are no undefeated records in that group. they had to fight each other and on any given night any one could beat the other. although charles beat moore three out of three, ironically it was the third, in which charles scored the knockout, that archie gave him the most trouble...had charles near a kayo himself when ezzard uncorked a terrific punch and flattened him. (one boxing writer at ringside said it was the hardest single punch he had ever seen) (incidentally charles also scored one punch kayos over marshall and bivins in reversing his defeats by them.)

the fact that moore could compete in this division for so remarkably long....and be successful against heavyweights too, as they all were....shows he was a true great.. a real phenomonem. after his loss to marciano he had what would be a full career by today's standards...and fought on after his loss to patterson, too.
as to the question..can a fighter who never held a title in his division be considered great....certainly....because they were so good they couldn't get a chance to WIN a title.

p.s. the loss to leonard morrow .....morrow caught archie cold in the first round with a solid punch. when they fought again moore kayoed him in the tenth, i think. moore was not unbeatable..no fighter is...but he was an all time great.

Exactly! I agree. Moore fought in a very competitive era, and while he had his losses and his wins against the several other great light heavies of his era, I think it's clear that overall he came out on top, there in the strongest light heavyweight era ever.

barry · Post by **barry** » 20 Feb 2004, 03:15

>>>>I think that his resume in his late career far exceeds that when he was younger.<<<<

Moore was avoided like a plague in his early years and true he did lose to the fighters that perrycarter mentioned, but what perry failed to see is that most of the time, Moore was outweighed by many pounds the biggest percentage of the time and he fought several years at the middleweight limit. I have a few of the weights listed and I'll track down the others in the next few days, but overrated...nah!

Most of Moore's losses came against fighters who out weighed him by a good twenty pounds. Hogue was a heavyweight, as was Aaron Wade, and Leonard Moorow, while other losses against the likes of Burley, Williams and Booker were just losses against great fighters.

1938
Jun 24 Johnny "Bandit" Romero San Diego, CA (San Diego Coliseum) L PTS 10
--Moore-160, Romero-164.

1939
Apr 20 Teddy Yarosz St. Louis, MO L PTS 10
--Moore-158, Yarosz-165.
Dec 29 Shorty Hogue San Diego, CA (San Diego Coliseum) L PTS 6

1943
Aug 16 Aaron Wade San Francisco, CA (Civic Auditorium) L PTS 10

1944
Jan 21 Eddie Booker Hollywood, CA (Legion Stadium) L KO 8
Apr 21 Charley Burley Hollywood, CA (Legion Stadium) L PTS 10

1945
Aug 22 Jimmy Bivins Cleveland, OH (Cleveland Stadium) (0:38) L KO 6 MDS
--Weights: Moore-168, Bivins-186 ½.
Oct 22 Holman Williams Baltimore, MD L PTS 10
1946
May 20 Ezzard Charles Pittsburgh, PA (Forbes Field) L PTS 10

1947
May 5 Ezzard Charles Cincinnati, OH L PTS 10
1948
Jan 13 Ezzard Charles Cleveland, OH (Cleveland Arena) L KO 8 BT
--Moore-173, Charles-173 ¾.
Jun 2 Leonard Morrow Oakland, CA (Oakland Coliseum) L KO 1
Oct 15 Henry Hall New Orleans, LA L PTS 10
Nov 1 Lloyd Gibson Washington DC L DQ 4

1949
Jun 13 Clinton Bacon Indianapolis, IN L DQ 6

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Feb 2004, 07:47

Perry, have to disagree with you when you say that Moores opposition in his later career far outstrips the quality of his opponents in his early career.... Archies opposition throughout the 40s reads like an alltime list of the 'who needs them club' of which he was himself a member these guys had to fight eachother as they couldn't get the champs or other contenders in the same ring. It's also worth pointing out that Moore was a natural Middleweight till about the mid-forties but took on Light-heavies and Heavies because he couldn't get fights at middleweight.... had he not been ducked we may well be talking about Archie being one of the all time great Middleweights......

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 20 Feb 2004, 07:57

Most of Moore's losses came against fighters who out weighed him by a good twenty pounds. Hogue was a heavyweight, as was Aaron Wade, and Leonard Moorow, while other losses against the likes of Burley, Williams and Booker were just losses against great fighters.

Hogue and Tiger Wade were middleweights and Morrow was more of a light heavyweight than a heavyweight.

barry · Post by **barry** » 20 Feb 2004, 11:03

Your right, Shorty Hogue was a middleweight, I was thinking of his brother, Big Boy Hogue, who Moore stopped, and Wade was more of a welter/middle, but Morrow was a heavyweight who scaled down to lt. hvy. O-kay excuse me, Bivins, Bob Sikes, Curtis Sheppard, Abel Cestac and about thirty other fighters that Moore beat were heavyweights who outweighed Moore by several pounds. So Wouter, do you think that Moore was overrated?

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 20 Feb 2004, 11:27

I pretty much agree with The Viking and The Keed here. I wouldn't say he was the best light heavyweight there ever was. He was beaten a bit too much in his prime for that honour.

perrycarter · Post by **perrycarter** » 20 Feb 2004, 15:22

[quote="barry]
other losses against the likes of Burley, Williams and Booker were just losses against great fighters.
[/quote]

Would you consider any of these guys to be better that Moore or just a product of fighting top opposition is that you are bound to lose a few.

barry · Post by **barry** » 20 Feb 2004, 19:18

I think the latter. Like you said,

"or just a product of fighting top opposition is that you are bound to lose a few."

With out a doubt, no one can win them all if said boxer consistently fights boxers that are in the A class. Also, when a fighter has as many fights as Moore did the B class fighters will catch the A class on a bad night and occassionally win a few as well!

wouter · Post by **wouter** » 21 Feb 2004, 06:47

I agree when you face A-class oponents you are bound to lose some. But there are fighters that faced the same class of opponents and came out with a better record, Burley for instance.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 21 Feb 2004, 13:26

yes...charlie burley was an all time great. but...his greatness doesn't diminish archie's . maybe over stating it, but one again...the fighters mentioned in this thread are all among the greatest fighters of all time. there isn't any weight class that consistently fights much heavier opponents than the light heavys of an earlier era. even thouigh the heavyweights then came in at around 200 pounds, much smaller than today's, these superb light heavys ...and the middleweight charley burley..gave away tons of accumualted pounds during their careers...in addition to fighting each other in order to get any matches at all.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Feb 2004, 14:10

What many seem to be overlooking about Archie is that he was able to learn and develop as he grew older and was at the top of his proffession at an age when most fighters are well past it. And this after 20 years of a tough career fighting the best opponents out there... Moore was probably one of the cleverest and most knowledgable fighters of all time and this alone underlines him as an all time great!... to call him overrated is to do the man a great injustice!...

Archie Moore overrated??

Archie Moore overrated??

Re: Archie Moore overrated??

re

re

Re: re

re