Could Moore have ever beaten Charles?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 16 Nov 2006, 19:18

Ezzard Charles beat Archie Moore three times - a massive accomplishment. But did he have Moore's number completely, or could Archie have gotten a victory somewhere along the line?

In my opinion, despite the glaring 3-0 to Ezzard, I think that prime-for-prime it's 50/50.

I think Moore improved with age - he was near his best in the late forties, but not quite at his peak. I'd say around '52 was his best time - still youthful enough (about 35 - young by Moore's standards) to fight hard for fifteen rounds and wise enough to know exactly what he was doing. In the forties Moore had his punching technique down to a tee, he was a feared fighter and had some elite knockout wins under his belt; Bivins, Chase, (Cocoa) Kid, Williams, Marshall etc. (add Johnson from the '50s and you have some serious knockout credentials), but as the fifties drew near he harnessed his boxing ability and started using his brain more.

Or at least that's what I think.

Moore was deadly in rematches - check out the Durelle fights, the results of Romero I & II, Williams I & II, the Bivins & Johnson rematches, among others - there weren't many fighters who had the last laugh on Moore. Even in their series, Charles found it harder and harder to contain him, each fight that bit closer.

I reckon a five fight series between the two at their peaks would have been 3-2 to either fighter...

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 16 Nov 2006, 21:00

I've always thought Moore's increased success at a late age was direclty related to his competition getting easier in general(Harold Johnson being the exception)

Not that it was in any way bad and he was still an excellent fighter, but i think he was as good as he was ever going to get when he was fighting Charles and the murderers row guys.

He could certainly get a win or two over Ezzard if they were to fight 5-6 times, but Charles was clearly the better man.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Nov 2006, 21:52

Good Beat, I like the melody, you can dance to it. I like the song...come to think of it ...I wrote the song.

DoubleM....I happen to agree, but it is counterintuitive for most. And the facts are what they are Ez got the nod 3 out of 3. But as Archie Improved some others faded. Their primes were not playing out at the same time.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 17 Nov 2006, 00:56

I think they DID face each other in their primes...It's just that Archie's prime lasted about a decade and a half...pretty hard to make a case for Archie here...had 3 chances and came away empty...Ezzard Charles is one of the most underrated fighters ever...case in point? this thread...maybe...just a subconsious thought...

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 17 Nov 2006, 05:13

I don't think Moore's level of opposition necessarily decreased in the '50s, or at least not by much - I mean, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, as well as Bert Lytell, Alabama Kid and others.

I think Moore did actually improve going into the '50s. Moore was the kind of fighter who learned from his opponents and adapted afterwards; Ezzard Charles claimed every time Moore came at him with a new style. Full credit to Charles, who I rate alongside Willie Pep and Ray Robinson, for dealing with him every time.

How do I think Moore improved? His ability to pace himself in a fight, and the use of feints and trickery.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Nov 2006, 05:35

Moore could have won and would have won one eventually but I don't think you can call it a 50/50 fight when one guy has a 3-0 advantage. Those are the results of what happened, no speculation required. These are two of my all time favourite fighters.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 17 Nov 2006, 06:02

Ezzard wrote:Moore could have won and would have won one eventually but I don't think you can call it a 50/50 fight when one guy has a 3-0 advantage. Those are the results of what happened, no speculation required. These are two of my all time favourite fighters.

Well I think I can, seeing as it was getting closer and closer each fight, and that I believe Moore got a bit better afterwards. Just the same as I think Pep was better than Saddler despite being 1-3 against him.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Nov 2006, 06:15

DoubleM wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Moore could have won and would have won one eventually but I don't think you can call it a 50/50 fight when one guy has a 3-0 advantage. Those are the results of what happened, no speculation required. These are two of my all time favourite fighters.
Well I think I can, seeing as it was getting closer and closer each fight, and that I believe Moore got a bit better afterwards. Just the same as I think Pep was better than Saddler despite being 1-3 against him.

Moore may have improved but even if he won one it would not give him parity. And if you believe that Moore improved then what is to say that Charles would not improve again? Think of it as a Lennon-McCartney principle (brilliantly exemplified by Charles in the 3rd fight). These two men would not be outdone and would have raised the bar again and again to impose themselves as the best.

They would always have close fights but yu're asking me to accept too much of your opinion as opposed to what actually happened.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 17 Nov 2006, 06:39

I'm pretty confident Charles was hitting his peak around that time, whereas Moore was yet to reach his. Yep, I'd say he was in his prime, just not at his peak.

I do think Charles was the better fighter, so don't worry about that... However I think 3-0 to Charles does not do Moore justice - it makes it sound like he was a class below when he wasn't. I can't say much more than repeat my belief that a Moore-Charles series around their respective peaks would have been 60/40 either way.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Nov 2006, 06:45

DoubleM wrote:I'm pretty confident Charles was hitting his peak around that time, whereas Moore was yet to reach his. Yep, I'd say he was in his prime, just not at his peak.

I do think Charles was the better fighter, so don't worry about that... However I think 3-0 to Charles does not do Moore justice - it makes it sound like he was a class below when he wasn't. I can't say much more than repeat my belief that a Moore-Charles series around their respective peaks would have been 60/40 either way.

Agreed, Moore was not a class below anyone, but I do believe that Charles just has the edge.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Nov 2006, 08:17

but that "extended" prime of Moore's is great fodder for debate and adds credence to any discussion of which one is truly the greater fighter. IT's not all about that 3 and 0 dynamic.

That has been my point all along. Who knew DoubleM and I would agree on something.....it must be a sign of the apocolypse.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 17 Nov 2006, 09:33

BoxBuzz wrote:but that "extended" prime of Moore's is great fodder for debate and adds credence to any discussion of which one is truly the greater fighter. IT's not all about that 3 and 0 dynamic.

That has been my point all along. Who knew DoubleM and I would agree on something.....it must be a sign of the apocolypse.

I think the apocalypse already happened. We've all just been too busy arguing over fighters to notice.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 17 Nov 2006, 11:26

BoxBuzz wrote:but that "extended" prime of Moore's is great fodder for debate and adds credence to any discussion of which one is truly the greater fighter. IT's not all about that 3 and 0 dynamic.

That has been my point all along. Who knew DoubleM and I would agree on something.....it must be a sign of the apocolypse.

We agree on more than just this, believe me.

You're right about the 3-0 thing, most would look straight at it and claim Charles was greater. However - Moore beat Johnson four times, as well as (Cocoa) Kid, Chase, Williams, Lytell, Wade and other top fighters who Charles never touched, including some heavyweights like Valdes, Sheppard, Baker etc... Although Charles beat Burley twice, Maxim two more times than Moore and Walcott a couple of times, as well as Louis and Layne among others. It does make for a great discussion as to who was greater.