Archie moore is one of the most skillful fighters ever

[The Old LefHook]

Oh, now Moore is even a top 5 all time great.

Oh, and go ahead and give me a great big remind of some of the ATGs Archie toppled, will ya? I musta forgot. We all know you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG. Who did he beat anyway? Was it Big Boy Hogue?

It does seem that Moore beat decent fighters and lost to all the great ones he fought. Isn't that a true statement? You are not calling Maxim a great fighter, are you? You are not calling Johnson a great fighter, please. You are not calling Durrel great?

The fact is, Archie seems rather short on legendary wins or upsets. He went 1-1 with fighters like Holman Williams. That may not dispute anyone's point, but I believe it does call for an explanation. Did he ever beat anyone who was even top 50? I am saying all this without even looking at his record. I don't believe he did, from fading memory. Prove me wrong. Who was it? Please not Bivins.

Sure he was cheated out of his rightful due while in his prime; yes, he was taken advantage of for life by Kearns; sure he did his best stuff late and when most fighters are past it; indeed, he was clever and cagey. But none of that makes anyone a top 5 ATG. Tell me what does. Is it knockouts over people you mostly never heard of? I can't hear you.

[them_apples]

Oh, now Moore is even a top 5 all time great.

Oh, and go ahead and give me a great big remind of some of the ATGs Archie toppled, will ya? I musta forgot. We all know you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG. Who did he beat anyway? Was it Big Boy Hogue?

It does seem that Moore beat decent fighters and lost to all the great ones he fought. Isn't that a true statement? You are not calling Maxim a great fighter, are you? You are not calling Johnson a great fighter, please. You are not calling Durrel great?

The fact is, Archie seems rather short on legendary wins or upsets. He went 1-1 with fighters like Holman Williams. That may not dispute anyone's point, but I believe it does call for an explanation. Did he ever beat anyone who was even top 50? I am saying all this without even looking at his record. I don't believe he did, from fading memory. Prove me wrong. Who was it? Please not Bivins.

Sure he was cheated out of his rightful due while in his prime; yes, he was taken advantage of for life by Kearns; sure he did his best stuff late and when most fighters are past it; indeed, he was clever and cagey. But none of that makes anyone a top 5 ATG. Tell me what does. Is it knockouts over people you mostly never heard of? I can't hear you.

some good points, he’s missing the big W. I will counter the arguement and say some of the guys be beat would he great fighters today though, so it depends on the judgement. Either or the situation in his era was very stacked which also could attribute to this.

I see the same thing with Ruben Carter, hes underated because his competition was so good. Compare it to Haglers competition and then figure why Hagler might be considered greater.

but all in all, your point furthers the idea that Ezzard was greater than Moore.

[The Old LefHook]

I can completely agree that Moore is one of the most skillful fighters of all time without ranking him top 5. I have to give some credence to who he beat and who he couldn't beat. He was fighting the top people around most of the time. He had a good record against them except for Charles and Burley. He was about even with Shorty Hogue (now I looked) and Holman Williams.

Greb knocked off Tunney once; elderly Robby KO'd prime Fullmer and butchered Basilio; Duran beat Leonard; Clay knocked off Liston and Foreman; Pep knocked off Saddler; Saddler knocked off Pep; Langford knocked off every negro from Joe Gans to Harry Wills and easily handled Ketchel in their newspaper exhibition; Tunney knocked off Greb and Dempsey, etc, etc, etc.

If I could see prime Archie up against anyone from Matt Franklin to Injun Yaqui Lopez, I would know more. I believe Moore had the full medicine bag of tricks and techniques. But for me, top 5 AT is too high. He is a top 5 AT light heavy only. If he had beaten Marciano, then he would have been as high as GhostOnDempsey made him at his infamous list--#3 period. Pretty sneaky of Arch to beat Ezz on that ol' list when he never did manage to beat him in four fights, nor never even tied with him. Now that's medicine!

[Willie Pep 229]

He couldn't act a lick.

[The Old LefHook]

He couldn't act a lick.

He also carried the brand of philosopher. I think Red Foxx was a regular at his camps.

[Good ol' Douglas]

No fighter from the WW2 era is "one of the most skilled boxers ever". For his time he was technically advanced, sure.

[QueensburyRules]

No fighter from the WW2 era is "one of the most skilled boxers ever". For his time he was technically advanced, sure.

- - Yo, Doogie, welcome to advance U long laundry list of fighters more advanced than Archie.

We await awash in baited breath

[Willie Pep 229]

He also carried the brand of philosopher. I think Red Foxx was a regular at his camps.

That I got no problem with - he seems to have become a master of the fight game, not just physically, but mentally as well.

He was very articulate even in later years - not sure how trustworthy he was though. Some questions about his relationship with Foreman and Saddler after Zaire. But don't understand the details.

His foray into acting was playing Jim in a 1950s Huckleberry Finn. Directed by an aging, once great but fading director, Michael Curtiz (sp).

Curtiz was old school and use to working with professional craft actors. You can see when watching the fiasco he gave Moore no help.

One horrifying scence has Huck reciting a long siloquery while Moore is left on camera for the entire time having no clue how to do the very difficult acting of 'listening.'

It's painful to watch. And it was unfair that he was left that unprotected. But by almost everybody's standards Curtiz was a prick to work with, as impatient and difficult as John Ford.

P.S. I don't mean the listening part as sarcasm; it is very difficult to 'listen' convincingly as an actor and Cutiz left Moore on camera trying to 'listen' to what was a second rate child actor. Would have been a nightmare for a trained actor.

Robert Mitchum was known as a great listener. He could steal a scence from a fellow actor when the other guy had the lines. It is a real subtle talent.

[them_apples]

That I got no problem with - he seems to have become a master of the fight game, not just physically, but mentally as well.

He was very articulate even in later years - not sure how trustworthy he was though. Some questions about his relationship with Foreman and Saddler after Zaire. But don't understand the details.

His foray into acting was playing Jim in a 1950s Huckleberry Finn. Directed by an aging, once great but fading director, Michael Curtiz (sp).

Curtiz was old school and use to working with professional craft actors. You can see when watching the fiasco he gave Moore no help.

One horrifying scence has Huck reciting a long siloquery while Moore is left on camera for the entire time having no clue how to do the very difficult acting of 'listening.'

It's painful to watch. And it was unfair that he was left that unprotected. But by almost everybody's standards Curtiz was a prick to work with, as impatient and difficult as John Ford.

P.S. I don't mean the listening part as sarcasm; it is very difficult to 'listen' convincingly as an actor and Cutiz left Moore on camera trying to 'listen' to what was a second rate child actor. Would have been a nightmare for a trained actor.

Robert Mitchum was known as a great listener. He could steal a scence from a fellow actor when the other guy had the lines. It is a real subtle talent.

he was egotistical which made him a poor trainer, like a lot of fighters. they can't put their own pride aside. and they lack communication skills to work with people. Archie had a lot of info though, and I think him and Foreman were a could match because Foreman wasn't competing with him like Ali would have come across. interestingly enough Foreman seemed to get an extra mean streak against other "bigger" fighters.

[IronDanHamza]

Oh, now Moore is even a top 5 all time great.

Oh, and go ahead and give me a great big remind of some of the ATGs Archie toppled, will ya? I musta forgot. We all know you have to beat ATGs to be an ATG. Who did he beat anyway? Was it Big Boy Hogue?

It does seem that Moore beat decent fighters and lost to all the great ones he fought. Isn't that a true statement? You are not calling Maxim a great fighter, are you? You are not calling Johnson a great fighter, please. You are not calling Durrel great?

The fact is, Archie seems rather short on legendary wins or upsets. He went 1-1 with fighters like Holman Williams. That may not dispute anyone's point, but I believe it does call for an explanation. Did he ever beat anyone who was even top 50? I am saying all this without even looking at his record. I don't believe he did, from fading memory. Prove me wrong. Who was it? Please not Bivins.

Sure he was cheated out of his rightful due while in his prime; yes, he was taken advantage of for life by Kearns; sure he did his best stuff late and when most fighters are past it; indeed, he was clever and cagey. But none of that makes anyone a top 5 ATG. Tell me what does. Is it knockouts over people you mostly never heard of? I can't hear you.

You’re trying to say Harold Johnson is not a great fighter?