Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: How many matches would Archie Moore win vs the listed ten all time greats at 175 ?
1 0 0%
2 1 2.78%
3 0 0%
4 2 5.56%
5 8 22.22%
6 9 25.00%
7 8 22.22%
8 6 16.67%
9 2 5.56%
10 0 0%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-04-2007, 12:05 AM   #46
Marciano Frazier
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.
Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Quote:
After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.
Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Quote:
Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.
I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.
Marciano Frazier is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-04-2007, 06:22 AM   #47
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
THE DIFFERENCE - RJJ won Moore lost 3times
I accapt that - when we started, I thought we were discussing the level of competition that both men engaged throughout their careers and how it compared. Comparing their best wins is a different argument (might be fun though )


Quote:
2. Bivins started his bad losing streak before Moore beat him. Before that he was on a massive winnign streak. Doesn't that indicate he got Bivins at the right time?
Yeah, Bivins lost to Walcott and Charles before Moore beat him the first time, you are right. However,if memory serves, Bivins had wins over Shepard and Oakland Billy Smith within months of his loss to Moore - so I won't accept your original premis that he was shot. The Bivins win is an excellent win for Moore.


Quote:
3. OOPS my mistake
Is that ****ing Boxrex?!

Quote:
4. Maybe he is the better fighter, I find the thought of RJJ losing to any welter hard to fathom. SRR been an exception and I'd still pick RJJ
Again, the argument isn't about who has the better wins (or the worsT losses which is also debateable) but who fought the better comp. Trinidad is not comparable to Burley for me. Burley is one of the best ever (just my opinion of course) and Trinidad is a good fighter who failed in moving up. I agree with you about a Welter beating Jones, but if I was going to pick a man to do the job it would be the guy you mentioned, Sugar, or this guy here, Burley.

Quote:
6. It was Cocoas 7th loss in 12 months.
...boxrec?

OK, I understand. And you are right in your point of view that Cocoa Kid was at the end of his career and Moore would be expected to win. But I stand by my original point. Kid was beating ATG fighters within weeks of taking on Moore. ATG.

Quote:
7. Shorty Hogue for 1
Hogue has wins over Booker (who I would pick to beat Tarver 100/100) and Lloyd Marshall (100/100) as well as Moore - he was a patchy and freakish talent and he was fighting in Calafornia at a time when fighters were expected to lose in order to recieve their paycheck - now this impacts his wins as well as his losses. He is a difficult subject, but if you're sure of his inferiority to Tarver you're sure of a hell of a lot more than I am, as well as privy to some raw date i've never seen.

Quote:
8. Better than SRR, Charles, Grebb, Armstrong, SRL? He shouldn't be ahead of Marciano - they both weighed the same.
No, not for me, my point was that your complaint of Moore's overatedness wasn't strong enough. I've seen him at the very very top of all time lists. He didn't weigh the same as Rocky for most of his career.

Quote:
9. Well the similarly sized and styled Patterson beat Moore very comprehensively. There wasn't any fighter quite like RJJ - no one else beat the similar Toney that emphatically either.
Moore was well past prime at that point. He'd been in more total wars than most people had fights.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 06:31 AM   #48
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,272
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Mendoza :
Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.


Marciano_Fraizer : Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Mendoza: Good points, but we are only comparing Moore to the best ever. Like you said Moore's record from 1945-1948 was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition, and five losses coming to elite opposition.



Mendoza: After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.


Marciano_Frazier says: Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Menzoda: . From 1945-1948, he was Ko'd by Chalres, Bivins, and Morrow. He was knocked down by Bob Jacobs, knocked down by Marshall 3x, a 38-33 Curtis Sheppard knocked Moore down, down again vs Bivins in a fight he won, and down from Oakland Billy Smith. This is 3 Ko losses in three " prime years " and and additonal 7 knock downs suffred in fights he won. Chins don't get better over time. Moore's chin is suspect vs punchers. As I said before, this list has some big hitters. Moore is being matched against guys who hit has hard or harder than Charles or Bivins. Fitz, Langford, Foster, Jones, ect.....

As for Satterfield, I did not see that fight. It was short. Perhaps Moore caught the chinny Satterfield early and wasn't tested himself. The Sheppard win vs vs a guy who was 3-3 in his last six fights. Valdes was a bit gun shy from action at times.


Mendoza: Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.

Marciano_Frazier: I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

Mendoza: I have seen Moore in many fights. From memory they are: Maxim, Bivins, Smith, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Durelle 2x, and Johnson. It seems to me Archie Moore does best vs boxer types without a lot of power, and struggles a bit vs puncher types. Durelle was not that good, and he nearly had Moore out.

Last edited by Mendoza; 10-04-2007 at 06:50 AM.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 12:01 PM   #49
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,304
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew101
Jack Dillion~ Moore's height advantage, plus his educated jab, allows him to dictate the pace to secure a decision.
I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 02:45 PM   #50
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,272
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.
Dillion was tough as shoe leather, but I never saw him on film. Is there any film of Dillion?
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 06:11 PM   #51
Marciano Frazier
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,469
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Mendoza :
Very good post. Moore's resume is the very definition of battle tested. I agree with you regarding Moore’s resume. I also think Power Puncher made a point as well. Moore was an action oriented fighter on film. Charles defeated Moore 3-0 in the series, knocked him out once, and had him down in the other fights. Bivins also knocked Moore out. What does this mean? It means Langford, Fitzsimmons, and Foster who hit harder than Charles or Bivins could do the same.


Marciano_Fraizer : Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Mendoza: Good points, but we are only comparing Moore to the best ever. Like you said Moore's record from 1945-1948 was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition, and five losses coming to elite opposition.

Yes, but the whole point was that Moore's performance from 1945-1948 does not stack up at all with his performance from 1949-1960, against any level of opposition. Moore clearly and markedly improved after his losses to Charles and Bivins in '45-48, and hence they're not entirely valid as reference points to how a peak Moore does against great opponents, since a peak Moore did not lose to non-elite opponents, did not get knocked out by anyone aside from great heavyweights, and won the overwhelming majority even against elite opposition- and he did this consistently for over a decade.



Quote:
Mendoza: After close review, I'm not sure if Moore matches up as well vs power punchers.
Quote:

Marciano_Frazier says: Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

Menzoda: . From 1945-1948, he was Ko'd by Chalres, Bivins, and Morrow. He was knocked down by Bob Jacobs, knocked down by Marshall 3x, a 38-33 Curtis Sheppard knocked Moore down, down again vs Bivins in a fight he won, and down from Oakland Billy Smith. This is 3 Ko losses in three " prime years " and and additonal 7 knock downs suffred in fights he won. Chins don't get better over time. Moore's chin is suspect vs punchers. As I said before, this list has some big hitters. Moore is being matched against guys who hit has hard or harder than Charles or Bivins. Fitz, Langford, Foster, Jones, ect.....

As for Satterfield, I did not see that fight. It was short. Perhaps Moore caught the chinny Satterfield early and wasn't tested himself. The Sheppard win vs vs a guy who was 3-3 in his last six fights. Valdes was a bit gun shy from action at times.

No, you've again apparently misinterpreted my point. I was saying that 1945-1948 was clearly not a part of Moore's best years, as demonstrated by the fact that he lost to three non-elite opponents and was knocked out/lost decisively about half the time against elite opponents, whereas in 1949-1960, he went 80+ fights without losing to any non-elite fighters, won the overwhelming majority against even elite opposition and was only knocked out by Marciano and Patterson. I'm saying that Moore clearly and undeniably improved after the time period you keep bringing up.
Again, he is 33-8-2 in 1945-48, with three losses to non-elite opposition, whereas he is 75-3-2- a record leagues better against comparable or better opposition- with no losses to non-elite opposition in mid-1949 through mid-1960. That is more than twice as many losses in just over half as many fights, and not against superior opposition. How could this be reasonably explained, aside from accepting that Moore was a considerably better fighter in the '50s than he was in the '40s?
Or, for another telling stat, Moore never lost a fight at light heavyweight in the last 12 years of his professional career.



Quote:
Mendoza: Moore's best match up in my opinion are vs the boxer types without big punches ( Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim ) due to his aggressive nature. This means he likely beats Loughran, and Rosenbloom.
Quote:

Marciano_Frazier: I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

Mendoza: I have seen Moore in many fights. From memory they are: Maxim, Bivins, Smith, Marciano, Patterson, Ali, Durelle 2x, and Johnson. It seems to me Archie Moore does best vs boxer types without a lot of power, and struggles a bit vs puncher types. Durelle was not that good, and he nearly had Moore out.
As I pointed out above, Moore did beat some very dangerous hitters. Durelle caught a slightly-slipping Moore cold, and he did nearly have him out, but Moore still came back and beat him, then crushed him in the rematch. Bit of a fluke, I'd say- in my opinion, Moore had a pretty average chin, but his defensive skills, ring savvy and experience made him incredibly hard to knock out in his prime- in the last 14 years of his career, he was stopped only by Marciano, Patterson, and(while at the very end of the road) Ali, despite facing literally dozens of top fighters. When you caught him flush, you could hurt him, but once he'd perfected his turtle-shell defense and reached the height of his career, that hardly ever happened, and even when it did(ala Durelle), his survival and recovery skills were unbelieveable. Perhaps his best stylistic match-up would be against the type you describe, but I certainly wouldn't just then say, "He therefore loses to the guys on the list with a lot of power."

Last edited by Marciano Frazier; 10-04-2007 at 06:34 PM.
Marciano Frazier is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 06:23 AM   #52
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,272
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Marciano Frazier

Yes, but the whole point was that Moore's performance from 1945-1948 does not stack up at all with his performance from 1949-1960, against any level of opposition. Moore clearly and markedly improved after his losses to Charles and Bivins in '45-48, and hence they're not entirely valid as reference points to how a peak Moore does against great opponents, since a peak Moore did not lose to non-elite opponents, did not get knocked out by anyone aside from great heavyweights, and won the overwhelming majority even against elite opposition- and he did this consistently for over a decade.


I see your point. Moore fought a lot and did well from 1949-1960. Do you think Moore beat better competition from 1945-1948 or any other three years from 1949-1960? I think Moore's toughest opponents were in the years of 1945-1948 ( Omit Marciano and Patterson at heavyweight from 1954-1960 ).


My point is durability in boxing really doesn't change much. It usually diminishes as the years roll on. While Moore did beat some punchers, Sheppard was 3-3 in his last six and, he caught Satterfield early.

Even from 1949-1960 in Moore' prime years, he was floored by Billy Smith, and Harold Johnson. Neither guy was a light heavyweight puncher. I see too much evidence that suggest that Moore when faced vs skilled punchers had could be knocked down or out. Every man in the poll is skilled, and most of them are punchers.




Quote:
As I pointed out above, Moore did beat some very dangerous hitters. Durelle caught a slightly-slipping Moore cold, and he did nearly have him out, but Moore still came back and beat him, then crushed him in the rematch. Bit of a fluke, I'd say- in my opinion, Moore had a pretty average chin, but his defensive skills, ring savvy and experience made him incredibly hard to knock out in his prime- in the last 14 years of his career, he was stopped only by Marciano, Patterson, and(while at the very end of the road) Ali, despite facing literally dozens of top fighters. When you caught him flush, you could hurt him, but once he'd perfected his turtle-shell defense and reached the height of his career, that hardly ever happened, and even when it did(ala Durelle), his survival and recovery skills were unbelieveable. Perhaps his best stylistic match-up would be against the type you describe, but I certainly wouldn't just then say, "He therefore loses to the guys on the list with a lot of power."
Well said. I agree with what you said. I agree Moore doesn't automatically lose to anyone in the poll. We are talking about Archie Moore here. He was an all time great light heavyweight who could beat anyone on the list on any given night! At the same time, many of these matches are close ones, which is why I feel 7 or more wins for Moore is unlikely. In truth most all time great are lucky to have a winning record in their own era vs other all time greats. Winning 5 or 6 of ten is very good.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 06:34 AM   #53
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,304
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Dillion was tough as shoe leather, but I never saw him on film. Is there any film of Dillion?
There is not sadly.

By all acounts he seems to have been the prototype for Jack Dempsey.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 12:36 PM   #54
Rumsfeld
Moderator
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Go to the Mushroom Mag!
Posts: 18,775
vCash: 655
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

I said seven. Obviously, Charles represented a stylistic nightmare of the Old Mongoose.

Archie was very resourceful and found ways to win more often than not.
Rumsfeld is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 07:03 PM   #55
rodney
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,759
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters all time greats at light heavyweight! Take the poll. I thought the Liston thread was a success, however I get the hunch some posters voted 1 or 10 for personal reasons. You can vote however you choose this time, but it’s a public thread.

The ten fighters are:

Bob Fitzsimmons
Sam Langford
Jack Dillion
Tommy Loughran
Gene Tunney
Maxie Rosenbloom
Ezzard Charles
Bob Foster
Mike Spinks
Roy Jones
Archie beats them all.
rodney is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 07:18 PM   #56
Drew101
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: "...The Land of Dixon and Langford..."
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 3930
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.
Dillon was, by all accounts, a pretty smooth boxer, who could work well in the trenches. That having been said, Moore was just as adept on the inside as "The Giant Killer", and, given Dillon's disadvantage in terms of height and reach, that's where he'd have to make his living.

That's why I pick Moore.
Drew101 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 07:54 PM   #57
Langford
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 415
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

I voted for six. In my fantasy world, he wins six outta ten.
Langford is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 08:12 PM   #58
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
The two who would give him the most trouble are Jack Dillon and Ezzard Charles.
Is there any film on Dillon Janitor?

EDIT:

Just read your above post. By all accounts then, accounts from that era when the fan and analyst alike knew no better than their own time period, these reports are enough to pick him over Moore mate?
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2007, 08:18 PM   #59
Amsterdam
Boris Christoff
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,239
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Bottom 4 beat him 10/10 times. He smokes the rest 10/10 times, Jack Dillon particularly in 1 round.
Amsterdam is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2007, 04:38 AM   #60
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,407
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
Yeah, especially Ezzard Charles.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013