Can you call this fight?

[billeau2]

- -You accusing Archie of ducking the rematch?

Despite the humor there is an authentic sense of irony working through Moore and Burley. Given what happened during the fight, and given that Moore pretty much professed that he could not beat Burley, and called Burley the best fighter... Its hard to accuse him of ducking lol. I mean one would have to say "Darwin's laws" held sway, Moore knew he couldn't win and didn't need to be proven right.

This is a guy who had no problems fighting Marciano.

[billeau2]

Easy to get mixed up some times I know I do. Maybe its the Ezz Charles fights that were in your mind, he did fight him 3 times losing all three with last one ending in a KO.

The association with "Murderer's row, Marshall, washington, Burley and how they fought multiple times...I think of Moore as part of that group as well at times And of course Charles.

[john l]

The association with "Murderer's row, Marshall, washington, Burley and how they fought multiple times...I think of Moore as part of that group as well at times And of course Charles.

Yea they fit even though both did eventually get shots. Ezz was past his best and not at his best weight before he got a shot, and Moore was 176yrs old(ok 38) before he got his. So yea they fit in imo too.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Despite the humor there is an authentic sense of irony working through Moore and Burley. Given what happened during the fight, and given that Moore pretty much professed that he could not beat Burley, and called Burley the best fighter... Its hard to accuse him of ducking lol. I mean one would have to say "Darwin's laws" held sway, Moore knew he couldn't win and didn't need to be proven right.

This is a guy who had no problems fighting Marciano.

Fighters say a lot of things. Usually the point IS to obfuscate the truth.

I have no doubt - based on performances against shared opponents, but Moore having faced better iterations of those men - that Moore would have won a rematch.

As I have said many times. Burley gets lots of passes for losses due to the quality of the opposition. But when you look closer, you realize a lot of those men weren't at their peak.

It really could be that Burley "slept" on those men, but really did bring his A-game to fight Moore. Without footage, we'll never know. But it really looks like Moore's best years were still far ahead of him.

Complimenting Burley, also serves the purpose of throwing subtle shade at guys like Marciano. I have NO DOUBT that putting a guy like Burley into the ring w/ a prime Marciano would be tantamount to committing homicide.

Remember when Big George said he dodged Quarry... at least I can kinda believe that one.

[QueensburyRules]

- -George never said he dodged Quarry.

[billeau2]

Fighters say a lot of things. Usually the point IS to obfuscate the truth.

I have no doubt - based on performances against shared opponents, but Moore having faced better iterations of those men - that Moore would have won a rematch.

As I have said many times. Burley gets lots of passes for losses due to the quality of the opposition. But when you look closer, you realize a lot of those men weren't at their peak.

It really could be that Burley "slept" on those men, but really did bring his A-game to fight Moore. Without footage, we'll never know. But it really looks like Moore's best years were still far ahead of him.

Complimenting Burley, also serves the purpose of throwing subtle shade at guys like Marciano. I have NO DOUBT that putting a guy like Burley into the ring w/ a prime Marciano would be tantamount to committing homicide.

Remember when Big George said he dodged Quarry... at least I can kinda believe that one.

I don't think Moore said what he did for gain...what gain would that be? By all accounts Moore was beaten up, and outclassed. He said it and trainers said it. Its going a little past the needle to claim Burley was able to get to every opponent at an opportune time...The law of averages is such that perhaps every fighter had breaks and obstacles on the way to their destiny.

I tend to be very skeptical that there are fighters that gained a real advantage that way...sure they exist, but for every four leaf clover, how many 3 leafs do we find in the grass. Example: People love to dismiss Ward's win over Dawson. Virtually none of the people who do so have watched the break down of that fight. Ward was brilliant, it was not haphenstanz. He set up a trap for his left hook its all there if people watch... yet the reason Ward won this fight is because Dawson was "drained" Andre got to Dawson in a weight switch, etc etc.

I don't know how complimenting Burley throws shade at Marciano. Moore had the size and tools to be a fighter who fought up at times, Burley was a fighter who kept to a set weight...I understand that to you this characteristic of fighting up makes a fighter better, but that is not necessarily so. It might be so.... It might apply in some cases and not others... My own preference is to take this quality and look at it on a case by case basis.

Finally Rusty... You start the post by saying that fighers say things that obfuscate perhaps deliberately, then conclude by giving Foreman a pass? Your suggesting that your criteria is what you believe. Moore was a trainer for Foreman for a while, and for Ali...he was one of the more knowlegable guys around, and had a big ego. What would be a motivation for him to talk up Charley? And this is a man (Moore) who fought a lot, and fought lots of rematches... Why not offer Burley a rematch?

[Rusty Tromboni]

I don't think Moore said what he did for gain...what gain would that be? By all accounts Moore was beaten up, and outclassed. He said it and trainers said it. Its going a little past the needle to claim Burley was able to get to every opponent at an opportune time...The law of averages is such that perhaps every fighter had breaks and obstacles on the way to their destiny.

I tend to be very skeptical that there are fighters that gained a real advantage that way...sure they exist, but for every four leaf clover, how many 3 leafs do we find in the grass. Example: People love to dismiss Ward's win over Dawson. Virtually none of the people who do so have watched the break down of that fight. Ward was brilliant, it was not haphenstanz. He set up a trap for his left hook its all there if people watch... yet the reason Ward won this fight is because Dawson was "drained" Andre got to Dawson in a weight switch, etc etc.

I don't know how complimenting Burley throws shade at Marciano. Moore had the size and tools to be a fighter who fought up at times, Burley was a fighter who kept to a set weight...I understand that to you this characteristic of fighting up makes a fighter better, but that is not necessarily so. It might be so.... It might apply in some cases and not others... My own preference is to take this quality and look at it on a case by case basis.

Finally Rusty... You start the post by saying that fighers say things that obfuscate perhaps deliberately, then conclude by giving Foreman a pass? Your suggesting that your criteria is what you believe. Moore was a trainer for Foreman for a while, and for Ali...he was one of the more knowlegable guys around, and had a big ego. What would be a motivation for him to talk up Charley? And this is a man (Moore) who fought a lot, and fought lots of rematches... Why not offer Burley a rematch?

Lots of good stuff, as always. I agree. Actually, I forgot. People complained about the Ward-Dawson fight because Boxing and Football are things everyone watches, but very few understand. They oversimplify it.

And no, I wasn't giving Foreman as pass. I was saying Moore's praised of Burley sounds a lot like Foreman's claim that he avoided Quarry. I am skeptical. But I guess less skeptical of Foreman because watching his fights w/ Lyle, Peralta, Young and Ali, I feel Quarry might fall in line with those men.

Seriously, look at Moore's Middleweight career. He was pretty good. Probably about as good as anyone Robinson fought, not named LaMotta. But he definitely wasn't great. Once he was a full-fledged Light Heavyweight he really was something special. There was no point holding a rematch - assuming Burley wasn't yet retired.

It's a lot like when we discussed Conn: sure, when Billy was a Welterweight, he probably would have lost to Burley. But they guy who gave Louis his stiffest test, the guy who was battering Heavyweights in lead up to that fight, that guy we can all agree was too good for Burley.

seriously, I'd love to know: why do you think he lost to Bivins, Charles and Marshall? They were very green, and still Middleweights (or there abouts).

It makes PERFECT SENSE that Moore would celebrate an unsung legend of his past. Remember when De La Hoya said Quartey didn't really work hard enough to earn a rematch?
It's a very psychological game.

[billeau2]

Lots of good stuff, as always. I agree. Actually, I forgot. People complained about the Ward-Dawson fight because Boxing and Football are things everyone watches, but very few understand. They oversimplify it.

And no, I wasn't giving Foreman as pass. I was saying Moore's praised of Burley sounds a lot like Foreman's claim that he avoided Quarry. I am skeptical. But I guess less skeptical of Foreman because watching his fights w/ Lyle, Peralta, Young and Ali, I feel Quarry might fall in line with those men.

Seriously, look at Moore's Middleweight career. He was pretty good. Probably about as good as anyone Robinson fought, not named LaMotta. But he definitely wasn't great. Once he was a full-fledged Light Heavyweight he really was something special. There was no point holding a rematch - assuming Burley wasn't yet retired.

It's a lot like when we discussed Conn: sure, when Billy was a Welterweight, he probably would have lost to Burley. But they guy who gave Louis his stiffest test, the guy who was battering Heavyweights in lead up to that fight, that guy we can all agree was too good for Burley.

seriously, I'd love to know: why do you think he lost to Bivins, Charles and Marshall? They were very green, and still Middleweights (or there abouts).

It makes PERFECT SENSE that Moore would celebrate an unsung legend of his past. Remember when De La Hoya said Quartey didn't really work hard enough to earn a rematch?
It's a very psychological game.

I think Moore is a type of fighter who did fit that mold you refer to, as a guy who's greatness was not in any particular division. It gets challenging when we talk about...Oh lets use Tunney. Was he such a great light heavy that we miss the point if we talk of him as a great heavy weight? Certainly we can say he was greater for his heavyweight fights, but Tunney could rightly be said to be a great heavyweight.

If Tunney is between two extremes, namely Moore, the rolling stone, ready to fight up to heavyweight at the drop of a hat, down to middle...then we have a guy like Slapsie Maxie, Rosenbloom, a guy who was a light heavy through and through. Maxie may have fought a few fights at another weight, but not many, if any...

Three great fighters, all with different comparative qualities. One guy with the skill to stay in one division and win so many times, against other strong fighters, another with incredible wins going up in weight, and the last, with no real division to call his own.

So when we look at how this plays in with Burley, and comparing Burley, we have to keep categories straight. With respect to Moore, I don't know what was at stake for a rematch. I only know what Moore said and that Charley would not, by all indications, have moved his weight class to fight moore again. So who knows? With Conn? Apples and oranges. The fact that Conn as a light heavy would be a stronger opponent for Burley only would matter if Charlie would fight at that weight, and he didn't. At least I don't recall him doing so. Conn did have a similar regional education as Charlie lol.

Regarding Charlie's loses I think the reasons given are good ones: These guys fought a lot of times. You really gain an advantage when you fight an opponent a lot. Especially at a short time span.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think Moore is a type of fighter who did fit that mold you refer to, as a guy who's greatness was not in any particular division. It gets challenging when we talk about...Oh lets use Tunney. Was he such a great light heavy that we miss the point if we talk of him as a great heavy weight? Certainly we can say he was greater for his heavyweight fights, but Tunney could rightly be said to be a great heavyweight.

If Tunney is between two extremes, namely Moore, the rolling stone, ready to fight up to heavyweight at the drop of a hat, down to middle...then we have a guy like Slapsie Maxie, Rosenbloom, a guy who was a light heavy through and through. Maxie may have fought a few fights at another weight, but not many, if any...

Three great fighters, all with different comparative qualities. One guy with the skill to stay in one division and win so many times, against other strong fighters, another with incredible wins going up in weight, and the last, with no real division to call his own.

So when we look at how this plays in with Burley, and comparing Burley, we have to keep categories straight. With respect to Moore, I don't know what was at stake for a rematch. I only know what Moore said and that Charley would not, by all indications, have moved his weight class to fight moore again. So who knows? With Conn? Apples and oranges. The fact that Conn as a light heavy would be a stronger opponent for Burley only would matter if Charlie would fight at that weight, and he didn't. At least I don't recall him doing so. Conn did have a similar regional education as Charlie lol.

Regarding Charlie's loses I think the reasons given are good ones: These guys fought a lot of times. You really gain an advantage when you fight an opponent a lot. Especially at a short time span.

That's a nice post, but the simple fact remains that Moore wasn't at his peak. I really do think his greatness is limited (if that's a fair word to use, considering his tenure) LightHeavyweight. His Middleweight and Heavyweight experiences weren't as special. Someone might point out plenty of good nights, but he's certainly not among the best those divisions had ever seen.

Rosenbloom was a fantastic fighter. If we had footage of him it would probably prove him as good or better than anyone in The Black Murderers' Row. He, like Moore, had more Heavyweight fights than Tunney, but like Moore, could never claim to be the best Heavyweight in the world. Now... if he fought in Moore's era, when the Heavyweight division was so weak, who knows what he might have done.

[billeau2]

That's a nice post, but the simple fact remains that Moore wasn't at his peak. I really do think his greatness is limited (if that's a fair word to use, considering his tenure) LightHeavyweight. His Middleweight and Heavyweight experiences weren't as special. Someone might point out plenty of good nights, but he's certainly not among the best those divisions had ever seen.

Rosenbloom was a fantastic fighter. If we had footage of him it would probably prove him as good or better than anyone in The Black Murderers' Row. He, like Moore, had more Heavyweight fights than Tunney, but like Moore, could never claim to be the best Heavyweight in the world. Now... if he fought in Moore's era, when the Heavyweight division was so weak, who knows what he might have done.

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.