Video-Bert Sugar: Archie Moore is greatest old fighter, Hopkins second

[esl_4_u]

Hopkins is better.

Hopkins is now where near Archie Moore. Moore had 219 fights 23 losses and 60% KO percentage. A Middleweight, Light Heavy Weight, and Heavyweight Champion. In addition, he fought the best of his era.

[Toney616]

How can anyone even try to compare the two? Moore is on a different level to Hopkins - comparing them two is like me comparing Calzaghe to Ali because they both fought into their mid thirties.

[IronDanHamza]

Obviously Hopkins is not in Archie Moore's league in terms of an all time great perspective.

Archie Moore is argubally a Top 10 ATG.

However, in terms of fighters older than 40, and their careers post 40, they are very comparable and Hopkins is very arguablly the greater fighter post 40.

[Chew BackAtacha]

cant stand Bert Sugar, he thinks he invented the wheel, he's like a 90 year old hipster

[Toney616]

Obviously Hopkins is not in Archie Moore's league in terms of an all time great perspective.

Archie Moore is argubally a Top 10 ATG.

However, in terms of fighters older than 40, and their careers post 40, they are very comparable and Hopkins is very arguablly the greater fighter post 40.

Thats nitpicking
Post 35 Calzaghe is greater than Ali

[IronDanHamza]

Thats nitpicking
Post 35 Calzaghe is greater than Ali

Not really.

There are plenty of people who hold and have won titles post 35.

How many are there post 40? Not too many.

Hence, the common comparison.

[Toney616]

Not really.

There are plenty of people who hold and have won titles post 35.

How many are there post 40? Not too many.

Hence, the common comparison.

In order to compare them you have to overlook the fact that Moore had over 150 more fights and was competing at hw, while defending his lhw belt. The Marciano fight took a lot out of him and he was basically done imo after the Patterson loss.

Hopkins on the over hand has been fighting around once a year against carefully selected opponents.

[IronDanHamza]

In order to compare them you have to overlook the fact that Moore had over 150 more fights and was competing at hw, while defending his lhw belt. The Marciano fight took a lot out of him and he was basically done imo after the Patterson loss.

Hopkins on the over hand has been fighting around once a year against carefully selected opponents.

It's really not that complicated.

They both have done remarkable feats over the age of 40, along with George Foreman possibly more than anybody else in history.

Hence, the common comparison.

Both are two of very few who have managed to do great things post 40 and "post 40" they are absolutely comparable.

[Toney616]

It's really not that complicated.

They both have done remarkable feats over the age of 40, along with George Foreman possibly more than anybody else in history.

Hence, the common comparison.

Both are two of very few who have managed to do great things post 40 and "post 40" they are absolutely comparable.

How can you compare a guy who had more than 200 pro fights with a guy whose had around 55 fights? You cannot just isolate a part of a fighters career and say post a certain age they are comparable. You have to compare their careers as a whole. Otherwise you are going to end up with all kinds of strange results.

Foreman during the second half of his career never beat anyone special. He needed gifts to get past Stewart and Shultz. Moorer wasn't a very good hw and it should be pointed out that Moorer picked Foreman because he fought it was going to be a easy fight.

Hopkins didn't earn his shot at the lhw champ either, the last live lhw he had fought going into the Pascal fight was past prime Tarver. Pascal who is at best a b-level fighter took the Hopkins fight as a warm up for his rematch with Dawson.

Archie Moore was competing at hw and earned his shot at the title rather than getting a nice offer because the reigning champ thought he was going to be an easy fight. When Hopkins moves up to hw and works his way up the rankings then you can start making comparisons

[IronDanHamza]

How can you compare a guy who had more than 200 pro fights with a guy whose had around 55 fights? You cannot just isolate a part of a fighters career and say post a certain age they are comparable. You have to compare their careers as a whole. Otherwise you are going to end up with all kinds of strange results.

Foreman during the second half of his career never beat anyone special. He needed gifts to get past Stewart and Shultz. Moorer wasn't a very good hw and it should be pointed out that Moorer picked Foreman because he fought it was going to be a easy fight.

Hopkins didn't earn his shot at the lhw champ either, the last live lhw he had fought going into the Pascal fight was past prime Tarver. Pascal who is at best a b-level fighter took the Hopkins fight as a warm up for his rematch with Dawson.

Because we are not talking whole careers.

We are talking post 40. Both of which, are amongst the most accomplished.

And of course you can. Have you never heard people rank a fighter for their career past the age of 40 before? Moore has been called 'the greatest career post 40 of all time' for years.

It's really not difficult to comprehend.