Should Archie Moore rank higher than Duran?

[ChrisPontius]

Many will call blasphemy, as Moore doesn't have a single signature win as great as Duran-Leonard I. Moreover, he went 0-3 against Charles and lost both heavyweight championship fights, against Marciano and Patterson. However, let's not forget Duran went 1-4 against the Four and has neither the depth nor the longevity of Moore's resume. Who do you have higher and why?

[McGrain]

Moore 10-15
Duran 8-13

So it's ok by me.

[the cobra]

Duran, but I could see either guy anywhere from 7-12.

[KuRuPT]

You're it's blasphemy. I have Duran a full tier above Archie, and while that is still relatively close, it's more competitive than close ala SRL vs. Duran 1

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

You're it's blasphemy. I have Duran a full tier above Archie, and while that is still relatively close, it's more competitive than close ala SRL vs. Duran 1

A full tier above.

Okay.

[Shake]

Duran was the smallest of the Fab Four, though. Also, they were rather good. As in possibly top three head-to-head all-time in the respective weightclass Roberto fought them in.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by orriray59

A full tier above.

Okay.

Well yes, I have duran at no. 6 all time and I have Moore about 13 or so.. What about you

[orriray59]

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

Well yes, I have duran at no. 6 all time and I have Moore about 13 or so.. What about you

A full tier above, to me, is like saying they're on two completely different levels which obviously isn't true.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by orriray59

A full tier above, to me, is like saying they're on two completely different levels which obviously isn't true.

Why would you take it that way? Looking to disagree just to disagree? If I have Duran at 6 and Moore at 13.. one couldn't describe that as a tier above? Nobody is saying they are World's apart in skill.. if you're top 20 all time.. then you're some of the best of the best for sure.

[PowerPuncher]

Depends on criteria really, no right or wrong lists as long as you're consistent

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Many will call blasphemy, as Moore doesn't have a single signature win as great as Duran-Leonard I. Moreover, he went 0-3 against Charles and lost both heavyweight championship fights, against Marciano and Patterson. However, let's not forget Duran went 1-4 against the Four and has neither the depth nor the longevity of Moore's resume. Who do you have higher and why?

I rate Moore higher, although I haven't always. #7 for him, #9 for Duran.

Duran, I feel was slightly better at his peak, and of course his streak of 72-1 was excellent.

But Moore's career is truly incredible (not forgetting his 54-2-1 streak with more quality wins than Duran), and generally he faced tougher opposition and beat many more good/great fighters.

Duran was a great lightweight, but he simply does not have the equivalent of Johnson x4, Bivins x4 and Maxim x3 on his record. Moore has Lampkin and Palomino equivalents all over his record, if not one big victory like Leonard.

Duran had longevity, but Moore was out of this world. I strongly believe he was one of the ten greatest fighters in history and perhaps the most underrated for how good he was.

[Boxed Ears]

I've had Duran in 6-9 slots and Moore in 10-15, similar to McGrain for a long time now. I don't think I ever worked it out with Moore over Duran, though I'm a bigger fan of Moore. ...I would love to change my mind.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I've had Duran in 6-9 slots and Moore in 10-15, similar to McGrain for a long time now. I don't think I ever worked it out with Moore over Duran, though I'm a bigger fan of Moore. ...I would love to change my mind.

Uh oh, thread idea...

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Uh oh, thread idea...

There's too much to say, I'd be there all night...

... But I think I've figured out the main component of Moore's greatness.

His spirit. I seriously don't know any other fighter I'd rank above Moore in the 'heart' stakes. The Durelle fight would be a good indicator on its own, but there's so much more than that; Moore fought the absolute best over three full divisions, was knocked out, beaten up, ravaged by illness, broke his hands and kept poverty just about in check with a travelling schedule. He even fought in nine countries foreign to his own. Where Duran got fat and stayed fat, Moore got fat and then drained himself in between heavyweight fights to defend his title at 175lbs. It's astonishing to discover that a 1935 welterweight was the cause of a top ten rated, 211lbs heavyweight being 'carried from the ring on a stretcher' in 1962 after facing collectively the toughest opposition of all time (in my opinion, just in front of Greb, Langford and Rosenbloom).

I think you could take all the great light heavyweights, throw them into a time period and let them battle it out for years and years, and Moore would come out on top. His record would be spotty, he'd have been knocked out - he'd also have scored many knockouts himself - but he'd also be the one beating on Sam Langford twenty five years later after Spinks, Foster, Tunney and even Charles had dropped off somewhere down the line.

Duran, with respect, knows shit about against-all-odds next to Archie Moore.

[Manassa]

Just thought I'd post this comparison.

Fighters beaten by Duran who were at some point rated in The RING's annual top ten (Hall of Famers in bold):

Carlos Mendoza
Ernesto Marcel
Lloyd Marshall
Hiroshi Kobayashi
Javier Ayala
Hector Thompson
Guts Ishimatsu
Esteban De Jesus (x2)
Ray Lampkin
Edwin Viruet (x2)
Leoncio Ortiz
Saoul Mamby
Vilomar Fernandez
Adolfo Viruet
Jimmy Heair
Joseph Nsubuga
Davey Moore
Iran Barkley
Jorge Fernando Castro

Ken Buchanan
Carlos Palomino
Ray Leonard
Pipino Cuevas

Twenty five.