Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[greeh]

I suppose it helps you to think all this. Why then do my posts upset you so much If i'm clearly of such low intelligence and have such little knowledge?

Why? Because you can’t shut the **** up when you are clearly off the rails. It’s kind of sad really.

Do what Poet did when he could neither handle differing opinions nor take what he himself routinely dishes out and block me.

It’s a clear difference between differing opinions and utter garbage. Yours are the latter.

Poet actually knows what the **** he talks about, unlike you.

Instead what you do is say that everything I say is nonsense, call me a '******' or a 'mong', and say that i'm the only person that doesn't deserve an opinion.

Well, that’s because it’s true. I wouldn’t have said it otherwise.

In some weird way my arguments threaten you.

If you feel better by believing that, be my guest.

[Humean]

**** 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!



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.

Yes I do believe that, the versions of the fighters William's defeated in the ring (plus taking into account the circumstances surrounding the fights) at least match up with the fighters I listed on Hagler's record.

I specifically said in earlier post that you can overlook the odd defeat considered the sheer volume of activity but he lost fights to many of the same fighters he defeated. Therefore what you are doing is giving him credit for every good win and overlooking every loss, i'm not saying every loss even deserves to be a discredit to a fighter but it does tell you a story. The story it tells is that Williams was pretty evenly matched with a few of the other top welterweight and middleweight contenders of his day. I don't think it tells the story that he was greater than Marvin Hagler, not even close.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

It wasn't prime Charles by any means but it was definitely a very good version of him.

Very good wins for Cervantes no doubt but do they compare to Johnson's two? I don't think so.

Johnson has a lot more depth I would say aswell. A lot more quality wins.

[Holywarrior]

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?

stop acting like a boxing fan who knows something please.

[Humean]

Why? Because you can’t shut the **** up when you are clearly off the rails. It’s kind of sad really.

Do I have to explain the concept of an internet forum to you? Yes i'm 'off the rails' saying crazy things such as boxing is not the only sport not to have progressed in the past 50-100 years, that Holman Williams isn't a greater fighter than Marvin Hagler, that Edwin Valero punched ridiculously hard, that heavyweights have increased in size and weight, what sheer unadulterated madness!

It’s a clear difference between differing opinions and utter garbage. Yours are the latter.

OK ignore me then

Poet actually knows what the **** he talks about, unlike you.

He knows how to troll threads, thinks that half a second in the 100 metres sprint is no time at all and has an irrational hatred of the Klitschko brothers. I'm sure he does know some things.

Well, that’s because it’s true. I wouldn’t have said it otherwise.

It is true that i'm the only person that doesn't deserve an opinion? Are all your views so authoritarian?

[Humean]

It wasn't prime Charles by any means but it was definitely a very good version of him.

Very good wins for Cervantes no doubt but do they compare to Johnson's two? I don't think so.

Johnson has a lot more depth I would say aswell. A lot more quality wins.

I think the dominant win against DeJesus in 1975 over the championship distance is probably is better than Johnson's closer win over Charles over 10 rounds. The manner of victory and the circumstances of it make me think that the DeJesus win ranks higher. Perhaps it even ranks higher than the Moore in light of that although i'm not as sure about that. With the Locche win I suppose you could always argue that Locche was at about the end of his powers and Locche had defeated Cervantes comprehensively in the previous outing but undoubtedly Cervantes had also improved. I'm not sure if he had much more depth than Cervantes. he certainly beat more recognizable names on the American boxing scene but i'm not sure if it was more impressive than Cervantes's many title defences.

[IronDanHamza]

I think the dominant win against DeJesus in 1975 over the championship distance is probably is better than Johnson's closer win over Charles over 10 rounds. The manner of victory and the circumstances of it make me think that the DeJesus win ranks higher. Perhaps it even ranks higher than the Moore in light of that although i'm not as sure about that. With the Locche win I suppose you could always argue that Locche was at about the end of his powers and Locche had defeated Cervantes comprehensively in the previous outing but undoubtedly Cervantes had also improved. I'm not sure if he had much more depth than Cervantes. he certainly beat more recognizable names on the American boxing scene but i'm not sure if it was more impressive than Cervantes's many title defences.

Well I thought his win over Charles was pretty one sided and dominant.

There's just no way DeJesus ranks higher than Moore. I can concede the idea of Charles despite disagreeing but no way in Moores case.

I can't see how he doesn't. Yeah Cervantes had more title defenses but how many were impressive?

Johnson has impressive wins including at HW in which he was a much smaller man.

[Humean]

Well I thought his win over Charles was pretty one sided and dominant.

There's just no way DeJesus ranks higher than Moore. I can concede the idea of Charles despite disagreeing but no way in Moores case.

I can't see how he doesn't. Yeah Cervantes had more title defenses but how many were impressive?

Johnson has impressive wins including at HW in which he was a much smaller man.

I don't think it was as dominant as Cervantes win over DeJesus but my memory might not be entirely accurate on that. Surely you'd concede that it is more impressive to win over the championship distance with the title on the line? That is why I think that the DeJesus win could even be superior to the Moore win considering that DeJesus was a hell of a fighter in his prime. DeJesus perhaps had the misfortune to have fought at lightweight when Duran was around and he was after all the only man to defeat Duran during the 70s.

Were Johnson's other wins any more impressive that Cervantes's title defences? You mentioned his heavyweight fights but were any of the bigger heavyweights that he defeated especially good? I suppose the names were Godoy, Valdes, Henry, and Machen. I'll have a closer look tomorrow at both careers but my feeling is still that it is close between the two.

[StarshipTrooper]

Do me a favour greeh, you have had a hard day colouring in pictures of farm animals at nursery (kindergarden), it is past your bed time, you're tired and grumpy, just go to sleep and maybe tomorrow you will not feel the need to call people '******s' and 'mongs'.

Do me a favor: Go get a personality transplant so that you're no longer a pin-headed pseudo-intellectual douchebag 'tard. Then get back us.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't think it was as dominant as Cervantes win over DeJesus but my memory might not be entirely accurate on that. Surely you'd concede that it is more impressive to win over the championship distance with the title on the line? That is why I think that the DeJesus win could even be superior to the Moore win considering that DeJesus was a hell of a fighter in his prime. DeJesus perhaps had the misfortune to have fought at lightweight when Duran was around and he was after all the only man to defeat Duran during the 70s.

Were Johnson's other wins any more impressive that Cervantes's title defences? You mentioned his heavyweight fights but were any of the bigger heavyweights that he defeated especially good? I suppose the names were Godoy, Valdes, Henry, and Machen. I'll have a closer look tomorrow at both careers but my feeling is still that it is close between the two.

It wasn't as dominant but despite the unjust Split Decision, it was a one sided fight.

I don't think the Title being on the line makes any difference in regards to a win being more impressive than another other than the distance.

DeJesus was a good fighter but I don't think he was a great fighter. Certainly no where near the calibur of Archie Moore.

I don't think DeJesus is much better than Bivins, Bert Lytell or Willie Pastrano. I will agree that he is likely better than those three but I don't think the margin is much of a gap.

Well which title defences do you consider impressive? I don't consider very many of those defences as all too impressive wins.

I don't see one that I would consider better than a win over those three guys I just mentioned.

Let alone the likes of Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles.

Henry Hall, Marty Marshall, Doug Jones, Henry Hank, Gustov Scholz, Bob Satterfield, Eddie Jones and a handful of others I think are just as good as any of those title defences outside of of Locche and DeJesus, if not better.

As for his HW spell, of course nothing to write home about but considering he was a very small HW, he managed to beat Valdez and Machen, two of Sonny Liston's most impressive wins before Sonny Liston himself did. I think Valdez and Machen were certainly good fighters especially Machen. In all honesty I think Machen is another one that's just as good if not better than any title defence Cervantes had outside of Locche and DeJesus. He has a handful of others decent wins there but nothing overly impressive. Still, decent for a guy who really was never a HW.

To me, his resume is better quite clearly. I mean like I said Moore and Charles for my money are better than the two best wins Cervantes has. Other than that Cervantes resume is pretty thin. Johnson's isn't. Or atleast not as much.