BoxRec

Boxbuzz among others has stated Moore was ahead at the time of the ko in round 5. This is incorrect. I looked up both Moore & Patterson's records just to make sure, & the scoring is as follows.
Referee Frank Sikora 20-17 Patterson
Judge Jim McManus 20-16 Patterson
Judge John Bray 18-18 Even

I have film of the fight & although it doesn't cover the fight in its entirety
what it does have sure doesn't show Moore winning it.
It has been claimed by others, including Blockbuster that Patterson was better after he lost the title. No, his opposition was better, not Floyd. My God the weave he goes into in the Moore fight is incredible. His hand speed , balance & upper body movement were superb. I cannot remember who said it, Torres perhaps or D'amato ... Floyd had the speed then to destroy Clay's assets. Gene Tunney was right. Floyd won the title before he fully developed as a fighter, which was to his detriment.

Thanks for the setting the actual record straight Bill. I'm a Moore Fan and can not be relied upon for objectivity when it comes to one of his fights. Though one of the judges may have been inclined as I was, to see it as very very competitive up to that point.

I am also a very big Patterson fan....not so much as a Legendary boxer (which he certainly was) but as one of the best of all sports champions in regards to his gracious manner and true championship ethic. Traits both men shared.

What is the thought on this fight... does anyone think that Archie wins this fight at 175, or did Patterson just have the style? Floyd had just trounced Maxim at 175 and gotten robbed... he beat Maxim almost as badly as Archie did... and I've often felt that Patterson could have been a top 3-5 all time Light Heavyweight if he had stayed there (and been able to handle the weight long enough)... does anyone disagree and feel that Archie could have won this at Light Heavyweight? I know Archie was better at Light Heavyweight, but he was still a very good Heavyweight, as most people here seem to know.

Decagon...that aint neccessarily so. Make Patterson 40 years old in the theoretical and I think the old Mongoose would have his way with Floyd quite handily.

Well I mean Archie still had some good years ahead of him though, wouldn't you say? And while Archie was old, Patterson was still very young, he became the youngest HW champion ever to that point in that fight.

I guess I'm not so much emphasizing that Archie lost, but the fact that he was KO'd in 5 rounds... do you think it would be that big a blow out at Light Heavyweight?

I Feel Fine wrote:Well I mean Archie still had some good years ahead of him though, wouldn't you say?

Absolutely. People always emphasize Moore's age as though he were a dried-up old fossil in the '50s, but he absolutely was not. He was still beating top fighters on a regular basis at both heavyweight and light heavyweight all the way up until the time up his retirement at the age of either 46 or 49, depending on who you believe. In fact, by far the best years of Moore's career were from 1949-1955. I don't think he started to really noticeably decline until about 1958, which was the year in which he went to a couple close decisions against heavyweight journeymen and then had to rally from four knockdowns to beat Durelle.

I guess I'm not so much emphasizing that Archie lost, but the fact that he was KO'd in 5 rounds... do you think it would be that big a blow out at Light Heavyweight?

No, and in fact, I don't think Moore would ordinarily have lost the way he did to Patterson at heavyweight, either. He always said he had been extremely tired and drained for that fight from the kind of schedule he'd been keeping up the last couple years; consider, now- in 1954, Moore was 175 against Maxim, then he was up to 190 against Baker and Whitehurst two months later, then back down to 173 against Johnson, then up to 196 the following May to take on Valdes, then back to 175 against Olson a month-and-a-half later, then 188 against Marciano three months later, then he fought eight times in a three-month span while weighing in the 190s to start 1956 before dropping back down to 174 1/2 to take on Pompey, then was back up to 190 again a month-and-a-half later to take on Parker and then Shire before going up against Patterson.
And everyone talked about how hard Roy Jones had it, dropping 20 pounds in six months for Tarver! Moore had been keeping up an unbelieveable schedule for the past two years, fighting extremely often against an exceptionally high caliber of opposition and repeatedly losing and regaining large amounts of weight in very short periods of time while he did it. He was obviously a freak of nature in more ways than one, but even he wasn't Superman- that kind of a schedule catches up with you eventually.

Interesting, good point. That sounds like the definition of a rough schedule...

Decagon wrote:When Moore was 190 for his heavyweight fights, he was kind of fat. Jones entered the ring against Ruiz at 199 pounds of pure muscle. It's tough losing muscle.

Do you think that even comes close to negating my point?




I don't know about you, but Moore doesn't seem too terribly fat to me. By all accounts, he was killing himself to get under the light heavyweight limit in these years, chewing up meat to suck out the juice and then spit out the flesh and the like. I concede that Jones' weight loss was more muscle than Moore's was. But Moore was dropping this weight and regaining it over and over and over again in much smaller time periods while keeping up a hectic schedule of big fight after big fight after big fight. See the outline I wrote above- he would be in the 170s one month, then 20 pounds heavier into the 190s a month or two later, then back down again another couple months after that, then cycle it over and over again, all the while fighting top light heavyweight and heavywieght contenders as he did it. What Moore did was mountains more straining than what Jones did, and he had been keeping it up for nigh three years by the time he got to Patterson. Moore was a freak of nature just to be able to do what he did at all, but gaining all that weight and then killing yourself to get back down again, then going back up and then down once more over and over and over again, each time to face more taxing opponents, is something which will take its toll even on a man like him. Moore maintained that he had felt very tired and weak for that fight and put on a subpar performance, and given the facts and circumstances, I absolutely believe him.

Patterson's best performance imo was the second fight with Ali at god knows what age .......check out the mighty effort...probably would have beaten anyone else that night

i never said that bill lockhart. i thought patterson was right around his prime when he fought moore. the 1956-64 patterson was the prime patterson IMO

moore was 39 1/2 years old when he fought floyd

I Feel Fine wrote:Well I mean Archie still had some good years ahead of him though, wouldn't you say? And while Archie was old, Patterson was still very young, he became the youngest HW champion ever to that point in that fight.

I guess I'm not so much emphasizing that Archie lost, but the fact that he was KO'd in 5 rounds... do you think it would be that big a blow out at Light Heavyweight?

I do. Archie would have been unable to handle Floyd's speed. He never fared well against Charles & that is telling. Archie was as crafty a fighter their ever was, but against real quick fighters, he had trouble. He could tough it out with the best of them, was a fast, hard hitter, heroic to a fault & tremendously dedicated. He could beat most top heavyweights of that era, but not the very best ones. Harold Johnson was much the same. If Harold had been matched against Moore once again he would have beaten him. Archie stayed clear. Post 56 Archie was never the same. He fought infrequently & his opposition wasn't of the best calibre. He never should have had the trouble with Durelle like he did. It sounds like I'm trashing him. I don't mean to. Fighting Rocky like he did, takes something out of a man. Archie's victories over Olson & Valdes In 1955, may have been his last great wins. I would loved to see have seen Moore - Robinson
that would have been great.

Decagon wrote:When Moore was 190 for his heavyweight fights, he was kind of fat. Jones entered the ring against Ruiz at 199 pounds of pure muscle. It's tough losing muscle.

When an athlete tapers off of steroids, don’t they drop weight? 8)

Decagon writes all his contributions in a tone that suggests he is an educated historian and we are all know nothing plebs. Whenever anyone presses him you quickly realise he makes it up as he goes along.

The Great John L wrote:

Decagon wrote:When Moore was 190 for his heavyweight fights, he was kind of fat. Jones entered the ring against Ruiz at 199 pounds of pure muscle. It's tough losing muscle.

When an athlete tapers off of steroids, don’t they drop weight? 8)

Schwarzenegger definitely seemed to.

bill.lockhart wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Well I mean Archie still had some good years ahead of him though, wouldn't you say? And while Archie was old, Patterson was still very young, he became the youngest HW champion ever to that point in that fight.

I guess I'm not so much emphasizing that Archie lost, but the fact that he was KO'd in 5 rounds... do you think it would be that big a blow out at Light Heavyweight?

I do. Archie would have been unable to handle Floyd's speed. He never fared well against Charles & that is telling. Archie was as crafty a fighter their ever was, but against real quick fighters, he had trouble. He could tough it out with the best of them, was a fast, hard hitter, heroic to a fault & tremendously dedicated. He could beat most top heavyweights of that era, but not the very best ones. Harold Johnson was much the same. If Harold had been matched against Moore once again he would have beaten him. Archie stayed clear. Post 56 Archie was never the same. He fought infrequently & his opposition wasn't of the best calibre. He never should have had the trouble with Durelle like he did. It sounds like I'm trashing him. I don't mean to. Fighting Rocky like he did, takes something out of a man. Archie's victories over Olson & Valdes In 1955, may have been his last great wins. I would loved to see have seen Moore - Robinson
that would have been great.

moore beat harold johnson 4 times, harold clearly didnt have moores number

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:Well I mean Archie still had some good years ahead of him though, wouldn't you say? And while Archie was old, Patterson was still very young, he became the youngest HW champion ever to that point in that fight.

I guess I'm not so much emphasizing that Archie lost, but the fact that he was KO'd in 5 rounds... do you think it would be that big a blow out at Light Heavyweight?

I do. Archie would have been unable to handle Floyd's speed. He never fared well against Charles & that is telling. Archie was as crafty a fighter their ever was, but against real quick fighters, he had trouble. He could tough it out with the best of them, was a fast, hard hitter, heroic to a fault & tremendously dedicated. He could beat most top heavyweights of that era, but not the very best ones. Harold Johnson was much the same. If Harold had been matched against Moore once again he would have beaten him. Archie stayed clear. Post 56 Archie was never the same. He fought infrequently & his opposition wasn't of the best calibre. He never should have had the trouble with Durelle like he did. It sounds like I'm trashing him. I don't mean to. Fighting Rocky like he did, takes something out of a man. Archie's victories over Olson & Valdes In 1955, may have been his last great wins. I would loved to see have seen Moore - Robinson
that would have been great.

moore beat harold johnson 4 times, harold clearly didnt have moores number

Archie got lucky in their 1954 fight & knew it. Harold was rated top dog through the balance of the 50's & into the sixties until they finally had to strip Moore for not fighting him, & Harold finally became champ. True, Archie won 4 of 5, but he wasn't going back to the well again. If a man is the #1 contender that long without getting his just due, something ain't kosher. It was the 50's & you could only lose the title in the ring. A system I adhere to, providing a man is treated fairly, which Harold wasn't.

overhand_right wrote:Decagon writes all his contributions in a tone that suggests he is an educated historian and we are all know nothing plebs. Whenever anyone presses him you quickly realise he makes it up as he goes along.

bill.lockhart wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote: I do. Archie would have been unable to handle Floyd's speed. He never fared well against Charles & that is telling. Archie was as crafty a fighter their ever was, but against real quick fighters, he had trouble. He could tough it out with the best of them, was a fast, hard hitter, heroic to a fault & tremendously dedicated. He could beat most top heavyweights of that era, but not the very best ones. Harold Johnson was much the same. If Harold had been matched against Moore once again he would have beaten him. Archie stayed clear. Post 56 Archie was never the same. He fought infrequently & his opposition wasn't of the best calibre. He never should have had the trouble with Durelle like he did. It sounds like I'm trashing him. I don't mean to. Fighting Rocky like he did, takes something out of a man. Archie's victories over Olson & Valdes In 1955, may have been his last great wins. I would loved to see have seen Moore - Robinson
that would have been great.

moore beat harold johnson 4 times, harold clearly didnt have moores number

Archie got lucky in their 1954 fight & knew it. Harold was rated top dog through the balance of the 50's & into the sixties until they finally had to strip Moore for not fighting him, & Harold finally became champ. True, Archie won 4 of 5, but he wasn't going back to the well again. If a man is the #1 contender that long without getting his just due, something ain't kosher. It was the 50's & you could only lose the title in the ring. A system I adhere to, providing a man is treated fairly, which Harold wasn't.

MOORE ALREADY BEAT HIM 4 TIMES(plus he gave him a shot in 54, moore knocked him out), he doesnt have anything left to prove. by the late 1950s moore was starting to really decline anyways.


moore didnt get lucky in 1954, he simply connected with a perfectly timed straight right that floored harold, and then the All time KO king finished him off.

funso banjo baby wrote:Patterson's best performance imo was the second fight with Ali at god knows what age .......check out the mighty effort...probably would have beaten anyone else that night

They were both out of shape.

Patterson's shoulders, arms and chest looked like he hadn't exercised in a good while.

Ali ate Patterson's jab for the whole fight.

Patterson was at a pathetic level in that "fight" as compared his best:

The Moore fight and the 2nd Hurricane Jackson fight.

bill.lockhart wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote: I do. Archie would have been unable to handle Floyd's speed. He never fared well against Charles & that is telling. Archie was as crafty a fighter their ever was, but against real quick fighters, he had trouble. He could tough it out with the best of them, was a fast, hard hitter, heroic to a fault & tremendously dedicated. He could beat most top heavyweights of that era, but not the very best ones. Harold Johnson was much the same. If Harold had been matched against Moore once again he would have beaten him. Archie stayed clear. Post 56 Archie was never the same. He fought infrequently & his opposition wasn't of the best calibre. He never should have had the trouble with Durelle like he did. It sounds like I'm trashing him. I don't mean to. Fighting Rocky like he did, takes something out of a man. Archie's victories over Olson & Valdes In 1955, may have been his last great wins. I would loved to see have seen Moore - Robinson
that would have been great.

moore beat harold johnson 4 times, harold clearly didnt have moores number

Archie got lucky in their 1954 fight & knew it. Harold was rated top dog through the balance of the 50's & into the sixties until they finally had to strip Moore for not fighting him, & Harold finally became champ. True, Archie won 4 of 5, but he wasn't going back to the well again. If a man is the #1 contender that long without getting his just due, something ain't kosher. It was the 50's & you could only lose the title in the ring. A system I adhere to, providing a man is treated fairly, which Harold wasn't.

Good post.

Johnson knocked Moore flat on his face with a right hand in the 10th round.

Then "referee" Ruby Goldstein went to work,

insuring that Johnson didn't get off another punch before the round ended by giving Moore further time once he was up

---which broke the rules for a title fight in NY at that time.

Johnson was crucifying Moore with his jab all night long.

Moore got out of that fight by the skin of his teeth--

with lots of help from "referee" Goldstein.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: moore beat harold johnson 4 times, harold clearly didnt have moores number

Archie got lucky in their 1954 fight & knew it. Harold was rated top dog through the balance of the 50's & into the sixties until they finally had to strip Moore for not fighting him, & Harold finally became champ. True, Archie won 4 of 5, but he wasn't going back to the well again. If a man is the #1 contender that long without getting his just due, something ain't kosher. It was the 50's & you could only lose the title in the ring. A system I adhere to, providing a man is treated fairly, which Harold wasn't.

MOORE ALREADY BEAT HIM 4 TIMES(plus he gave him a shot in 54, moore knocked him out), he doesnt have anything left to prove. by the late 1950s moore was starting to really decline anyways.


moore didnt get lucky in 1954, he simply connected with a perfectly timed straight right that floored harold, and then the All time KO king finished him off.

Johnson connected with a perfectly timed right in the 10th round

knocking Moore FLAT ON HIS FACE.

Referee Goldstein gave Moore extra time.

When Moore knocked Johnson down in the 2nd to last round, Goldstein did the opposite.

Goldstein did not make Moore go to a neutral corner.

Goldstein stopped the fight with Johnson on his feet

with Johnson way ahead on points.

Patterson- Johnson would have been a good fight. Floyd would have beaten him, but not easily. Harold didn't have Moore's charisma, Marciano's power or Patterson's speed, but he may very well have been the best fighter of his era.

granberry wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

bill.lockhart wrote: Archie got lucky in their 1954 fight & knew it. Harold was rated top dog through the balance of the 50's & into the sixties until they finally had to strip Moore for not fighting him, & Harold finally became champ. True, Archie won 4 of 5, but he wasn't going back to the well again. If a man is the #1 contender that long without getting his just due, something ain't kosher. It was the 50's & you could only lose the title in the ring. A system I adhere to, providing a man is treated fairly, which Harold wasn't.

MOORE ALREADY BEAT HIM 4 TIMES(plus he gave him a shot in 54, moore knocked him out), he doesnt have anything left to prove. by the late 1950s moore was starting to really decline anyways.


moore didnt get lucky in 1954, he simply connected with a perfectly timed straight right that floored harold, and then the All time KO king finished him off.

Johnson connected with a perfectly timed right in the 10th round

knocking Moore FLAT ON HIS FACE.

Referee Goldstein gave Moore extra time.

When Moore knocked Johnson down in the 2nd to last round, Goldstein did the opposite.

Goldstein did not make Moore go to a neutral corner.

Goldstein stopped the fight with Johnson on his feet

with Johnson way ahead on points.

johnson well ahead on points? the fight was DEAD EVEN ON THE CARDS, stop spreading false information

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

granberry wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
MOORE ALREADY BEAT HIM 4 TIMES(plus he gave him a shot in 54, moore knocked him out), he doesnt have anything left to prove. by the late 1950s moore was starting to really decline anyways.


moore didnt get lucky in 1954, he simply connected with a perfectly timed straight right that floored harold, and then the All time KO king finished him off.

Johnson connected with a perfectly timed right in the 10th round

knocking Moore FLAT ON HIS FACE.

Referee Goldstein gave Moore extra time.

When Moore knocked Johnson down in the 2nd to last round, Goldstein did the opposite.

Goldstein did not make Moore go to a neutral corner.

Goldstein stopped the fight with Johnson on his feet

with Johnson way ahead on points.

johnson well ahead on points? the fight was DEAD EVEN ON THE CARDS, stop spreading false information

Don't worry about Crankberry - he's just a nutter.

Now, about that article you claim to have where Holmes admits he was afraid of Page. Are you ever going to post it? Or is it like the one Ted Spoon claimed to have about the Walcott vs Simon ie imaginary?