Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[Humean]

Which wins though? Don't just give me a blanket statement here.

I'm not going to put them in order with Williams best wins right now as i'd need to think about it a bit but the following wins probably at least matches with the level of quality of the wins of Williams that you previously listed: Seales x 2, Monroe x 2, Hart, Colbert, Finnegan x 2, Briscoe, Watts, Hamani, Minter, Antuofermo, Obelmeijas x 2, Hamsho x 2, Sibson, Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, Scypion, Roldan.

On top of that Hagler did not have all the defeats that Williams received.

Again you haven't answered my question. I've answered yours.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

I don't see how that's boarderline.

Johnson has both the better resume and looks alot more impressive on tape.

[Humean]

I don't see how that's boarderline.

Johnson has both the better resume and looks alot more impressive on tape.

Both had impressive careers and both looked great on film to me. I'm not sure which fighter I think was greater, I don't think there is much between them.

[IronDanHamza]

Both had impressive careers and both looked great on film to me. I'm not sure which fighter I think was greater, I don't think there is much between them.

Well yeah there's no doubt Cervantes had an impressive career but I can't see how he had a better one than Johnson.

Better title Reign obviously but the actual quality of wins heavily favours Johnson IMO. I mean I guess this conversation won't go any where because you don't really rate the fighters of that time.

But for my money Johnson has two wins over two of the greatest fighters ever in Charles and Moore whilst both were still extremely good.

[Scott9945]

Well yeah there's no doubt Cervantes had an impressive career but I can't see how he had a better one than Johnson.

Better title Reign obviously but the actual quality of wins heavily favours Johnson IMO. I mean I guess this conversation won't go any where because you don't really rate the fighters of that time.

But for my money Johnson has two wins over two of the greatest fighters ever in Charles and Moore whilst both were still extremely good.

I don't think Cervantes is even on the same page as Harold Johnson. A bit overrated, imo.

[IronDanHamza]

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

They aren't very close though. Moore's resume is much better.

Using H2H shouldn't be a "tiebreaker" anyway.

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.

Moore wasn't in his prime for a lot of his loss's.

Fact is, Duran lost to the best fighters he faced.

But what does it really mean? Doesn't really mean anything because look at the people that he beat.

Moore lost a lot of fights, he fought a lot of good fighters and had a lot of fights so it's bound to happen.

But what he did do is beat a lot of fighters ranging from good, to very good, to GREAT.

[Humean]

Well yeah there's no doubt Cervantes had an impressive career but I can't see how he had a better one than Johnson.

Better title Reign obviously but the actual quality of wins heavily favours Johnson IMO. I mean I guess this conversation won't go any where because you don't really rate the fighters of that time.

But for my money Johnson has two wins over two of the greatest fighters ever in Charles and Moore whilst both were still extremely good.

I don't think they (40s and 50s fighters) were as good as many say and I think it was probably the worst era for corruption and that boxing was quite provincial then but I certainly think Harold Johnson was a tremendous fighter.

Johnson did defeat Moore he also only won one out of five contests with Moore. Certainly not a great criticism of Johnson considering how good Moore was but you are probably right that the Moore win is the best win amongst the two fighters careers. I think the Charles win is a little more debatable, 1953 Charles certainly not as impressive as late 40s Charles. DeJesus win was impressive and Locche.

[Holywarrior]

I'm not going to put them in order with Williams best wins right now as i'd need to think about it a bit but the following wins probably at least matches with the level of quality of the wins of Williams that you previously listed: Seales x 2, Monroe x 2, Hart, Colbert, Finnegan x 2, Briscoe, Watts, Hamani, Minter, Antuofermo, Obelmeijas x 2, Hamsho x 2, Sibson, Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, Scypion, Roldan.


Again you haven't answered my question. I've answered yours.

Stay off of boxrec.

[Humean]

Stay off of boxrec.

No, it is a great resource. Besides I have seen Hagler's fights with most of those fighters. How many full fights have you seen of all the fighters from the murderers row? Not many is the answer. Should I tell you to stay off the articles and books written about them?

[greeh]

I'm not going to put them in order with Williams best wins right now as i'd need to think about it a bit but the following wins probably at least matches with the level of quality of the wins of Williams that you previously listed: Seales x 2, Monroe x 2, Hart, Colbert, Finnegan x 2, Briscoe, Watts, Hamani, Minter, Antuofermo, Obelmeijas x 2, Hamsho x 2, Sibson, Duran, Hearns, Mugabi, Scypion, Roldan.

**** off!

Are you really so deluded that you think the names above not just stacks up, but is at least as good as the names on Holman’s resume?

Hearns wasn’t as good as he was at 147 and 154, and Duran was a pudgy past-prime version.

The rest of the names are just laughable. Do you really believe in what you wrote? They are undoubtedly good fighters, but on the level of Marshall, Booker, Moore or Burley?

Hell no!

On top of that Hagler did not have all the defeats that Williams received.

Hagler didn’t have close to 190 fights either. He had three times as many fights as Hagler for god’s sake. If you fight top opposition with Holman’s frequency you are going to end up with some losses whether you like it or not.