Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I have a hard time seeing guys like Tunney, Hagler or Ray Leonard over Archie. I think Mickey Walker deserves a top 15 mention as well.

Mickey walker is a solid choice, I usually have him in the late teens, but top 15 is credible as well..
SRL is clearly above moore,, Hagler, tunney and moore are all in the same ballpark, you could make a case for any of them and not be wrong

Bivins beat Burley...I wonder where he rates Bivins? Some odd logic in here.

Bivins is good, but obviously Burley is one of the greatest fighters ever, and because of Mob controlled matchmaking never got his fair shake at greatness..
You just cant pick out on win or loss, and base a guys career on it... Burley was better than moore...
I could nitpick anyone's resume, hagler lost to willie monroe, hearns lost to barkley, etc.... Its the totality of their career

Burley on his best day vs Moore on his best day, I would favor Burley to win, hence why i have him higher

[Ray Corso]

Archie Moore was one of the most entertaining pro boxer ever in my book.
As a young man he was sneaky fast and clever beyond his years. He became one of the most experienced pros of all time and still holds the KO/Win record mark I think! (131 KO wins) he was stopped 7 times in 219 bouts!
Mr. Moore blended offense with defense as well as any fighter I've ever seen he also with stood adversity as well as anyone could.
He was a true character with in the sport and a truly respected man by anyone I ever met in the game.
In a time when the top tier men fought as often as every other week and fought each other multiple times Archie was a crowd favorite who any promoter valued for a strong showing by him and the paying fans that came to see him.
The fighters in his vera fought much harder than the fellows today do, there were no guaranteed money outlets back then it was all "live seats" that made the shows successes or failures.
Archie was a major fighter who was a major draw and a gentleman. Ray.

[IronDanHamza]

Pep is widely considered one of the best fighters of the lower weights and shouldnt be compared to the watered down divisions that calzaghe and ottke dominated..

What does that mean?

I'm just showing you why the fact he had a better "run" means little. Both Calzaghe and Ottke had better "Runs" than Moore.

Im not talking about any of those guys,, what does that have to do with moore...
Moore lost to burley and Ezzard, hence why i rank them higher.. Other random fighters like holman and booker are another debate entirely..

Well the same logic applies doesn't it?

You're saying Burley ranks higher because he beat Moore.

Well Burley lost to Bivins. He went 0-1 with Bivins. Who ranks higher?

Cocoa Kid beat Williams 8 times, who ranks higher?

I'm using that as an example to show your flawed logic.

Do you rank every fighter who beat another higher?

Saddler beat pep later in his career, and styles make matchups, and the overall career of pep is better than saddlers... And when did i list my top 20.. I didnt so dont put words in my mouth about saddler, i just named off the top 14 guys and even said it was off the top of my head and im probably leaving off some people

Well Pep was in it and Saddler wasn't. Who do you rank higher out of those two? Pep was still a top fighter when he lost 3 out of 4 times.

Why are you bringing up donaire... Your using alot of strawman arguements..
A run would be SRL beating beneitz, duran, hearns and Kalule in about a 2 year period.. Something that Moore was never able to do

How is is a strawman argument?

I'm showing you why a "run" is irrelevant.

Who you beat and when you beat them is what's important.

Donaire's run from 116-122 is better than any "Run" Moore had in his career but what does it really mean?

No, your wrong,, the best fighters he faced where burley and ezzard, and he lost to both,, you can name all the other guys you want, but bottomline is, the best fighters he fought he lost to.....
Any of the wins that moore has, none of those fighters are as good as Burley and Ezzard... So once again, the best fighters he fought, he lost to

That's like saying Duran lost to the best fighters he fought.

He lost to Hagler, Hearns, Benitez and went 1-2 with Leonard.

Like that some how discounts everything else he's done.

Archie Moore beat Harold Johnson 4 out of 5 times. He's arguably greater than Burley aswell.

Moore has beaten more top fighters than he's lost to top fighters when he had it and that's a fact.

[IronDanHamza]

Mickey walker is a solid choice, I usually have him in the late teens, but top 15 is credible as well..
SRL is clearly above moore,, Hagler, tunney and moore are all in the same ballpark, you could make a case for any of them and not be wrong



Bivins is good, but obviously Burley is one of the greatest fighters ever, and because of Mob controlled matchmaking never got his fair shake at greatness..
You just cant pick out on win or loss, and base a guys career on it... Burley was better than moore...
I could nitpick anyone's resume, hagler lost to willie monroe, hearns lost to barkley, etc.... Its the totality of their career

Burley on his best day vs Moore on his best day, I would favor Burley to win, hence why i have him higher

But Bivins beat Burley so who ranks higher?

Bivins right? By your logic.

Burley wasn't better than Moore. What do you base that off? Why do you think he's better? His resume for damn sure ain't better.

It can't be based off footage.

So on what basis is he better?

[IronDanHamza]

You just cant pick out on win or loss, and base a guys career on it..r

Well isn't that exactly what you've just done?

Your basis for having Burley ahead of Moore is that Burley beat Moore.

You just said "How can you have Moore ahead of Burley when Burley beat him"

[Holywarrior]

Mickey walker is a solid choice, I usually have him in the late teens, but top 15 is credible as well..
SRL is clearly above moore,, Hagler, tunney and moore are all in the same ballpark, you could make a case for any of them and not be wrong



Bivins is good, but obviously Burley is one of the greatest fighters ever, and because of Mob controlled matchmaking never got his fair shake at greatness..
You just cant pick out on win or loss, and base a guys career on it... Burley was better than moore...
I could nitpick anyone's resume, hagler lost to willie monroe, hearns lost to barkley, etc.... Its the totality of their career

Burley on his best day vs Moore on his best day, I would favor Burley to win, hence why i have him higher

You're the one just picking out random wins or losses here. I'm simply showing you how flawed your logic is.

Mob controlled? All these guys were fighting eachother regardless of any mob.


Who rates higher, Duran or William Joppy?

[IronDanHamza]

You're the one just picking out random wins or losses here. I'm simply showing you how flawed your logic is.

Mob controlled? All these guys were fighting eachother regardless of any mob.


Who rates higher, Duran or William Joppy?

Duran also "Lost to the best fighters he faced" aswell.

He lost to Hagler, lost to Hearns, lost to Leonard 2 out of 3 times, lost to Benitez.

Does that somehow discount the fact he beat DeJesus, Buchanan, the sole win to Leonard, Lampin, Marcel, etc?

I hate that argument.

"He lost to Charles 3 times" And?

Look at the guys Moore beat. Look at his resume. Just because he lost to other great fighters it makes his resume irrelevant.

Pep didn't fight nearly the level of opposition Moore did yet he get's a pass and is ahead of Moore because he had a nice "Run" and has less loss's ? Nah. Not in my book.

Not only that but Pep lost to the best fighter he faced 3 out of 4 times!

[Holywarrior]

Duran also "Lost to the best fighters he faced" aswell.

He lost to Hagler, lost to Hearns, lost to Leonard 2 out of 3 times, lost to Benitez.

Does that somehow discount the fact he beat DeJesus, Buchanan, the sole win to Leonard, Lampin, Marcel, etc?

I hate that argument.

"He lost to Charles 3 times" And?

Look at the guys Moore beat. Look at his resume. Just because he lost to other great fighters it makes his resume irrelevant.

Pep didn't fight nearly the level of opposition Moore did yet he get's a pass and is ahead of Moore because he had a nice "Run" and has less loss's ? Nah. Not in my book.

Not only that but Pep lost to the best fighter he faced 3 out of 4 times!

Quality post here.

And he brings up mob control when he rates Tunney so high? That racist bugger wouldn't even spar a black guy let alone fight one but he gets a pass for that.

Burley isn't even that much, if at all, higher than Williams let alone someone with the resume of Archie.

[IronDanHamza]

Quality post here.

And he brings up mob control when he rates Tunney so high? That racist bugger wouldn't even spar a black guy let alone fight one but he gets a pass for that.

Burley isn't even that much, if at all, higher than Williams let alone someone with the resume of Archie.

Yeah I agree about Williams they're very close.

RubenSonny made a good thread on that before.

I could easily have Harold Johnson ahead of Charley Burley on my list.

And Moore beat Johnson 4 times! 4 times he beat Johnson, a certified ATG.

[Humean]

I no longer think these all time lists make sense but certainly between 1920-1963 Moore was probably from about the 2nd best light-heavyweight to at least the 5th best and at least a top 20 or 30 best fighter during that time period regardless of what criteria you want to use.

The great puzzle about Moore's career was that the great part of his career occurred during his mid thirties onwards, which in that era was a real novelty. Now was Moore's impressive career in his thirties (during 1950s) due him him being such a supreme fighter that even when he was 'old' that he was one of the very best, or did he simply reach his 'prime' at a more advanced age than was/is typical or was he fortunate to fight in a fairly poor light-heavyweight division when he finally got his chance at the light-heavyweight title?

I'm interested in when people think Moore's 'prime' really was. I recall IronDanHamza suggest to me a few months back that Moore was in his prime around 1944 but if that is true then that would perhaps suggest that Moore isn't quite as good as people generally rate him for he was losing some fights around this time, losing to good fighters but not genuinely great ones, guys such as Burley (ok he was possibly great), Booker; Wade and Chase in 43 and of course he was knocked out by Leonard Morrow in 1948.

Moore's record durng the 1940s was, if I counted correctly, 71-14-3 and during the 1950s was 67-3-2.

There is no question though that when you consider longevity Moore's career was, even by today's standards, highly impressive but was by the standard of Moore's own time even more remarkable.