Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[billeau2]

Don't really see these similarities.

Moore beat a lot of good fighters, great fighters. Glen Johnson barely beat any.

Which guys doesn't he warrant do you think?

I mean you have Pep above him. How does he rank above Moore? I don't get it.

Burley, Hagler, Whitaker. I can't see how they're ahead or Moore.

I can see Moore being outside the Top 10 but I can't see how he's outside the Top 15.

Thats not true....it is true that Moore was in a different class of fighters...But Johnson had a lot of decisions that were obvious Bs Decisions where he should have been declared the winner...and he was never outclassed.

My point is that with Johnson one must see past the bogus decisions...

[Holywarrior]

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.

Yeah Charles and Moore beating Bivins are underrated wins. They were just a class above him, but still, Bivins has maybe a top 10 opponent list when it comes down to it.

[Holywarrior]

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.

He doesn't think the Holy Trinity of ross, canzoneri, mcclarnin should get much credit due to "mob" influence.

[crold1]

He doesn't think the Holy Trinity of ross, canzoneri, mcclarnin should get much credit due to "mob" influence.

There's more than enough film to say Tony could fight his ass off. He was a kid competing with great Bantams and kept going. Easily in any top ten chatter

[Humean]

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.

Surely losses tell as much of the story as wins? Obviously pre-prime and post-prime losses shold not really count against a fighter but prime losses should. Fighters from the 40s and 50s should be allowed the odd extra loss in their prime due to their ridiculous activity levels but Williams, Burley and also Moore during the 1940s were losing more than the odd fight when they were supposed to be in their prime.

John H. Stracey was the fighter Palomino defeated. Both very good fighters. Fighting little or nobody of great note does not neecssarily tell you a figher is not very good, it might only tell you that they fought little or nobody of note.

Moore lost 6 fights in those 3 calendar years of 1943, 44, 45.

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

Was Steve Belloise a great fighter?

[Holywarrior]

Surely losses tell as much of the story as wins? Obviously pre-prime and post-prime losses shold not really count against a fighter but prime losses should. Fighters from the 40s and 50s should be allowed the odd extra loss in their prime due to their ridiculous activity levels but Williams, Burley and also Moore during the 1940s were losing more than the odd fight when they were supposed to be in their prime.

John H. Stracey was the fighter Palomino defeated. Both very good fighters. Fighting little or nobody of great note does not neecssarily tell you a figher is not very good, it might only tell you that they fought little or nobody of note.

Moore lost 6 fights in those 3 calendar years of 1943, 44, 45.

Was Steve Belloise a great fighter?

Stracey is a good win. Nothing mind blowing and not on the level of a Bivins or Booker etc. and certainly shouldn't have made Palomino a top welterweight at the time let alone #2



Was Harold Weston a good fighter?

[Holywarrior]

There's more than enough film to say Tony could fight his ass off. He was a kid competing with great Bantams and kept going. Easily in any top ten chatter

I find it very hard to sneak Canzoneri into a top 10.

[greeh]

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

What the ****? Are you seriously insinuating that they are on the same level?

Moore is spheres above those, especially Floyd and Manny.

Since you rate Burley so highly, I am curious to know where you would place Holman Williams.

Thats fine if you think that, but moore's resume isnt that far superior to theirs..

It’s ridiculously superior. For example, Pacquiao’s weight-climbing and victories over the overrated “Three Amigos” aren’t even close to being enough for placing him at the same kind of level as Moore.

Beating Harold Johnson four times is better than victories over fighters as Cuevas, Barrera, Castillo or Toney.

Moore’s resume simply takes a big, stinky dump on theirs. I don’t know how you could argue anything else.

Moore was basically a james toney caliber fighter that could give anyone trouble, but most of the time when matched vs another great fighter he lost..

Not to be rude, but that’s probably the worst comparison I’ve seen in quite some time.

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

No he is not, that’s bogus. I agree on Tunney and Hagler being rated somewhat close, but Moore is above them. CLEARLY. Just like Mickey Walker.

Yada yada yada…

The brainless shyte is trying to make another one of his ******ed statement. Good for him.

[Holywarrior]

What the ****? Are you seriously insinuating that they are on the same level?

Moore is spheres above those, especially Floyd and Manny.

Since you rate Burley so highly, I am curious to know where you would place Holman Williams.



It’s ridiculously superior. For example, Pacquiao’s weight-climbing and victories over the overrated “Three Amigos” aren’t even close to being enough for placing him at the same kind of level as Moore.

Beating Harold Johnson four times is better than victories over fighters as Cuevas, Barrera, Castillo or Toney.

Moore’s resume simply takes a big, stinky dump on theirs. I don’t know how you could argue anything else.




Not to be rude, but that’s probably the worst comparison I’ve seen in quite some time.



No he is not, that’s bogus. I agree on Tunney and Hagler being rated somewhat close, but Moore is above them. CLEARLY. Just like Mickey Walker.



The brainless shyte is trying to make another one of his ******ed statement. Good for him.

I doubt the no nothings in here even know who Kalule is. Shameful stuff in this thread.

[Humean]

Stracey is a good win. Nothing mind blowing and not on the level of a Bivins or Booker etc. and certainly shouldn't have made Palomino a top welterweight at the time let alone #2



Was Harold Weston a good fighter?

Who said it was 'mind blowing'? Palomino was a very good welterweight, simple as that. Not obvious to me that Stracey wasn't on the level of Booker or Bivins.

Weston was fairly good.

The reason I brought up Steve Belloise was because he was one of the top middleweights of the 1940s and like the murderers row fighters you are currently fetishizing he had more than his own fair share of quality wins. If it is so obvious to you that Holman Williams was a great fighter then why not Steve Belloise?