BoxRec

Heres the Breakdown


Genes heavyweight record 8-0

Archies heavyweight record 75-4(counting the rinaldo over the weight limit loss)


genes record against men over 200lb 1-0(1ko)

archies record against men over 200lb 22-1(19ko)


Genes record against hall of fame heavyweights- 2-0(0)

Archies record against hall of fame heavyweights- 5-3(3kos)

* charles and johnson fights were at 175lb dont count, but moores 4 wins over hall of fame heavyweight jimmy bivins over the limit count and his win over hall of famer clarence henry



genes record against ring magazine top 10 heavyweights under the age of 30- 1-0.... Ermillio Spalla

Archies record against ring magazine top 10 heavyweight under the age of 30- 10-2(4kos)




Top heavyweights beaten


Tunney-

Jack dempsey 2x- 32 years old coming off 3 year layoff, beat sharkey
Tommy Gibbons - 34 years old last fight of his career, top 10 rated
Ermillio Spalla - top 10 rated
Tom Heeney- 203lb top 10 rated 30 years old
Johnny Risko- 18-8 23 years old
Charley Weinert 2x- 54-15

Moore-

Nino Valdez 2x- 6'3 215lb # 1 heavyweight contender 28 years old
Bob Baker- 6'2 210lb # 2 rated heavyweight contender 26 years old
Clarence Henry- hall of famer, # 3 rated heavyweight contender 25 years old
Jimmy Bivins 4x- Hall of Famer 27-29 years old # 2 rated heavyweight
Alejandro lavorante- 6'4 212lb, # 4 rated heavyweight contender, 26 years old
James J parker- 6'3 212lb 29-5 top 10 rated 25 years old
Bob Satterfield - 26 years old
Embrell Davidson- 6'1 210lb 20-1 22 years old
Hatchetman Sheppard 2x- top 10 rated 27 years old

* I left off 4 wins over harold johnson, because johnson weighed 175lb despite him literally beating all of the heavyweight contenders out there at 175lb.

From the topic thread title to the opening question within it, you changed the query. They are not necessarily the same thing.

answer the thread question irene

By sheer weight of numbers, Moore.

Moore by a landslide.

Head to head I favor Tunney though.

Compared to Gene Tunney, Archie Moore has a big edge in terms of facing top heavyweights. Of course, Moore had a much longer career and many more bouts than Tunney. One possible reason that Tunney wasn't that active during a relatively short career was his hand injury problems. But.......it should be pointed out that Tunney had a fair number of bouts by today's standards.

- Chuck Johnston

Archie Moore hands down.

BUT....Tunney beat the great Dempsey...so that in many eyes rates
Tunney above all others.

Moore was more dominant throughout his entire career... So, I'd say Moore.

Although a lot of people, (myself included) will forever hold Tunney in high acclaim as: "The man who beat Jack Dempsey"...

Crease wrote:Moore was more dominant throughout his entire career... So, I'd say Moore.

Although a lot of people, (myself included) will forever hold Tunney in high acclaim as: "The man who beat Jack Dempsey"...

Harry Greb mauled dempsey 3 times in exhibitions and beat tunny once so whould that mean greb is higher than dempsey but on a par with tunney.

moore would beat they all

the old mongoose all the way

Broctons beginning post on this thread is full of mistakes and misleading statements.

1. Tunney's record as a heavyweight was not 8-0. Just look on the database and you can find 19 fights where his opponent was a heavyweight. He also had a win over Crossley whose weight wasn't listed but was a heavyweight. Tunney won at least 20 fights at heavyweight.

2. That Archie has 4 losses at heavyweight were mentioned but his draws weren not. At heavyweight, he had draws with 37 year old Karel Sys, journeyman Howard King, and Wille Pastrano who wasn't that good of a heavyweight.

3. Tunney's record against fighters who weighed over the magical 200 pound mark. So what? Most of the top heavyweights were under 200. If being over 200 makes you better than Moore has some embarrassing losses. As heavyweight himself, lost 3 times to fighters under 200, and had two draws. Tunney and Moore (almost all of the time)were both under 200 themselves.

4. Moore's Hall of Fame wins; 1 against Clarence Henry and 4 against Jimmy Bivins.
First of all Clarence Henry isn't in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. He is in the World Boxing Hall of Fame, The World Boxing Hall of Fame is a joke. Just take a look at some of the "Hall of Famers" in there. Henry isn't a real Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination.
The four wins against Bivins? All of them were when Bivins was past it. He wasn't even a rated contender anymore.

Moore's record against International Boxing Hall of Fame Heavweights when they were still atleast rated contenders? 0-3. Tunney? He is 2-0.

5. Tunney's record is only 1-0 against fighters under 30 and in the Top 10?
Wow if that isn't spinning things. Why does it matter if the guy is 29 if he is a contender or even the champion? Because that way Tunney's wins over Dempsey (Dempsey was 31 in the first fight, 32 in their second), and the 30 year old #1 contender Heeney. Not to mention Tommy Gibbons who was highly rated at the age of 34.
It's also worth mentioning that Tunney beat Weinert twice before there were Ring Magazine rankings. Count all of thse and Tunney is 7-0.

6. It was mentioned that Gibbons was 34 and in the last fight of his career when Tunney beat him. It wasn't mentioned that Gibbons wasn't slowing down. He gave a prime Dempsey a tough 15 round fight two years previously. He was 11-0 since then with 10 knockouts. Tunney was the only fighter who ever stopped Gibbons.

7. Thast is nice that Broctonblockuster left off Moore's fights against Harold Johnson, since Johnson wasn't a heavyweight when they fought.
Btw, Tunney beat Greb,Carpentier and Gibbons who all had success against heavyweights.
In fact if Greb would have been ranked as a heavyweight he probably would have been in the Top 5 when Tunney beat him.

Here is a statistic that wasn't mentioned: Record in heavyweight title fights.
Tunney 3-0.
Moore 0-2 (Knocked out both times.)

Ambling Alp wrote:Broctons beginning post on this thread is full of mistakes and misleading statements.

1. Tunney's record as a heavyweight was not 8-0. Just look on the database and you can find 19 fights where his opponent was a heavyweight. He also had a win over Crossley whose weight wasn't listed but was a heavyweight. Tunney won at least 20 fights at heavyweight.

2. That Archie has 4 losses at heavyweight were mentioned but his draws weren not. At heavyweight, he had draws with 37 year old Karel Sys, journeyman Howard King, and Wille Pastrano who wasn't that good of a heavyweight.

3. Tunney's record against fighters who weighed over the magical 200 pound mark. So what? Most of the top heavyweights were under 200. If being over 200 makes you better than Moore has some embarrassing losses. As heavyweight himself, lost 3 times to fighters under 200, and had two draws. Tunney and Moore (almost all of the time)were both under 200 themselves.

4. Moore's Hall of Fame wins; 1 against Clarence Henry and 4 against Jimmy Bivins.
First of all Clarence Henry isn't in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. He is in the World Boxing Hall of Fame, The World Boxing Hall of Fame is a joke. Just take a look at some of the "Hall of Famers" in there. Henry isn't a real Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination.
The four wins against Bivins? All of them were when Bivins was past it. He wasn't even a rated contender anymore.

Moore's record against International Boxing Hall of Fame Heavweights when they were still atleast rated contenders? 0-3. Tunney? He is 2-0.

5. Tunney's record is only 1-0 against fighters under 30 and in the Top 10?
Wow if that isn't spinning things. Why does it matter if the guy is 29 if he is a contender or even the champion? Because that way Tunney's wins over Dempsey (Dempsey was 31 in the first fight, 32 in their second), and the 30 year old #1 contender Heeney. Not to mention Tommy Gibbons who was highly rated at the age of 34.
It's also worth mentioning that Tunney beat Weinert twice before there were Ring Magazine rankings. Count all of thse and Tunney is 7-0.

6. It was mentioned that Gibbons was 34 and in the last fight of his career when Tunney beat him. It wasn't mentioned that Gibbons wasn't slowing down. He gave a prime Dempsey a tough 15 round fight two years previously. He was 11-0 since then with 10 knockouts. Tunney was the only fighter who ever stopped Gibbons.

7. Thast is nice that Broctonblockuster left off Moore's fights against Harold Johnson, since Johnson wasn't a heavyweight when they fought.
Btw, Tunney beat Greb,Carpentier and Gibbons who all had success against heavyweights.
In fact if Greb would have been ranked as a heavyweight he probably would have been in the Top 5 when Tunney beat him.

Here is a statistic that wasn't mentioned: Record in heavyweight title fights.
Tunney 3-0.
Moore 0-2 (Knocked out both times.)

20 fights?

179 lb Tommy Gibbons was a LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT who went up for a few fights at HW here and there and challenged Dempsey for the title weighing 175 lbs. He was by no means a true HW.

First of all, Brocton made the stipulation that fights over 175 count. ( I actually agrere with him on this)

179 was a heavyweight, albiet a small one. A great small man is often better than a bigger man.
Marciano, Dempsey, Charles, and Corbett weren't much bigger than this.
Burns and Fitzsimmons were smaller.

Of course, Gibbons fought mostly at lightheavyweight. However, he certainly could do more than hold his own against heavyweights.
He gave a prime Dempsey a tough fight for 15 rounds when he only weighed 175.
Gibbons also beat Billy Miske who weighed 196.
In the fight that Gibbons had before Tunney, he knocked out a guy that weighed 225 in 3 rounds.

Beating a 179 pound Gibbons is a pretty nice win even for a heavyweight; more impressive than any heavyweight Moore ever beat.

Bottomline is that the Dempsey, who Tunney probably took 19 out of 20 rds from, would still have KO'd Moore at Heavyweight.

I think the record that Brockton illustrates is all we need to make our decision. The answer is clearly self evident. I'm certain that the conclusion is not only unanimous, but enthusiastic as well.

Ambling Alp wrote:First of all, Brocton made the stipulation that fights over 175 count. ( I actually agrere with him on this)

179 was a heavyweight, albiet a small one. A great small man is often better than a bigger man.
Marciano, Dempsey, Charles, and Corbett weren't much bigger than this.
Burns and Fitzsimmons were smaller.

Of course, Gibbons fought mostly at lightheavyweight. However, he certainly could do more than hold his own against heavyweights.
He gave a prime Dempsey a tough fight for 15 rounds when he only weighed 175.
Gibbons also beat Billy Miske who weighed 196.
In the fight that Gibbons had before Tunney, he knocked out a guy that weighed 225 in 3 rounds.

Beating a 179 pound Gibbons is a pretty nice win even for a heavyweight; more impressive than any heavyweight Moore ever beat.

I agree that beating Gibbons IS a very good win for a HW, but it still has to be in the context that Gibbons was a light HW fighter. Dempsey trained his tail off to get to 188-190, he could've never stayed at light HW for most of his career like Gibbons did (neither could have Marciano or Corbett)

I think it also has to be put into context that Gibbons described himself as slipping prior to the Tunney fight and retired after losing. Tunney didn't beat a peak Gibbons (although I think Gene beats him at anytime regardless)

I'm not saying that beating Gibbons was a phenomenal win or anything t like that. However, if you look at how other heavyweights did against Gibbons, it's a pretty good win.

As I mentioned before, he gave a prime Jack Dempsey a tough 15 round fight just two years previously. In the two years between the time he fought Dempsey and before he fought Tunney, he was 11-0 with 10 knockouts.
Maybe he wasn't quite as good as when he fought Dempsey, but he had to be pretty close.

That is a better win than any heavyweight that Moore ever beat.

Ambling Alp wrote:I'm not saying that beating Gibbons was a phenomenal win or anything t like that. However, if you look at how other heavyweights did against Gibbons, it's a pretty good win.

As I mentioned before, he gave a prime Jack Dempsey a tough 15 round fight just two years previously. In the two years between the time he fought Dempsey and before he fought Tunney, he was 11-0 with 10 knockouts.
Maybe he wasn't quite as good as when he fought Dempsey, but he had to be pretty close.

That is a better win than any heavyweight that Moore ever beat.

I'd rate beating Bivins as a better HW win than beating Gibbons.

At the time Moore was beating Bivins, Bivins was losing a lot of fights. He was no longer the fighter that he had once been.
Gibbons was still a top contender when Tunney beat him.

Ambling Alp wrote:At the time Moore was beating Bivins, Bivins was losing a lot of fights. He was no longer the fighter that he had once been.
Gibbons was still a top contender when Tunney beat him.

Well Archie was sort of helping him become a has been.

I dont even bother with this guy alp anymore. he has some of the most ignorant and incompetend opinions i have ever heard. He tries to claim my facts were wrong, but in fact his facts are wrong


example one:

The four wins against Bivins? All of them were when Bivins was past it. He wasn't even a rated contender anymore.

Wrong! when archie moore beat jimmy bivins in 1947, bivins was 26 years old in this prime of his life! in 1948 and 1949, jimmy bivins was rated # 6 and # 7 heavyweight in the world by RING MAGAZINE which dispells your claim bivins was not rated when moore beat him



2nd.....he claims gibbons as being a good heavyweight win for tunney, while johnson was not a good heavyweight win by moore. despite the fact harold johnson beat top rated heavyweight contenders ezzard charles, nino valdez, clarence henry, and bob satterfield. in fact, Harold johnson was dominating the top heavyweights far more than gibbons was. harold was alot younger and better too.




He also claims Tom Heeney was the # 1 contender.....THIS IS FALSE.


Here were the ring magazine ratings when tunney fought heeney

1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcudun
4. Jack Sharkey
5. Knute Hansen
6. Jim Maloney
7. Johnny Risko
8. Phil Scott
9. tom Heeney
10. Otto von Porat




[quotBtw, Tunney beat Greb,Carpentier and Gibbons who all had success against heavyweights.e]
[/quote]

both carpentier and gibbons were both well past there primes. moore beat top top rated heavyweights who were young and in there prime, and bigger too

greb beat tunney TWICE

Henry isn't a real Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination.

I have film of henry and ring magazine articles. i believe he is by far better than any heavyweight win tunney ever recorded besides dempsey. henry would beat the 34 year old gibbons

That is a better win than any heavyweight that Moore ever beat.

34 year old gibbons looked awful on film. i believe nino valdez and bob baker clarence henry and jimmy bivins were all much better wins. valdez and baker are far too big and talented for gibbons, they would knockout tommy... its amazing how much u underate valdez and baker two top big technicians with two fisted power(especially valdez). these two would have been bigger than any tunney opponent he ever faced

as always....facts are very stubborn.....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I dont even bother with this guy alp anymore. he has some of the most ignorant and incompetend opinions i have ever heard.

Use your ignore function. I have. Its a great tool, and spares alot of aggraviation.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I dont even bother with this guy alp anymore. he has some of the most ignorant and incompetend opinions i have ever heard. He tries to claim my facts were wrong, but in fact his facts are wrong


example one:

The four wins against Bivins? All of them were when Bivins was past it. He wasn't even a rated contender anymore.

Wrong! when archie moore beat jimmy bivins in 1947, bivins was 26 years old in this prime of his life! in 1948 and 1949, jimmy bivins was rated # 6 and # 7 heavyweight in the world by RING MAGAZINE which dispells your claim bivins was not rated when moore beat him



2nd.....he claims gibbons as being a good heavyweight win for tunney, while johnson was not a good heavyweight win by moore. despite the fact harold johnson beat top rated heavyweight contenders ezzard charles, nino valdez, clarence henry, and bob satterfield. in fact, Harold johnson was dominating the top heavyweights far more than gibbons was. harold was alot younger and better too.




He also claims Tom Heeney was the # 1 contender.....THIS IS FALSE.


Here were the ring magazine ratings when tunney fought heeney

1. Young Stribling
2. George Godfrey
3. Paolino Uzcudun
4. Jack Sharkey
5. Knute Hansen
6. Jim Maloney
7. Johnny Risko
8. Phil Scott
9. tom Heeney
10. Otto von Porat




[quotBtw, Tunney beat Greb,Carpentier and Gibbons who all had success against heavyweights.e]

both carpentier and gibbons were both well past there primes. moore beat top top rated heavyweights who were young and in there prime, and bigger too

greb beat tunney TWICE

Henry isn't a real Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination.

I have film of henry and ring magazine articles. i believe he is by far better than any heavyweight win tunney ever recorded besides dempsey. henry would beat the 34 year old gibbons

That is a better win than any heavyweight that Moore ever beat.

34 year old gibbons looked awful on film. i believe nino valdez and bob baker clarence henry and jimmy bivins were all much better wins. valdez and baker are far too big and talented for gibbons, they would knockout tommy... its amazing how much u underate valdez and baker two top big technicians with two fisted power(especially valdez). these two would have been bigger than any tunney opponent he ever faced[/quote]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Brocton,
I like how you say you won't bother with me and then go one with your long winded post trying to argue some of my points.
I will answer each of your points.

-First, you are making a mistake when looking at the Ring Magazine Rankings. If a fight was in say 1928, you don't look at the the 1928 Ratings to see where the fighters were ranked when they fought. Those rankings are made after 1928 is over, after the fight. Naturally, the loser will usually go down in the rankings. You have to look at the year before, in this case 1927.
At the end of 1927, Heeney was the #4 rated Heavyweight contender. The policy was then to have the champion as #1, (Tunney himself) so Heeney was really the #3 challenger. The #2 rated fighter/#1 challenger, was Demspey who retired. So Tunney couldn't fight him again. Sharkey was rated#3/#2 challenger, but he lost in March to Risko, which eliminated him from an immediate title shot.
So who was next? Tom Heeney. There was not monthly ratings at the time, but if there was Heeney would have been the highest rated. Therefore Heeney was the top challenger when he fought Tunney in July of 1928. This isn't brain surgery. It's very easy to follow if you take the time to go back and see how events unfolded. After Tunney beat Heeney easily, Heeney went down in the ratings to #9 for the year 1928.

-I did make one mistake with Bivins. For some reason Bivins who had not been the ratings the previous couple of years was rated #6 going into the fight with Moore on 4/11/1949. He was not a rated contender going into any of the other losses to Moore.
If you look at Bivins record from 1947-1951, (when he fought Moore) you will see that he was losing to a lot of different fighters. He clearly wasn't the fighter that he once was.

-The reason that I consider Gibbons a heavyweight when he fought Tunney and not Johnson when he fought Moore is simple. Gibbons was a heavyweight when he fought Tunney. Johnson was a lightheavyweight when he fought Moore.
You yourself early on in this thread counted Gibbons as a heavyweight and didn't count Johnson.

Btw you keep saying Gibbons was washed up. Well, he was still the #3 [i]heavyweight[/i] (#2 contender) when he fought Tunney. The only thing that indicates that Gibbons was (besides your biased view that Gibbons "didn't look good on film") washed up is that he was 34. Normally a fighter is well past it by then, but you can't assume that he was. Moore himself was a lot older than that for most of his heavyweight career.
Again, if a guy gives a prime Jack Dempsey a tough 15 round fight, and then goes 11-0 with 10 ko's in his next 11 fights in the next two years, you have to think he was still a very good fighter.
Valdes and Baker would knockout Gibbons? A prime Jack Dempsey couldn't do that but somehow Valdes and Baker would. Please. Gibbons would beat either one of them very easily.

-The reason I don't consider Moore's wins over Valdes,Baker, Henry to be that important is simple. They weren't that hard to beat.
Valdes lost fights to ordinary fighters all throughout his career.
Baker lost Billy Gilliam,Willie Besmanoff, Roy Harris.
Henry was a little better but in a short career he lost to Frank Buford,Jimmy Slade, and Tommy Jackson.

If you want to, you can make excuses for these losses. You can cherry pick and find the occasional decent win. However, you can do that with almost anyone. If you take a hard look at these guys overall career, they were nothing special. It wasn't a big deal for Archie Moore to have beaten them.
Archie was a great guy and almost everyone liked him, including myself. However, you should not use that to cloud your judgement. Nor your dislike for Tunney.
If you throw out Moore's lightheavyweight career, substitute the name John Smith and judge him by his heavyweight record, he wouldn't be considered a great heavyweight.

Do the same with Tunney. You will see that he a short heavyweight career; though he had almost as many fights against heavyweights as James Jeffries.
However, there was a lot of quality. Obviously quality and quantity is the best. However, if it's a question of one or the other, quality should win out over quantity.

Harold Johnson was somewhat inconsistant around the time he faced Moore. He had a knockout loss to Oakland Billy Smith as well as the collapse against Julio Mederos. Gibbons was never kayoed by Oakland Billy Smith types.