Archie's in my top 5

[davie]

Am I the only one ranking Archie Moore top 5?
I see very few mentions of him in peoples top 5, the odd person has him top 10 and I spotted someone recently saying he was maybe top 20.
I think if you were to take a poll of everyones top 5 on the board the average result would look something close to this (don't shout at me if that doesn't agree with your top 5 )
SRR
Armstrong
Langford
Greb
Pep

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at Moore recently and watched what I could and think he deserves to mix in this company.
His record is phenomenal, his story is fascinating and what he achieved in his mid 30s onwards is bordering on unbelievable.
I can't help thinking that his late losses at Heavyweight and the results against Ezzard go against him.
But marking him down because of the Charles results would be like excluding Pep because of the Saddler loses
and the late Heavyweight defeats being detrimental to his record are like not rating Roy Jones because he fought on too long and tried to do too much throughout his career jumping weights.

I started a thread recently talking about the Moore/Charles/Bivins/Johnson/Maxim light heavyweight era.
That for me has to be up there with any era in boxing.
The 160lb era he participated in earlier in his career was not too shabby either.

Boxrec have him no1, I can't go that far but he certainly deserves his place among those names (the biggest difficulty is which one do I drop out but he's definitely in my top 6)

Am I alone in thinking this?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Hes in my top 10, just no way to rank him over ezzard.

[davie]

Hes in my top 10, just no way to rank him over ezzard.

Longevity?
Depth of record?

I agree Ezzards record over the same opponents is superior, he was better in the fights against Moore and probably on a prime for prime p4p type conversation I'd certainly side with Charles.
but it's the Bernard Hopkins factor.

It's a funny thing longevity.
I'm inclined not to mark RJJ down for fighting on too long because what he did in his prime was magnificent but Hopkins definitely gets brownie points for achieving what he did late in the day.

Doing what he did so late in his career and just overall the number of fights against top drawer opponents is the tipping point for me against Charles.
It's a tough comparison with lots of variable (as it is with any 2 top 10 ATG fighters) but I can make a case for Archie over Charles.
Another thing that would tend to go in Ezzards favour is the success at heavyweight but he was a younger man and that little bit taller and better suited to the heavier weight.


The way Archie achieved it as well, hitch hiking around the country and beyond like a hobo looking for fights.
I'm not so familiar with Ezzards back story but it'll be hard going to top Archies.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

His longevity was amazing, while much of this is subjective; Archie and ezzard is not. You're not talking about a Barkley/hearns situation. Charles is right there with srr for fighter of the decade in the 40's. Ezzard's comp was out of this world.

[King Carlos]

His losses toward the latter part of his career are much less of an issue than his (often dominant) losses during the early/middle portion of his career to me.

Unless you're one of the guys that believe he peaked late. I just find it ironic that when he was facing the best opposition of his career, he was pretty much even money (often losing in one sided fashion) with the crop. Indistinguishable, really. When he finally hit his "peak" and started to stand out, it was against a decidedly lesser group of individuals once the old guard had died out.

That said, his longevity can't be questioned, and his level of opposition can't be questioned. Arguably the best of all time in each area. Head to head he rates highly as well, just not quite as highly as in the other categories.

I go back and forth with whether or not I rate him or Canzoneri higher, both top 15.

[elmersalsa]

Great great fighter, indeed. A possible top ten or top 15. Definitely a top 20 boxer.

If we talk about durability and longevity he is top 5. But, I just can't go with that alone. He had lots of fights and made the top 20 due of being persistent. He was that type of fighter that was a victim of his own good. Not too many boxers wanted any piece of him. Beat lots of good quality boxers, but also lost to a lot good fighters. And that happens when you fight as so much like he did. You are gonna have lots of losses. But, despite the losses, he had many, many wins. Name who is who of the Black Murderers Row era of the 1940s, and he probably fought them all. The only black fighter he didn't fight was the great Sugar Ray Robinson.

[BoxBuzz]

His losses to Ezz could just have easily gone the other way...it was happenstance more than dominance.

But like Marciano's perfect record, it gives him gravitas.

He's top ten, and who here thinks, that if it had gone best 4 out of 7 Archie woudn't have more than evened the score? Just as Archie was about to peak, Ezz faded.

I'm not rating Archie above Ezz, but they are both top 10 material, anywhere you want to put them.

Their records against the rest of the pack are not that different. And Archie just got better and better. Maybe it was his fights with Ezz that made him so good.

[Seamus]

Something to consider.
1.Was there ever a time when it can be argued that Moore was the world's number 1 pound for pound fighter ? 2. Was there ever a time when Moore was clearly the world's best in his weight class ?

[cfang]

Something to consider.
1.Was there ever a time when it can be argued that Moore was the world's number 1 pound for pound fighter ? 2. Was there ever a time when Moore was clearly the world's best in his weight class ?

Well pound for pound probably no ofc he was around at the same time as SRR. When it comes to moore being the best lt heavy in the world. Well I'd guess It'd be when Charles moved up to heavy up to about 1960 so about 12 years he was prob the best lt heavy in the world. The main guy to have claim during this period was harold johnson and Moore ended up tkoing him, although they split wins before that. johnson seems very underated - people don't talk about him much on these forums.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Arch KTFO out of Johnson enough times that even BOXREC boys could count them on their fingers.

Harold a great fighter, but never the MAN. You could look it up!

[davie]

Something to consider.
1.Was there ever a time when it can be argued that Moore was the world's number 1 pound for pound fighter ? 2. Was there ever a time when Moore was clearly the world's best in his weight class ?

Well pound for pound probably no ofc he was around at the same time as SRR. When it comes to moore being the best lt heavy in the world. Well I'd guess It'd be when Charles moved up to heavy up to about 1960 so about 12 years he was prob the best lt heavy in the world. The main guy to have claim during this period was harold johnson and Moore ended up tkoing him, although they split wins before that. johnson seems very underated - people don't talk about him much on these forums.

Was going to respond to Seamus but you seem to have summed it up.
I'd add that either Ezzard or Moore could have been rated no1 & 2 earlier if it weren't for guys like Lesnevich, Mills and Maxim getting shots ahead of the superior fighters.
The only way you could think he wasn't top of his weight class, was if you still considered Charles the no1 LHW while he was campaigning at HW. But even then there were about 6 years where Archie was still top of the division after Ezzard started losing regularly around 53/54, in fact he topped the LHW division for 3 years after Ezzard retired
And that's why I've got him so high, he started as a pro 5 years before Ezzard and was still no1 in his weight class and probably top 3 p4p in the world at 45 years old long after Ezzard was on the scrap heap

[Jpreisser]

His losses to Ezz could just have easily gone the other way...it was happenstance more than dominance.

Didn't Charles nearly shut Moore out in the first bout and score a knockout in the third?

[gilgamesh]

Archie's one of the greats for sure. Top 15 definitely. Top 10 would be very possible.

[King Carlos]

His losses to Ezz could just have easily gone the other way...it was happenstance more than dominance.

Didn't Charles nearly shut Moore out in the first bout and score a knockout in the third?

Yup. This isn't the first time I've heard BoxBuzz say this. I've never really understood it, either. He proved conclusively who the better man was.

[davie]

He proved conclusively who the better man was.

By that logic they'll both sit behind Marciano?
And presumably, on your top 10, you have Harry Wills ahead of Sam Langford and Sandy Saddler ahead of Willie Pep then?
All of them sitting well behind Paul Pender of course!

[Ambling Alp II]

When rating anyone, we need to weigh the big wins vs the losses.

With Moore, there is a lot more of both than almost anyone else.
When we do this, it's hard to justify him being a head of Robinson, Greb, Langford, Charles, Ali, R. Leonard, and Armstrong. Obviously nothing to be ashamed about.

You can make a very good case for him being in the top 10.

[King Carlos]

He proved conclusively who the better man was.

By that logic they'll both sit behind Marciano?
And presumably, on your top 10, you have Harry Wills ahead of Sam Langford and Sandy Saddler ahead of Willie Pep then?
All of them sitting well behind Paul Pender of course!

Marciano ranks well ahead of either at HW, yes. Wills ranks ahead of Langford at HW as well.

Saddler/Pep at Featherweight is a more difficult call. I can see the argument for both.

Not sure where Paul Pender fits in.

[davie]

He proved conclusively who the better man was.

By that logic they'll both sit behind Marciano?
And presumably, on your top 10, you have Harry Wills ahead of Sam Langford and Sandy Saddler ahead of Willie Pep then?
All of them sitting well behind Paul Pender of course!

Marciano ranks well ahead of either at HW, yes. Wills ranks ahead of Langford at HW as well.

Saddler/Pep at Featherweight is a more difficult call. I can see the argument for both.

Not sure where Paul Pender fits in.

He proved conclusively he was the better man vs SRR and therefore ATG no1
No?

[Tomasino]

By that logic they'll both sit behind Marciano?
And presumably, on your top 10, you have Harry Wills ahead of Sam Langford and Sandy Saddler ahead of Willie Pep then?
All of them sitting well behind Paul Pender of course!

Marciano ranks well ahead of either at HW, yes. Wills ranks ahead of Langford at HW as well.

Saddler/Pep at Featherweight is a more difficult call. I can see the argument for both.

Not sure where Paul Pender fits in.

He proved conclusively he was the better man vs SRR and therefore ATG no1
No?

That's a poor example Davie, what are you getting at? I know you don't believe what you posted there...do you?

[BoxBuzz]

His losses to Ezz could just have easily gone the other way...it was happenstance more than dominance.

Didn't Charles nearly shut Moore out in the first bout and score a knockout in the third?

Yup. This isn't the first time I've heard BoxBuzz say this. I've never really understood it, either. He proved conclusively who the better man was.

Nonsense, he may have proved conclusively that Ezz had his number, and that's the best argument you could make I suppose. Archie was winning the time he got KO'd, and like I say, had they gone on for a best 4 out of 7, I'd like you to argue with who would own the better "one on one" record. From that point on Archie was on a steep rise, and Ezz on a steep downramp.

And their common opponents do not tell a story of one well over the other. Though you can make the styles issue claim, and that would not be unfair.

I suppose any fighter that has never lost to another fighter, could always have 100% the better side of this debate.

So...Berbick better than Ali. Marciano and Ezz better than Louis, ............Byrd better than Vitali, and Douglas better than Tyson. etc.

Yeah, I'm kidding, but only by half.

[BoxBuzz]

...and I'm not sold that Marciano should be rated above Ezz......but he has the better side of the debate since he did beat him.

[davie]

Marciano ranks well ahead of either at HW, yes. Wills ranks ahead of Langford at HW as well.

Saddler/Pep at Featherweight is a more difficult call. I can see the argument for both.

Not sure where Paul Pender fits in.

He proved conclusively he was the better man vs SRR and therefore ATG no1
No?

That's a poor example Davie, what are you getting at? I know you don't believe what you posted there...do you?

I was being ridiculous to make a point.

Of course that's all silly talk but the point I'm trying to make was, yes Ezzard was the better man over those 3 fights, you may even say prime for prime, p4p he was the better fighter, I wouldn't contest that.
But I'm arguing that taking everything into account, I feel his overall record/resume and the number of top level fights, wins and knockouts he had in addition to the number of years he fought at the highest level just push him higher up the list on an ATG basis, which should rate over all acheivement over how good they were on any given day.
I appreciate the arguments to the contrary and respect people who don't agree, I can see where their coming from, but if we say simply Archie cannot be above Ezzard on an ATG list because he lost to him 3 times then the same argument must be applied to Pep and Langford (not so much Pender )

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Their resumes are both great, the 3 wins makes it a lock for ezzard. Moore really can't be placed ahead of him.

[King Carlos]

Didn't Charles nearly shut Moore out in the first bout and score a knockout in the third?

Yup. This isn't the first time I've heard BoxBuzz say this. I've never really understood it, either. He proved conclusively who the better man was.

Nonsense, he may have proved conclusively that Ezz had his number, and that's the best argument you could make I suppose. Archie was winning the time he got KO'd, and like I say, had they gone on for a best 4 out of 7, I'd like you to argue with who would own the better "one on one" record. From that point on Archie was on a steep rise, and Ezz on a steep downramp.

And their common opponents do not tell a story of one well over the other. Though you can make the styles issue claim, and that would not be unfair.

I suppose any fighter that has never lost to another fighter, could always have 100% the better side of this debate.

So...Berbick better than Ali. Marciano and Ezz better than Louis, ............Byrd better than Vitali, and Douglas better than Tyson. etc.

Yeah, I'm kidding, but only by half.

Archie had him hurt just prior to being KO'd in the 8th round. He wasn't winning the entire bout prior to said KO. Charles, according to Ring Magazine, would've been ahead about 5 rounds to 2.

As for the steep decline argument that you made for Charles, well that's just blatantly false. Laughably so, actually. He didn't lose until 18 fights and 3 and a half years later, beating Louis, Bivins, Walcott twice, Maxim twice, Lesnevitch, Baksi, Valentino, avenging his highly controversial loss to Elmer Ray via KO, and beating Sam Baroudi to death (not to be crude). All directly after beating Moore for the third time.

So....yeah. Might wanna rethink your position there. If you completely take their 3 fight series out of the equation, their resumes are roughly equal, slight edge to Moore based on quantity. When their series is factored back in, the overall edge becomes clear in favor of Charles.

That's why he ranks higher. Unquestionably so. It's not as if their series was some kind of anomaly where a clearly inferior talent just had someone's number. If not for the fact that they fought (thrice), they'd be difficult enough to separate based on everything else they achieved. The series is pretty much the tie-breaker. And it shatters that tie.

[Jpreisser]

Their resumes are both great, the 3 wins makes it a lock for ezzard. Moore really can't be placed ahead of him.

On top of winning their series, I imagine Charles' superior run at heavyweight lends credence to this claim.