Can you call this fight?

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -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.

LOL, yeah, he gets made into a Locche of sorts. He really wasn't. A very good Boxer, but not the maestro he is made out to be. His brain is mush. He drools and rambles like a ******. No one knows what he is saying. How can he have been a great Boxer if that's what we're left with?

I disagree w/ Billeau it is HUGE mark against him that he could get out-sped. Quicker fighters had his number. That was Jones and MCallum's best performances.

Moore was similar to Toney, in that sense, theoretically: if you were quicker or stronger you would win. No level of cunning or widow-maker punching could undo that. But Moore at 80 was sharper than any High School student i had. Very bright, very witty, very clever. Clearly some one who very rarely got caught clean.

[billeau2]

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

I gave you a list of guys he beat at Light heavy yes? I told you what skills he had to do so yes? I also agreed he fought around... I don't know what more your asking for. You have a notion that he improved and we saw his best work at Heavy...ok, I don't think so. I even gave you a bonus I compared Archie to a guy who fashioned himself after Moore...One of my favorite fighters, James Toney. Like Moore Toney had sensational fights at heavy... Just don't think it is his best work. I gave you what I could Rusty!

Ok let me bring this to bare: You take certain great fighters. Jones, Tunney, Archie, im going to put James Toney also, And these fighters are good enough to fight at heavy, and win at heavy. I think this is a real mark for your criteria, it is not always to me. Jones avoiding Ruiz to me was not great...Toney fighting Sam Peter and Rahman, was not near the effort that we saw in the fight where he hung on to beat michael Nunn. Archie fighting guys like Marshall, Burley and Charles was imo more impressive than almost out foxing Marciano.

I don't think that overcoming size is always the obstacle that you seem to think it is. Sometimes I think it is, sometimes not so much. Im going to complicate things even more lol. If Patterson had been able to deal with Liston it would have been a lot more impressive to me because of the size difference because they are both heavyweights. It just so happens to me to be a time when overcoming size and strength would have been remarkable.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I gave you a list of guys he beat at Light heavy yes? I told you what skills he had to do so yes? I also agreed he fought around... I don't know what more your asking for. You have a notion that he improved and we saw his best work at Heavy...ok, I don't think so. I even gave you a bonus I compared Archie to a guy who fashioned himself after Moore...One of my favorite fighters, James Toney. Like Moore Toney had sensational fights at heavy... Just don't think it is his best work. I gave you what I could Rusty!

Ok let me bring this to bare: You take certain great fighters. Jones, Tunney, Archie, im going to put James Toney also, And these fighters are good enough to fight at heavy, and win at heavy. I think this is a real mark for your criteria, it is not always to me. Jones avoiding Ruiz to me was not great...Toney fighting Sam Peter and Rahman, was not near the effort that we saw in the fight where he hung on to beat michael Nunn. Archie fighting guys like Marshall, Burley and Charles was imo more impressive than almost out foxing Marciano.

I don't think that overcoming size is always the obstacle that you seem to think it is. Sometimes I think it is.

Archie's best weight was (north of) 175 and decades after he met Burley. That's all that really needs to be said.

Burley beating Moore in the early 40's doesn't mean much when discussing how he'd fair against Cerdan.

[billeau2]

Archie's best weight was (north of) 175 and decades after he met Burley. That's all that really needs to be said.

Burley beating Moore in the early 40's doesn't mean much when discussing how he'd fair against Cerdan.

agree to disagree on this one...But im not saying anything regarding Cerdan, thats someone elses point of view.

[Rusty Tromboni]

agree to disagree on this one...But im not saying anything regarding Cerdan, thats someone elses point of view.

if you disagree, i'd like to know what about Moore's Middleweight career you're so impressed with.

that was my original question.

I am sure Yarosz, Booker and Marshall were all very good opponents, but I think we see Moore's ceiling at that weight.

[OctoberRed]

I am sure Yarosz, Booker and Marshall were all very good opponents, but I think we see Moore's ceiling at that weight.

Agreed.

[billeau2]

if you disagree, i'd like to know what about Moore's Middleweight career you're so impressed with.

that was my original question.

I am sure Yarosz, Booker and Marshall were all very good opponents, but I think we see Moore's ceiling at that weight.

I already posted the opponents in the last post Rusty. i am impressed with fighting Charles, Olson, Washington and Marshall among others. I think that competition while not all ATG is thick and consistently excellent. A lot of those fighters were underrated. I think it is better comp than whom he fought at heavyweight, more consistently very good, to excellent.

Also: Yu claim he was green when he fought Burley...He had more than sixty fights! Bivens, Littell, Williams, Satterfield! A great fighter, ATG...Lytell, an excellent fighter, JOHNSON one of the murderers row!, Maxim at light heavy because I believe most of these fights noted were at Middle with some at light heavy...so now at light heavy we have Olson, and lets keep in mind after losing to Marciano and Patterson, fighting otherwise unknown heavies up to this point ARCHIE STILL fought quality guys at light heavy! Guys like Durelle who he won a belt from, and Rinaldi.

He nevet fought anyone aside from Marciano and Patterson, and that was past his best, at heavy Rusty!

So now i showed you a corpus of excellent to elite, to chronically underrated fighters that he fought, many whom he beat. I showed you that when he fought Burley he was already 60 fights in to his career... Maybe not at his best, I don't think you or I could make that judgement frankly...And that he hardly fought any one of note at heavyweight!!

What more can I give you? The waylde? (as they say in Jersey?) This stuff is all on line. People talk about guys like Burley Marshall and Washington. They were excellent fighters who were chronically underrated and often avoided.

With all this said; if you have an opinion that he was best at heavyweight? Bless you...it is an opinion after all. I also think QueenB's contention was that moore fought a good deal as a heavy weight, I do not know if he cosigns the idea that this was Archie's best work...you could ask him.

[billeau2]

if you disagree, i'd like to know what about Moore's Middleweight career you're so impressed with.

that was my original question.

I am sure Yarosz, Booker and Marshall were all very good opponents, but I think we see Moore's ceiling at that weight.

One thing:

I never made an absolute distinction between Middle and Light Heavy. I certainly think an argument could be made that either of these categories were Archies' best...just not heavyweight. I didn't make an absolute distinction because as I said Archie was a guy who fought up and down, we have to judge his work accordingly.

[billeau2]

LOL, yeah, he gets made into a Locche of sorts. He really wasn't. A very good Boxer, but not the maestro he is made out to be. His brain is mush. He drools and rambles like a ******. No one knows what he is saying. How can he have been a great Boxer if that's what we're left with?

I disagree w/ Billeau it is HUGE mark against him that he could get out-sped. Quicker fighters had his number. That was Jones and MCallum's best performances.

Moore was similar to Toney, in that sense, theoretically: if you were quicker or stronger you would win. No level of cunning or widow-maker punching could undo that. But Moore at 80 was sharper than any High School student i had. Very bright, very witty, very clever. Clearly some one who very rarely got caught clean.

Toney was first and foremost a counter puncher, whatever one thinks of him. Perhaps another discussion for another time, suprised Iron Dan has not chimed in already as he hates Toney.

Counter punchers, true counter punchers and I believe there is a difference...All live and die by the discretion to know when they can be effective. And it is a very real knock that a guy who is fast enough and unorthodox enough is a nightmare for a counter puncher. I offer no defense that would contradict the accusation that Toney, as a counter puncher, would always be vulnerable to speed particularly and unorthodox tactics.

Most people, even in boxing, do not even know what a real counter punch is unfortunately. HINT: Danny Garcia is not a counter puncher, he is a guy who often throws the last punch in a dust up.

So what is a counter punch? A counter puncher catches the guy in the extension of the initial punch...never when the punch is drawn back. When a punch is drawn back it is an exchange. The problem becomes the speed that a punch is thrown. A counter puncher has to rely on angles and timing. If someone throws from unorthodox angles, or is very fast, or both (Roy Jones) there is, I dare say, no counter puncher ever who could consistently catch the puncher.

Archie Moore and James Toney who obviously studied Moore, both use the front shoulder to turn and hide the face and to set up the counter right. As the punch sails past the shoulder the shoulder suddenly turns back towards the opponent with the rear cross following. The front hand can also shoot over the punch, but this is not the so called shoulder roll that is favored in this case. Floyd uses a similar approach but does not use the shoulder the same exact way, preferring to move his head off line and remain more square to the opponent and catch him.

Floyd, Moore and Toney all try to time it so they catch the opponent as he extends past their head, or shoulder and NOT after the punch returns.

I mention this because what I love about Toney is how natural, his economy of movement in the ring. I do think he took advantage of his great chin and took too many shots to mix it up at heavy weight... and its a shame. I also think stylistically he would have always had a problem with Jones because of the speed, no matter what he did training for the fight.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I already posted the opponents in the last post Rusty. i am impressed with fighting Charles, Olson, Washington and Marshall among others. I think that competition while not all ATG is thick and consistently excellent. A lot of those fighters were underrated. I think it is better comp than whom he fought at heavyweight, more consistently very good, to excellent.

Also: Yu claim he was green when he fought Burley...He had more than sixty fights! Bivens, Littell, Williams, Satterfield! A great fighter, ATG...Lytell, an excellent fighter, JOHNSON one of the murderers row!, Maxim at light heavy because I believe most of these fights noted were at Middle with some at light heavy...so now at light heavy we have Olson, and lets keep in mind after losing to Marciano and Patterson, fighting otherwise unknown heavies up to this point ARCHIE STILL fought quality guys at light heavy! Guys like Durelle who he won a belt from, and Rinaldi.

He nevet fought anyone aside from Marciano and Patterson, and that was past his best, at heavy Rusty!

So now i showed you a corpus of excellent to elite, to chronically underrated fighters that he fought, many whom he beat. I showed you that when he fought Burley he was already 60 fights in to his career... Maybe not at his best, I don't think you or I could make that judgement frankly...And that he hardly fought any one of note at heavyweight!!

What more can I give you? The waylde? (as they say in Jersey?) This stuff is all on line. People talk about guys like Burley Marshall and Washington. They were excellent fighters who were chronically underrated and often avoided.

With all this said; if you have an opinion that he was best at heavyweight? Bless you...it is an opinion after all. I also think QueenB's contention was that moore fought a good deal as a heavy weight, I do not know if he cosigns the idea that this was Archie's best work...you could ask him.

Middleweight, not Light HEavyweight.

Also, Olson was DOA. He was far from Moore's best win at 175.

One thing:

I never made an absolute distinction between Middle and Light Heavy. I certainly think an argument could be made that either of these categories were Archies' best...just not heavyweight. I didn't make an absolute distinction because as I said Archie was a guy who fought up and down, we have to judge his work accordingly.

No offense, but that's ridiculous. He was clearly a better Light Heavyweight. Again, I fully concede that we don't have film footage to validate any of this. But this is a guy who lost to an OLD yarosz and booker. Marshall a Mugabi of sorts.

That's not the same as the guy who'd beat Valdez or Pastrano.

Toney was first and foremost a counter puncher, whatever one thinks of him. Perhaps another discussion for another time, suprised Iron Dan has not chimed in already as he hates Toney.

Counter punchers, true counter punchers and I believe there is a difference...All live and die by the discretion to know when they can be effective. And it is a very real knock that a guy who is fast enough and unorthodox enough is a nightmare for a counter puncher. I offer no defense that would contradict the accusation that Toney, as a counter puncher, would always be vulnerable to speed particularly and unorthodox tactics.

Most people, even in boxing, do not even know what a real counter punch is unfortunately. HINT: Danny Garcia is not a counter puncher, he is a guy who often throws the last punch in a dust up.

So what is a counter punch? A counter puncher catches the guy in the extension of the initial punch...never when the punch is drawn back. When a punch is drawn back it is an exchange. The problem becomes the speed that a punch is thrown. A counter puncher has to rely on angles and timing. If someone throws from unorthodox angles, or is very fast, or both (Roy Jones) there is, I dare say, no counter puncher ever who could consistently catch the puncher.

Archie Moore and James Toney who obviously studied Moore, both use the front shoulder to turn and hide the face and to set up the counter right. As the punch sails past the shoulder the shoulder suddenly turns back towards the opponent with the rear cross following. The front hand can also shoot over the punch, but this is not the so called shoulder roll that is favored in this case. Floyd uses a similar approach but does not use the shoulder the same exact way, preferring to move his head off line and remain more square to the opponent and catch him.

Floyd, Moore and Toney all try to time it so they catch the opponent as he extends past their head, or shoulder and NOT after the punch returns.

I mention this because what I love about Toney is how natural, his economy of movement in the ring. I do think he took advantage of his great chin and took too many shots to mix it up at heavy weight... and its a shame. I also think stylistically he would have always had a problem with Jones because of the speed, no matter what he did training for the fight.

Duran >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Moore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Toney.