Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[Holywarrior]

Well from 75/76 to 79/80 Palomino and Cuevas were the two best welterweights in the world, neither were in the top tier of great welterweights but they were both damn good fighters. I think Cervantes was better than all those fighters you named and had a more impressive career than all of them (Johnson is perhaps a borderline case). Besides a fighter is not impressive simply because of who he defeated.

Williams also lost to Cocoa Kid 8 times (can any fighter possibly be considered great, by any criteria, if they lost 8 times to one particular fighter?), also lost to Palermo (Euro champ), Jannazzo, Burley x2, Basora x3, Tunero, Booker, Marshall, Moore, Lytell x2, Cerdan, LaMotta and a few others. Perhaps a few were when he wasn't in prime but I think it is fair to say that the majority he was at his prime.

Burley lost to Dolan, Zivic, Leto, Williams x3, Bivins, Charles x 2, Marshall, Lytell and Charley Doc Williams. Again he was in his prime the majority of those defeats.

I'm not arguing that Moore wasn't a great fighter but I'd be interested when you consider him at his prime because he did lose a fair few fights during the 1940s when he was at his 'physical' prime. There is room for interpretation of just how good Archie Moore actually was.

You're reading far too much into losses. Hagler lost to a welterweight coming out of a 4 year retirement. Benitez lost to a fighter 13-1 and many times after losing wide to Hearns.

Palomino literally has one win worth noting, it was the guy who stopped Napoles. Forget his name at the moment. The division was terribly weak at that point in time


I literally couldn't tell you Moore's prime. That's what makes him such a legendary fighter because he fought into his 40s with success. Maybe the 43-45 years.

[Holywarrior]

Well from 75/76 to 79/80 Palomino and Cuevas were the two best welterweights in the world, neither were in the top tier of great welterweights but they were both damn good fighters. I think Cervantes was better than all those fighters you named and had a more impressive career than all of them (Johnson is perhaps a borderline case). Besides a fighter is not impressive simply because of who he defeated.

Williams also lost to Cocoa Kid 8 times (can any fighter possibly be considered great, by any criteria, if they lost 8 times to one particular fighter?), also lost to Palermo (Euro champ), Jannazzo, Burley x2, Basora x3, Tunero, Booker, Marshall, Moore, Lytell x2, Cerdan, LaMotta and a few others. Perhaps a few were when he wasn't in prime but I think it is fair to say that the majority he was at his prime.

Burley lost to Dolan, Zivic, Leto, Williams x3, Bivins, Charles x 2, Marshall, Lytell and Charley Doc Williams. Again he was in his prime the majority of those defeats.

I'm not arguing that Moore wasn't a great fighter but I'd be interested when you consider him at his prime because he did lose a fair few fights during the 1940s when he was at his 'physical' prime. There is room for interpretation of just how good Archie Moore actually was.

You're actually debating the legitimacy of Holman Williams ? C'mon

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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?

No I'm not... Burley and Moore fought each other in their prime, they are very close in atg rankings and I use the h2h as a tiebreaker... It's by a fraction, how far apart they are by atg rankings

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!

Duran faced his best opponents past prime, while they were prime atg... Moore was prime for a lot of his losses, Duran was not..
You have to take everything into context..
In regards for pep, I have him about 2 spots ahead of Moore, and honestly Moore could be ahead of him... I think pep had a more dominant career and whitewashed a lot of fighters... Moore could easily be ahead of him, but I usually have pep at about 12 and Moore at 14. There is no perfect way to rank these guys, so I just focus more on range like ezzard is a lock top 10, where is debatable but not the range.. Same thing with Moore, I can see him being as high as 6 to as low as 23, depending on criteria... Me personally have him somewhere between 6-16 usually.

[Holywarrior]

No I'm not... Burley and Moore fought each other in their prime, they are very close in atg rankings and I use the h2h as a tiebreaker... It's by a fraction, how far apart they are by atg rankings

It just doesn't make sense though.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

It just doesn't make sense though.

Yeah it does...

If you think both guys are high caliber which Moore and burley were.. Using a h2h meeting especially if both were prime is a good tiebreaker..

I have Moore and burley very close to each other, and since they fought in their primes and burley beat him, I use that to rank burley higher.. Now obviously if burley wasn't an atg, I wouldn't have him rated higher, but much like jones and Hopkins, their resumes and skill level are dead even but Roy clearly beat him by a wide margin in their primes,hence why I have. Roy higher than Hopkins

[Holywarrior]

Yeah it does...

If you think both guys are high caliber which Moore and burley were.. Using a h2h meeting especially if both were prime is a good tiebreaker..

I have Moore and burley very close to each other, and since they fought in their primes and burley beat him, I use that to rank burley higher.. Now obviously if burley wasn't an atg, I wouldn't have him rated higher, but much like jones and Hopkins, their resumes and skill level are dead even but Roy clearly beat him by a wide margin in their primes,hence why I have. Roy higher than Hopkins

So why don't you rate Bivins around these guys then? He has a win ledger comparable to Burley's and beat Burley when he was red hot.

[crold1]

I usually have moore around 14-16


SRR
Ali
Armstrong
SRL
Ezzard
Louis
pep
duran
Langford
Greb
leonard
hagler
Burley
Pernell
Tunney
Moore


Not really in proper order, but off the top of my head, its something like that
and im probably leaving off a name or 2...

Moore is somwhere for me between 14-25 with the likes of floyd, manny, roy, hearns, monzon

He is a lock for top 25,, most likely top 20, i just dont think he cracks top 10, and depending on your criteria, he is somewhere in the teens...

Like i said before, i dont have a problem if someone has him at 6, but thats not how i rank him...

I'd have Canzoneri on there and over Moore but they're both fairly argued top 10-15. I don't have an issue with people who put Pep over Moore, though I find him a hair overrated by some (and we're talking hairs at that level). Pep just dominated Feather before his accident and was still great afterwards. Moore lost more, but he had SUCH a deep field to swim in that it offsets.

To me, it's Robinson, Greb, and Langford in whatever order and then the real fun starts.

[crold1]

So why don't you rate Bivins around these guys then? He has a win ledger comparable to Burley's and beat Burley when he was red hot.

Bivins would have been better today than then. In an era that rewards one offs, and has fewer rematches, Bivins would be talked about like God. His problem in his time was once he got solved by the greats he mostly stayed solved.

[Holywarrior]

Bivins would have been better today than then. In an era that rewards one offs, and has fewer rematches, Bivins would be talked about like God. His problem in his time was once he got solved by the greats he mostly stayed solved.

He was never the same after the Walcott loss, which a lot think he won.

[crold1]

He was never the same after the Walcott loss, which a lot think he won.

Think that had more to do with what came after and timing. Ezz was HOT and stayed that way for years. He ran up against a bunch of great fighters who peaked/were at peak and he peaked early.