Can you call this fight?

[QueensburyRules]

- -Most of Archie's last 10 yrs were as a ranked hvy.

With great pain he'd boil down to LH to defend his title now and again, but hvy was where the $$$ was and that's why Rocky fought him.

[billeau2]

- -Most of Archie's last 10 yrs were as a ranked hvy.

With great pain he'd boil down to LH to defend his title now and again, but hvy was where the $$$ was and that's why Rocky fought him.

Yeah he did...I don't know how many years, would take your word for it...And yeah that is where the money is and a lot of light heavies would fight up. I just don't think Moore was very effective, at his best fighting heavyweight. its hard to talk about a prime with Moore, like with Rosenbloom being how many fights these guys had. Archie also did have power, but even with that, and even if he could fight heavy, I don't think it was his best work.

[QueensburyRules]

- -When you consider the low backwater Archie was birthed in and his early struggles in boxing, to arrive in his granddad years as THE LH CHAMP while demolishing the era heavies while becoming a spokesman and guru of record setting caliber makes him into a tiny fractional part of humanity endowed with near every admirable trait known to man.

Archie represents that rare, tiny, fractional % that can scarcely be measured much less understood in context.

[Rusty Tromboni]

that depends on how we look at Moore. He was a workhorse. He also developed certain angles and guard positions that we see later in fighters like Foreman. Watch Moore when he inverts the arms like foreman learned from him to do. he also had more KO's than anyone else, no small accomplishment...I know there are caveats to these KO's as well. James Toney studied Archie Moore to develop his own style of fighting...

Moore wasn't really a heavyweight. But he was able to fight very well in the other divisions and to do so consistently. Again, he was a guy who cannot be said to rule the roost in a division. But he influenced a lot of method in boxing. I agree that on a physical level his gifts were not on the level of a guy like Ezzard Charles. But his durability and consistency was amazing.

I don't know if RosenBloom fought more at heavy than Tunney...He did outpoint Lou Nova...But I do know that neither man fought a lot at heavyweight. RosenBloom was fantastic I think of him as one of the finest light heavies. reminds me of Joe Choyinsky both ethnically and with the excellent technical ability and knowledge of the craft. By all accounts a great guy as well.

What I am trying to say is that they were at very different points in their respective careers. Burley (the guy that Armstrong and Zale wanted no part of) was at his peak, while Moore was not. Moore was a solid Middleweight it seems, but his best days were years away.

Without footage we can't say for sure, but I highly doubt Burley fought someone who shared much semblance to the man that trounced Johnson.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -Most of Archie's last 10 yrs were as a ranked hvy.

With great pain he'd boil down to LH to defend his title now and again, but hvy was where the $$$ was and that's why Rocky fought him.

yeah, when you consult BoxRec and you see them in the ring together, you realize Moore WAS the bigger man, and more experience Heavyweight.

- -When you consider the low backwater Archie was birthed in and his early struggles in boxing, to arrive in his granddad years as THE LH CHAMP while demolishing the era heavies while becoming a spokesman and guru of record setting caliber makes him into a tiny fractional part of humanity endowed with near every admirable trait known to man.

Archie represents that rare, tiny, fractional % that can scarcely be measured much less understood in context.

I really like Moore the man. I do think his success was a product of his determination, but also came from experience. That experience was borne of his short-comings.

He wasn't a natural talent; a prodigy like conn, Loughran, Greb. So he gets a lot of appreciation for his long career and high KO rate, but it seems people forget to consider why that is.

When he asked Billy Conn why they hadn't fought during Conn's career, Conn said "you weren;t good enough" Definitely true.

Yeah he did...I don't know how many years, would take your word for it...And yeah that is where the money is and a lot of light heavies would fight up. I just don't think Moore was very effective, at his best fighting heavyweight. its hard to talk about a prime with Moore, like with Rosenbloom being how many fights these guys had. Archie also did have power, but even with that, and even if he could fight heavy, I don't think it was his best work.

Moore was at his best when he met the Rock. marciano was just that much better.

People wana believe that Charles and Moore lost because they were old and undersized, but ask them to provide the proof and they suddenly go silent.

[billeau2]

yeah, when you consult BoxRec and you see them in the ring together, you realize Moore WAS the bigger man, and more experience Heavyweight.



I really like Moore the man. I do think his success was a product of his determination, but also came from experience. That experience was borne of his short-comings.

He wasn't a natural talent; a prodigy like conn, Loughran, Greb. So he gets a lot of appreciation for his long career and high KO rate, but it seems people forget to consider why that is.

When he asked Billy Conn why they hadn't fought during Conn's career, Conn said "you weren;t good enough" Definitely true.



Moore was at his best when he met the Rock. marciano was just that much better.

People wana believe that Charles and Moore lost because they were old and undersized, but ask them to provide the proof and they suddenly go silent.

People believe many things...I happen to believe that Moore fought better at lighter weights, I dont think this has anything to do with Charles...Have not really thought about Charles. I do think that when we take the sum total of size, not simply weight, that Rocky marciano was a heavy weight. If he had extra weight on him he would have been at least 30 pounds heavier, we know this because of what he walked around at, and because of his training routines, particularly the way he ate.

I don't believe this about Moore, who like Toney (who studied moore) could go into a weak division and clean out a heavyweight list of sorts, but was not really at his best fighting as a heavy weight...I might elaborate later my dogs are bugging me!

[Rusty Tromboni]

People believe many things...I happen to believe that Moore fought better at lighter weights, I dont think this has anything to do with Charles...Have not really thought about Charles. I do think that when we take the sum total of size, not simply weight, that Rocky marciano was a heavy weight. If he had extra weight on him he would have been at least 30 pounds heavier, we know this because of what he walked around at, and because of his training routines, particularly the way he ate.

I don't believe this about Moore, who like Toney (who studied moore) could go into a weak division and clean out a heavyweight list of sorts, but was not really at his best fighting as a heavy weight...I might elaborate later my dogs are bugging me!

What impresses you about Moore's Middleweight career?

I don't disagree that Marciano was more robust. But he was making 182. And he was making it for a reason. More was far from paunchy.

What kinda dogs?

[billeau2]

What impresses you about Moore's Middleweight career?

I don't disagree that Marciano was more robust. But he was making 182. And he was making it for a reason. More was far from paunchy.

What kinda dogs?

I like Moore for his ability to create angles, his economy of movement and his technical chops...He created angles and used his shoulders very well. This made him an insanely good counter puncher among other things. So to answer the other part of the question lets look at a protege of Moores. If you really understand Moore you see him all over this guy...That would be James Toney.

Not only does Toney fight like Moore, but the same kind of trajectory is there, imo. Now with Toney? I believe that making yourself fat and beating some pretty good heavies does not mean minus the fat you wouldn't do likewise...Toney went right on up and beat Holy, and should have gotten the nod over others like Sam Peter. He could always fight well enough to show that size is a relative advantage. BUT, is that his best work?

Its close...I mean he went up and beat guys all up the scale, but what was his best work? Hard to say really all I know is that it was not at heavy. And that is how I feel about Moore. Archie was not a fighter that one said "at 110 this guy was unbeattttttable, but at 195 he was average" lol. No...Archie fought all over the place actually. But as a heavy he was going to get beat eventually by guys who were just able to be stronger, like Marciano. As a light heavy, some people put him on the short list.

Think about all he could do: Had power, counter puncher one of the best...and im not talking about this BS where the last guy firing on an exchange is called a counter puncher, like Danny Garcia...Im talking, as your punch extends and you can feel the hairs coming out before the shave, at the last minute, before the punch lands and your arm is extended, you are caught...thats a real counter punch.

Which is one reason why Jones got so much of a win over Toney: you simply cannot counter a guy at some speeds.

I would say Moore did his best work at light heavy. He fought a tough fight with Ezzard Charles, beat Bobo Olson, and Harold Johnson, a chronically underrated fighter, who he fought a lot, and he did beat Maxim.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Two Ton Toney a face first plodder/Pressure fighter. Seen him outboxed too many times.

Eating punches and KFC in equal measure is why he's punch drunk today. Top class bully act enhanced with a mug ugly enough to turn the Medusa to stone though.

Apart from occasional flashes at hvy, can anyone point me to him outboxing a prime legit contender/champ? Nobody has yet when I ask that Question.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I like Moore for his ability to create angles, his economy of movement and his technical chops...He created angles and used his shoulders very well. This made him an insanely good counter puncher among other things. So to answer the other part of the question lets look at a protege of Moores. If you really understand Moore you see him all over this guy...That would be James Toney.

Not only does Toney fight like Moore, but the same kind of trajectory is there, imo. Now with Toney? I believe that making yourself fat and beating some pretty good heavies does not mean minus the fat you wouldn't do likewise...Toney went right on up and beat Holy, and should have gotten the nod over others like Sam Peter. He could always fight well enough to show that size is a relative advantage. BUT, is that his best work?

Its close...I mean he went up and beat guys all up the scale, but what was his best work? Hard to say really all I know is that it was not at heavy. And that is how I feel about Moore. Archie was not a fighter that one said "at 110 this guy was unbeattttttable, but at 195 he was average" lol. No...Archie fought all over the place actually. But as a heavy he was going to get beat eventually by guys who were just able to be stronger, like Marciano. As a light heavy, some people put him on the short list.

Think about all he could do: Had power, counter puncher one of the best...and im not talking about this BS where the last guy firing on an exchange is called a counter puncher, like Danny Garcia...Im talking, as your punch extends and you can feel the hairs coming out before the shave, at the last minute, before the punch lands and your arm is extended, you are caught...thats a real counter punch.

Which is one reason why Jones got so much of a win over Toney: you simply cannot counter a guy at some speeds.

I would say Moore did his best work at light heavy. He fought a tough fight with Ezzard Charles, beat Bobo Olson, and Harold Johnson, a chronically underrated fighter, who he fought a lot, and he did beat Maxim.

But that's not what I asked.

No offense meant, but you proved my point by omission.

We know Archie was a top-ranked Middleweight, just not the best. We really don't know much else. It's a pretty nebulous era. How much footage do we have on film? Certainly none of Moore. We can be more confident about the preceding and subsequent eras.

Concerning his Heavyweight career, let me clarify, I don't want to say it matched his Light Heavyweight achievements. But Queenie's right, many of his best fights - even you brought up his thorough and complete trouncing of Johnson - came when Moore was a really a Heavyweight who boiled down to 175.

He was getting better as he went on. He was picked as a 9-5 favorite heading into the Patterson fight. His best win against Johnson was his last. Same w/ Bivins.

Even when he was a legitimate Light Heavyweight, he was facing Heavyweights. When Marciano was still in High School, Moore had beaten Sheppard - someone w/ the size and punch to rival Marciano. So I would certainly say he was very experienced and prepared when he met Marciano. Marciano was just better.

Again, if you really look at the record. You will see Moore was a work in progress. All the great things about him happened as his career advanced. It's very unlikely that the guy Burley beat would have beaten Johnson, nearly stopped Charles, or decked Marciano. Hell, does anyone really think Eddie Booker could carry Corbett's jockstrap? Was Marshall any where near the puncher Hostak was?



Getting back to Burley: Conn said that Apostoli would have beaten him. Comparing him boring into the aptly named Freddie Steele is a whole lot more impressive than watching Burley hang back while Smith starts Wa'llin' Out. I am not saying Cerdan fought like Apostoli, but if Conn felt that a pressure fighter was the right man to beat Burley, it's not a leap to believe Cerdan would also fit the bill.

For what it's worth, Conn said