Where does Archie Moore rank among goat?

[Holywarrior]

We agree alot more than you think, my friend.. You just like to nitpick my posts for any errors.. LOL always trying to get me to slip up

Probably

[Humean]

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.

Is that your idea of an insult? Maybe vary it a bit and then get back on the medication.

Williams resume is better, whether you like it or not.

And no – a “statement” from you doesn’t change the fact - because, you know… You’re still a mong.

It is not because losses are important.

What is wrong with you? Assuming that you are actually an adult then you are a grown man calling someone a 'mong' on the internet. It is hilariously sad but do keep it up, it is very amusing. Maybe use other derogatory words.

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.

Surely if the title is on the line there is more likely to be a tendency for both parties to have trained and focussed upon the fight better than a non-title fight. Look how often a champion in the past lost non-title fights and then fought the very same opponent a few months later with the title on the line and you had a very different outcome. It is unlikely it was just the increase distance that made the difference but was probably also this element of the change in motivation. Essentially a champion could afford to lose in a non-title fight in a way that he couldn't in a title fight. Plus there was always the spectre of the champion deliberately not fighting his best in a non-title fight against an opponent pencilled in as an opponent for a title defence.

Officially Johnson lost to Pastrano. The Lytell win is really not especially impressive, plenty others were defeating Lytell around that time. Historically Lytell is at best a good contender, at worst a moderately good one. In fact he is pretty much a paradigm case of the over inflation of fighters from that time period. Bivins is a similar case albeit at his best probably a little better. Pastrano was a tricky fighter but not a great deal more than that. The light heavyweight division really wasn't up to much at least from the mid 50s to the mid 70s.

As for Cervantes, probably the only good pre-title win was knocking out Rodolfo Gonzalez, he was a good hard puncher in his prime and Cervantes knocked him out. That win is more impressive than Lytell, Bivins and Pastrano (If you want to say that Johnson deserved the decision) wins. His two wins over Alfonso Frazer were better than the Lytell, Bivins, and Pastrano wins, particularly when you consider the manner of victory. Similar story with Hector Thompson.

After that the rest of the successful title defences were largely emphatic wins against good to mediocre contenders (Gimenez x 2, Montilla x 2, Marquez, Furuyama, Ortiz, Lee, Adigue Jr, Kim, Kadota, Sekgapane, Mamby (non-title), Guerrero (non-title) Marrero) with one or two that may have been downright poor (Kiatvayupakdi?). I agree that most if not all the names you listed for Johnson are roughly comparable with at least most of these Cervantes title defences.

I'm sure you don't agree with all this but if you did then I think that would suggest that their wins are fairly even. Cervantes also has the advantage of having only lost two fights when he was at 'world level' and they were to Benitez and Pryor, no run of the mill opponents. I think the Satterfield and Oakland Billy Smith losses reflect slightly poorly upon Johnson's record.

[greeh]

Thats not at all how i feel,, Dont put words in my mouth. Clearly they are great fighters, and i only take issue with them when people rank them top 10 or 15 ATG.. I have seen Ross as high as 2 or 3 before.. Ross is somwhere between 15-25, Mcclarin is 18-50 range and Cazonori is alittle farther back but not by much..
I only argue that they were in a very closed and protected era, and thats why i dont rate them as top 10 ATGs... Other than that i have no issue with them

I have absolutely no problem at all with ranking Ross higher than Leonard. I think McLarnin and Canzoneri should be in the Top 30 or at the very least Top 35.

Manny and Floyd will get more appreciation after they are done fighting.. but i think they both end up top 30 when its all said and done.. Manny might be farther back..

If they move up and beat Andre Ward I might put it into consideration.

For Burley I rate him so high due to his skill level, his resume is outstanding but i think his skill set is one of the best in history... As for Holman, another excellent fighter, top 100 but not as high as burley. I dont think his overall skills were as good as burley and i think he is a mid range 30-75 type ranking..

I don’t think it’s much separating between Burley and Holman at all to be honest. Williams was considered a master-boxer and his close series with Burley reaffirms that he had superb skills. He went 3-3 with a fighter who crushed Archie Moore for god’s sake.

You make some good points, I wasnt trying to compare their resumes, just stating that Moore IMO isnt top 10, and somewhere in the Teens, and i was just using some names of the top of my head that i find to be in that same range.. Moore is around 14, floyd would be 18-25, manny is probably around 25-50..

That’s awfully too high for Mayweather. He hasn’t done enough to warrant that placement. Pacquiao is also too high if he's ranked in the Top 40 in my opinion.

Hell, I'm not sure I would even have any of them inside my Top 50.

No its not,, Moore and toney have alot of style and career similarities. Toney just was not mentally tough enough and professional enough to stay on top for very long.. Moore was a much better professional, but in terms of skills sets, and weight jumps, these 2 are very similar.. Toney himself saws he copies alot of Moore's style.. So i dont think its a bad comparison at all, I think your taking it to literally

I probably took it too literally. I thought you meant Moore is on the same level as Toney resume-wise. That’s why I disputed it.

Tunney, Hagler, Moore and mickey walker are all pretty interchangeable, no matter how you rank them, they will only be separated by a fraction..

Moore and Walker ---------- Hagler and Tunney. I don’t see how it could be any other way really. It’s not a fraction between them either, rather a pretty big gap. But I guess agree to disagree.

SRL is clearly above all of them, as he beat a host of prime or near prime ATGs and won..

As did Moore. He beat Harold Johnson FOUR TIMES. That’s beastly.

He lack of longevity hurts his resume, but considering that he has wins over benetiz, duran, hagler, hearns, Kalule, Thats a great list of wins.

Especially Kalule.

I do know who Kalule is, the undefeated 154 champ that Leonard came up and beat before the Hearns Fight..
Great win for leonard, and yet it hardly gets talked about, since Ray has so many top level wins, and why i rate SRL so high

It’s better than anything Floyd has on his resume…

Just out of interest, where do you have Luis Rodriguez, Jose Napoles and Kid Gavilan?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Just out of interest, where do you have Luis Rodriguez, Jose Napoles and Kid Gavilan?

Luis Rodriguez not sure about... I will be the first to admit, Im not a boxing historian and dont have the depth of knowledge of all the weight classes, especially the lower ones, spanning the history of boxing...
In terms of Luis Rodriguez, i really dont know how i would rank him...

Jose Napoles is a guy that i think is clearly top 50 or even top 30.. In his prime he was such an offensive whirlwind, constantly moving, but throwing beautiful shots... One of my favorite punchers to watch because he had such great shot selection, and always mixed up his shots and didnt rely too much on one particular shot.. Him, arguello, louis, chavez and jmm i think are the best punchers in terms of shot selection... Poetry in motion when these guys open up...
A few weeks ago, we had a thread about fantasy matchups and SRL-Napoles was one of them, and i think i was the only one that chose Napoles to outpoint SRL, and i have SRL #4 ATG, so that should speak volumes about how much i respect Napoles..

For Kid Galivan,, Def top 35 or so... Maybe late 20s... I think if he fought today, he would have the same success as Floyd or Rigo and vice versa..

There is so many factors when trying to rank these guys that it comes nearly impossible... Galivan i think is hurt by the lack of huge mega fights like some others have had... For whatever reason his fights dont get mentioned as often as say a barney ross, mcclarin, dempsey, SRR, etc...
Same goes for mickey walker, and Dick Tiger and Napoles... For whatever reason, people dont talk about their fights as much as other great fighters, and so in terms of public opinion i think it hurts their standing abit...

[greeh]

It is not because losses are important.

What is wrong with you? Assuming that you are actually an adult then you are a grown man calling someone a 'mong' on the internet. It is hilariously sad but do keep it up, it is very amusing. Maybe use other derogatory words.

You are asking what's wrong with me?

Oh, the irony...

You're just a pointless waste of time and space.

A win over Wilford Scypion is equally good as a win over Charley Burley.

[Humean]

You are asking what's wrong with me?

Oh, the irony...

You're just a pointless waste of time and space.

A win over Wilford Scypion is equally good as a win over Charley Burley.

I never said a win over Scypion is equally as good as a win over Burley. I said that all the Hagler wins I listed probably at least match up with the levels of the Williams wins that were previously listed. That is, that all the Hagler wins listed are at least as good as the weakest of the listed Williams wins.

You don't even try to understand what someone else is saying.

[IronDanHamza]

Surely if the title is on the line there is more likely to be a tendency for both parties to have trained and focussed upon the fight better than a non-title fight. Look how often a champion in the past lost non-title fights and then fought the very same opponent a few months later with the title on the line and you had a very different outcome. It is unlikely it was just the increase distance that made the difference but was probably also this element of the change in motivation. Essentially a champion could afford to lose in a non-title fight in a way that he couldn't in a title fight. Plus there was always the spectre of the champion deliberately not fighting his best in a non-title fight against an opponent pencilled in as an opponent for a title defence.

Solid point but I don't think it holds that much water overall.

Officially Johnson lost to Pastrano. The Lytell win is really not especially impressive, plenty others were defeating Lytell around that time. Historically Lytell is at best a good contender, at worst a moderately good one. In fact he is pretty much a paradigm case of the over inflation of fighters from that time period. Bivins is a similar case albeit at his best probably a little better. Pastrano was a tricky fighter but not a great deal more than that. The light heavyweight division really wasn't up to much at least from the mid 50s to the mid 70s.

"Officially" but for me it's one of the biggest robberies ever. You seen it?

Lytell not a great win but definitely a good one. Lytell's no great but he was definitely a good fighter for his time. Beatbale but always a tough out and has his share of wins aswell over very good fighters. It's a win worth noting. I'm biased toward Lytell admittedly as I am Johnson but I still think bias aside Lytell's was a very good fighter.

Agreed entirely on Pastrano, for me he's not HOF worthy.

As for Cervantes, probably the only good pre-title win was knocking out Rodolfo Gonzalez, he was a good hard puncher in his prime and Cervantes knocked him out. That win is more impressive than Lytell, Bivins and Pastrano (If you want to say that Johnson deserved the decision) wins. His two wins over Alfonso Frazer were better than the Lytell, Bivins, and Pastrano wins, particularly when you consider the manner of victory. Similar story with Hector Thompson.

Competely diasgree on this one but may aswell agree to disagree from here

After that the rest of the successful title defences were largely emphatic wins against good to mediocre contenders (Gimenez x 2, Montilla x 2, Marquez, Furuyama, Ortiz, Lee, Adigue Jr, Kim, Kadota, Sekgapane, Mamby (non-title), Guerrero (non-title) Marrero) with one or two that may have been downright poor (Kiatvayupakdi?). I agree that most if not all the names you listed for Johnson are roughly comparable with at least most of these Cervantes title defences.

Can agree to an extent but some of those I wouldn't consider too solid.

I'm sure you don't agree with all this but if you did then I think that would suggest that their wins are fairly even. Cervantes also has the advantage of having only lost two fights when he was at 'world level' and they were to Benitez and Pryor, no run of the mill opponents. I think the Satterfield and Oakland Billy Smith losses reflect slightly poorly upon Johnson's record.

Yeah that's true with Satterfield and Billy Smith. Both good fighters but definitely fighters Johnson should not be losing to. He did beat Satterfield but he has the loss. Smith, man, that's a fight that pains me. All Johnson had to do was survive the first few rounds and he'd win. If Smith could do one thing it was punch and he got caught, happens I guess but it's a bad L for sure.

We just agree to disagree. I think Johnson has quite the gap on Cervantes in every category.

[soul_survivor]

I have Moore in at 12, just below SRL and Langford, having said that, I honestly think I could find a space for Moore between Charles at 8 and SRL at 10

Here's my top 50:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...608842&page=14