Tommy Loughran Vs. Archie Moore

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 15 Nov 2005, 21:43

who do you guys take to win this light heavyweight fight?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:14

Archie Moore KO 8 Loughran

- loughran was a one arm fighter who had great boxing skills. but fact is moore could match him in boxing skills but moore was the much harder puncher, and had the ring smarts and defense to cope with loughrans skills. moore would box and work his way and draw loughran in, then hurt loughran and finish him off. loughrans chin could be dented, and he didnt have a lot of strength like moore did.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:16

He also had read and knew about everything loughran ever did or ever accomplished. I always think the newer fighter has a distinct advantage knowing his adversary so well.

That taken out of the equation and all things being equal I still think Archie had more tricks, talent and skill to make this a rather sure outcome.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:31

im not sure that i would agree that moore wins, i think loughran had possibly the best defense in the history of the light heavyweight division, without a doubt. since i do not beleive for a second that loughran would have the power to knock out moore, i see moore maybe winning by decision. although i would have NO problem with anyone picking loughran by UD or SD. i think moores great offense and loughrans grat defense make for a great fight here.

lets pretend moore didnt study loughran as intensley as he did

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:41

pretend huh? use my imagination? be creative? Think "out of the box"? hmm OK but it won't be easy.

Part of what makes the newer greats so good is that they get that "heads up" and learn from the past. It's hard to ignore.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 16 Nov 2005, 00:13

Moore was never trained by Loughran, nor by my knowledge saw him in the ring.

Reading fight reports isn't going to give you some fountain of knowledge, so this "newer great" argument doesn't really fly.

Tommy of course didn't have the power to stop Moore, but he had the defense to take this to a decision.

Who wins the boxing match? It'd be close either way. One of those fights which depends whether you prefer the aggresor or the counterpuncher.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Nov 2005, 00:36

jack sharkey knocked him out so it can be done.

- i think moore has the power, accuary, combinations, finishing ability, awareness to knock loughran out.

i think moore would get him, loughran never faced a puncher like moore at light-H. he was floored at light-H as well.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 16 Nov 2005, 01:41

Loughran fought Max Baer. He was also a very very good inside fighter (boxing meant all of it back then). He was also a pretty good puncher; he had hand troubles than limited his ability to wing away going for kos. Since, like Tunney, he came to win and winning a 10 when you broke both hands in the first two rounds can be a bitch. Loughran was a strategist and an accurate puncher and Moore wouldn't walk through him.
His mobility would trouble Archie who would have trouble cutting the ring off. Keep this in mind; the very clever Moore was very old while Loughran was hailed as a genius by age 25 or 26. Also Archjie himself said that he moved up to HW as he aged because HWs are slower and..dumber than smaller fighters. And Moore, while very good was not a god at 160 or at 175 when he was fighting Charles, Bivbions, Burley etc...
Loughran by UD the first 3 times they fight and they split the last two

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Nov 2005, 01:45

And Moore, while very good was not a god at 160 or at 175 when he was fighting Charles, Bivbions, Burley etc...

moore lost to burley before his prime, and won the rematches with bivins.

i dont think moore reached the beginning of his prime until 1949- 55.

moore lost a lot in his younger years while from 1949-marciano fight, he was 45-1 against top notch compeittion. moore in his earlier years was lighter, losses a lot more, could be caught easier.

moore in the early 50s was much smarter, better defensively and didnt lose.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 16 Nov 2005, 02:56

..i saw moore from ringside against oakland billy smith....and archie was faster then than the moore we've seen so much of in his later years. i agree..moore was a better fighter when he got older (though he was excellent in the smith fight).....but my point is that while speed was one factor archie had trouble with in his later years, it's hard to say just when his prime was. maybe when he was just a step or two faster he might have been even better against loughran . either way, you have two tricksters trying to outsmart each other and i think archie's power would make the difference.

one loughran trick....he invariably ended the round by being in his own corner....bell rang and his handler just put out the stool and he was ready to sit down. he said just those few steps saved over fifteen rounds...making his opponent walk all the way to his own corner...added up in slightly tiring the other guy out.

archie of course had more tricks than blackstone thr magician.

i see it as a good boxing match..probably going the distance with moore winning...maybe with a knockdown thrown in along the way.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 16 Nov 2005, 03:33

very close fight for me.i can see it going either way.controversial decision with the loser protesting is how i see this.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Nov 2005, 03:52

one loughran trick....he invariably ended the round by being in his own corner....bell rang and his handler just put out the stool and he was ready to sit down. he said just those few steps saved over fifteen rounds...making his opponent walk all the way to his own corner...added up in slightly tiring the other guy out.

wow wow wow so smart

- against nino valdez, in the clinch he positioned nino valdez in the ring where the sun would be in his eyes. it helped moore blind valdez enabling him to land some punches and take him off his game.

while most fighters are thinking about knockdowns or knockouts ,archie moore is thinking about how he can use the environment around him

- i just ordered moore-smith fight. cant wait to see it

moore was faster young, but he still had incredible reflexes and handspeed when he was older and had many other attributed he didnt in his early 30s like he did late 30s-early 40s.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 16 Nov 2005, 05:57

Decagon wrote:Loughran and Moore weren't the type of guys to complain. They were the type of guys who fought rematches.

that's fair enough,but over 1 fight in a close match i think the loser would have something to say.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Nov 2005, 09:43

Moore was not trained by, but benefited from his work in indirect ways was my subtle point. Also I hold to the belief that each generation of trainers has a few more pages in the handbook than the last generation. Dempseyfire may disagree with me I'm not sure.

They both were intelligent fighters but I give the edge to Moore, Moore had greater power and better defense in my estimation.

Since the theoretical is Prime vs Prime I think that would take age aspect out of it...though I did pay attention that the consensus is that Archies prime came later in his life than Loughrans. Which may have an impact.

All in all no matter who won the first one there would be a second one. I just come away with the opinion that Archie would be the dominant in this series. Just as importantly I think this match up would be interesting to just about everyone, I think it would be a superb matchup.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Nov 2005, 12:25

tommy loughran had success in the heavyweight division because of his defense. this defense is what made him a great fighter, and an all time great. i know loughran was KO'd at light heavyweight, but with all the fights he fought, hes bound to go down. loughran always seemed to step it up against big fights, and his specialty was fighters who relied more on their punching power then anything else... braddock and baer are 2 great examples. I think moore could fall into this categorie because IMO he was prodominatly a power puncher, and loughran ALWAYS seemed to bring his A game against these types of fighters and pull out a victory.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Nov 2005, 15:20

You know I've been thinking here, People want to go with logic and reason and all that. Intelligent assessment of skills seems to be in play as well. Some people talkin about "how close it would be" or How "Loughran might win".....I've had it with "diversity of opinions" It's too confusing for the masses.

Forget about it....I'm givin the orders here and I'm tellin everybody Moore wins this. That's final. I'm tired of reasoning minds and civil debate. It leads to ambiguity, and people not payin attention to the boss. Morale breaks down when that happens. I'm callin in all my markers on this one.

So....are we now in agreement?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Nov 2005, 19:02

No Grandeur, just a flashes of omnipotence.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Nov 2005, 02:23

...i'm glad i already picked moore in this one because boxbuzz has scared the crap out of me.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Nov 2005, 09:08

Fear.....It's what's for dinner!

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 17 Nov 2005, 12:47

I was sitting on the fence with this one, but now I'd pick Loughran to win a unanimous decision in 10, 12 or 15 rounds.

Cap

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Nov 2005, 12:20

Hey Cap, I'm sending over Vinnie, he want's to talk with you. You know how it is Cap. It's just business.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 18 Nov 2005, 19:26

No, omnipotence, the utlimate source of all energy, thought, destiny and other such asundries. Irony is my specialty though BoxRec is hardly in any need of any addtional irony I suppose.