Archie Moore's heavyweight record versus Jack Dempsey's

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Moore may have more depth at the C level, but what about the big victories? Does anything on that list really stack up to a KO1 of Fulton?

To me, quality > quantity, though Moore isn't severely outmatched in that department either all things considered.

I think Valdes was rated no1 for a bit after getting a decision versus Charles, I could be wrong. Bivins is considered an ATG

I know this is meant to show 'how great Moore was' but for me I don't think most of his opponents looked too hot, neither did Dempsey's either

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Moore may have more depth at the C level, but what about the big victories? Does anything on that list really stack up to a KO1 of Fulton?

To me, quality > quantity, though Moore isn't severely outmatched in that department either all things considered.

Sharkey is the best between them I think.

Moore didn't shock anyone as significant as Fulton in one round, but I definitely think he had wins to rival it. TKO9 Bivins in 1947? Moore did of course flatten a few heavyweights early, even if they weren't quite Fulton. KO1 Davidson, KO1 Lovell, KO1 Dunlop, KO1 King (journeyman).

[janitor]

I guess that the crusade against Jack Dempsey on this site, has marginally more integrity than Revolver’s loony quest to destroy Rocky Marciano!

[Colonel Sanders]

A 'Jack Dempsey vs Archie Moore' thread should pop up if it hasn't laready.....

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I think Valdes was rated no1 for a bit after getting a decision versus Charles, I could be wrong. Bivins is considered an ATG

I know this is meant to show 'how great Moore was' but for me I don't think most of his opponents looked too hot, neither did Dempsey's either

Yeah there will inevitably be a few crap ones in there but if they were top ten rated, even in a weak era it shows they had a pulse. To beat such a variety is worth a lot as an actual heavyweight, but for a former welterweight it looks great. Valdes and Baker were quite good (at least Brennan level I think) and both 210lbs, Lavorante was rated and about the same size. Kalpfell, Parmentier, Bean, Spaulding, Davidson, Dugan and Cestac were C level but at least 210lbs each. There is no point to this, just saying, Moore beat a lot of big boxers for someone who at nineteen weighed 145lbs. He beat plenty of 200lbers as well.

Anyway, Bivins was very good as well of course at around 185lbs, if not in his peak but still a handful.

Some of the others were deceptively good, like Bert Whitehurst and Ted Lowry even if really they were journeymen.

3-0 against Joey Maxim is significant to me as Maxim was regularly rated at heavyweight after beating of mediocre boxers there. Worth more at light heavyweight but as good as Firpo surely.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by orriray59

Out of curiosity Manassa, if you think Archie Moore has a superior resume to Jack Dempsey at the heavyweight division, where do you rank each other respectively?

That's the big question... Not sure yet. I suppose Moore would be above or below by a space? Big call, but the opponents are up there for comparison and don't look too dissimilar either way. Maybe you could say Dempsey obliterated people but I would reply that Moore was better for longer.

Janitor, unfortunately Dempsey is but a pawn here. I'm just selling my argument.

[Manassa]

Boxers who were at some point RING rated as beaten by Moore (Hall of Famers in bold):

Sammy Slaughter
Ron Richards (x2)
Johnny Romero
Jack Chase (x4)
Nate Bolden (x2)
Fred Henneberry
Marty Simmons
Jack Coggins
George Kochan
Curtis Sheppard (x2)
Buddy Walker
Rusty Payne
Bert Lytell (x2)
Charley Williams (x3)
Billy Smith (x3)
Henry Hall
Alabama Kid (x2)
Bob Satterfield
Phil Muscato
Leonard Morrow
Jimmy Slade
Clarence Henry
Nino Valdes (x2)
Bob Baker
Bob Dunlap (x2)
Yolande Pompey
Tony Anthony
Willi Besmanoff (x2)
Charley Norkus
Yvon Durelle (x2)
Giulio Rinaldi
Alejandro Lavorante

Jimmy Bivins (x4)
Harold Johnson (x4)
Joey Maxim (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2)
Carl Olson
Holman Williams
Cocoa Kid

Sixty four in total, forty eight 'normal' and sixteen in the Hall of Fame. From what I could find anyway.

[Manassa]

Moore at one point went 54-2-1 (disqualification and decision loss) between light heavyweight and heavyweight and went 10-1 against Hall of Famers in that period (1948-'55):

Jimmy Bivins 2-0
Harold Johnson 4-1
Joey Maxim 3-0
Bobo Olson 1-0

I'm of the opinion that if Sam Langford is a top five pound-for-pound lock then it would be fair to place Moore between #8 and #12, but for me, any lower is doing him an injustice.

Laying it on thick

Fuck it he's #7 for me now.

1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson
4. B. Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Archie Moore
8. Willie Pep
9. Roberto Duran
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by orriray59

To be frank, if you've got Moore and Dempsey within a space of each other surely both guys would be fairly low on a heavyweight all-time list.

Not that I really rate Dempsey anyway. I don't consider him top 10 material at the weight, but regardless of that, I never thought of Moore being above him at heavyweight.

Well, around 15-20 or something. Moore for me would be the #2 light heavyweight, say #16 at heavyweight and #20 at middleweight. Seems reasonable.

[Rex Tickard]

Originally Posted by Manassa

I think a couple of names on Dempsey's are very questionable. Moore's are slightly less questionable, and the big, crap heavyweights he beat (Embrel Davidson, 20-2-0, Hans Kalpfell, 16-1, James Parker, 29-5-4, Bob Albright, 21-7-3 etc., none of whom are on the above list) are worth more than Dempsey's barnstormers in my opinion.

I agree, Moore may have a greater volume of decent-to-good quality HWs on his resume. However, I would argue that it lacks the meat that Dempsey's has. Dempsey had wins over six separate HOF HWs, twice the number that Moore beat, and also toppled a reigning HW champ, something Moore twice fell short of doing.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Rex Tickard

I agree, Moore may have a greater volume of decent-to-good quality HWs on his resume. However, I would argue that it lacks the meat that Dempsey's has. Dempsey had wins over six separate HOF HWs, twice the number that Moore beat, and also toppled a reigning HW champ, something Moore twice fell short of doing.

Circumstantial maybe. I could see Moore thrashing an inactive Willard to a late stoppage.

[Shake]

The neat thing about a good all-time pound-for-pound list is that you could research any one of them and come away with the impression that they should be ranked higher. They were simply that amazing.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Yeah there will inevitably be a few crap ones in there but if they were top ten rated, even in a weak era it shows they had a pulse. To beat such a variety is worth a lot as an actual heavyweight, but for a former welterweight it looks great. Valdes and Baker were quite good (at least Brennan level I think) and both 210lbs, Lavorante was rated and about the same size. Kalpfell, Parmentier, Bean, Spaulding, Davidson, Dugan and Cestac were C level but at least 210lbs each. There is no point to this, just saying, Moore beat a lot of big boxers for someone who at nineteen weighed 145lbs. He beat plenty of 200lbers as well.

Anyway, Bivins was very good as well of course at around 185lbs, if not in his peak but still a handful.

Some of the others were deceptively good, like Bert Whitehurst and Ted Lowry even if really they were journeymen.

3-0 against Joey Maxim is significant to me as Maxim was regularly rated at heavyweight after beating of mediocre boxers there. Worth more at light heavyweight but as good as Firpo surely.

I think you need to compare on styles, such as Valdes/Baker with Willard/Firpo as all big cumbersome brutes. If you compare them in such a way, it's easier to choose 'who's better'

Bivins I suppose compares with maybe Gibbons in the borderline ATG smaller man category. Miske with Maxim as bottom top10 contenders

Anyway I meant to go on a rant about how average Bivins looks on film with his ATG badge or not

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by orriray59

First time I've ever seen Archie Moore rated in the top 20 at heavyweight.

And I mean that.

Well, I would have him lower but it seems harsh on Dempsey as there is little difference between the two records. I give Dempsey the benefit of the doubt that his top end victories might be better and that his ascent may have been more electrifying. But like I said, Moore's longevity counts too (and why shouldn't it? I feel 'time near the top' is an underrated component these days).

It has to be said, I tend to rate heavyweights pound-for-pound - it's a different division now with a higher average of big fighters with skills. I wouldn't expect Moore to hang with Lewis or the Klitschkos, however, if we keep the heavyweight name tag on the division, at least we should differentiate like we do with other weight classes, for example, I think Dick Tiger is better than Bob Foster pound-for-pound, but not in an absolute sense; Foster was a bit bigger. Therefore it is understandable that Moore could possibly rate in the same region as say, Ken Norton, who most regard highly.

Thinking about it, sixteen is too high but #19 is fair I reckon.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Circumstantial maybe. I could see Moore thrashing an inactive Willard to a late stoppage.

agreed. the fact that willard was the reigning titlest doesn't mean as much as his overall quality, which wasn't that much

the HOF fighters he beat are impressive but i'm assuming they are carpentier, gibbons, willard himself, miske, sharkey and for the life of me can't think of the last.

regardless, carpentier was undersized and outmatched. he was not a heavyweight and the fight was more a testimony to the promoters than dempsey himself. comparable to mayweather vs marquez

gibbons was a great fighter, small but a solid win even though dempsey struggled quite a bit and by reports, the fight displayed his flaws

willard i don't find much quality in. big, inactive farmhand who was rightly bludgeoned under the rules of the day.

sharkey was dominating him by every report until a nut punch that would have made tito proud turned the tide.

miske i don't know enough about to offer a fair judgement either way.

i don't see the all time great quality of dempsey's heavyweight resume. if holyfields ledger was filled with middleweights and light heavyweights, inactive part time fighters and he won against tyson by headbutting him to unconsciousness...well that actually almost happened

but you get my point. he wouldn't be rated that high all time. why is dempsey allowed a pass and every time a legitimate criticism is brought up quotes about his ferocity and abilities are thrown out in place of careful analysis of his competition?