Should Archie Moore rank higher than Duran?

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here is the same list, but for Moore - all rated at some point:

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 I believe.

(This is the minimum for both fighters - Moore's list is updated; I just found another eight wins I'd missed previously).

[Manassa]

I know Duran has the Leonard win. And I know he was more consistent (weaker opposition and more comfortable circumstances). But I can't believe I used to rate him higher than Moore.

[lufcrazy]

I think the hardest thing with p4p is finding a level of consistency you are happy with and that reflects your perception of the sport.

A lot of lists are tweaks of previous lists.

I reckon going at it like a blank canvass is very hard separating certain guys.

I'm giving that a go and outside my top 5 it's open season. I think Charles should definitely be above Moore so that's 6 I'd always place above him but other than that he has as good an argument as any for the number 7 spot.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I think the hardest thing with p4p is finding a level of consistency you are happy with and that reflects your perception of the sport.

A lot of lists are tweaks of previous lists.

I reckon going at it like a blank canvass is very hard separating certain guys.

I'm giving that a go and outside my top 5 it's open season. I think Charles should definitely be above Moore so that's 6 I'd always place above him but other than that he has as good an argument as any for the number 7 spot.

Same with me. Charles definitely has to be above - and I don't think you can argue Moore over B. Leonard, who was brilliantly dominant in a tough era. Langford is closer I feel, but as Langford beat better heavyweights I give it to him. All things considered, I think Moore is #7, for being just about the most resilient fighter ever. I'd like to see someone justify Duran or Pep but I don't believe it can be done. Fitzsimmons is difficult, but I choose to rate him #10 due to the level of professionalism in the sport during his time which I think lacked the competitiveness of Moore's day.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Same with me. Charles definitely has to be above - and I don't think you can argue Moore over B. Leonard, who was brilliantly dominant in a tough era. Langford is closer I feel, but as Langford beat better heavyweights I give it to him. All things considered, I think Moore is #7, for being just about the most resilient fighter ever. I'd like to see someone justify Duran or Pep but I don't believe it can be done. Fitzsimmons is difficult, but I choose to rate him #10 due to the level of professionalism in the sport during his time which I think lacked the competitiveness of Moore's day.

My top 5 is srr, Armstrong, Greb, Langford, fitz.

It's between a few for number 6 atm with Charles, Leonard, Ali, Pep all fighting it out, but like I said Moore is in contention for 7. It's all very close at this level very close indeed.

Moore might make my top ten when I do lust it all.

[the cobra]

Dominance and superiority as a H2H monster are Duran's strong points in the comparison. That and the single best win between the two. Overall resume is definitely to Moore and he's one of the very few with even more impressive longevity. Both have fine multi-weight accomplishments. Depends on what you like.

As I said in my first post in the thread, I don't like either higher than 7 or lower than 12.

[orriray59]

You've really enlightened me on Archie Moore, Manassa.

[Nightcrawler]

i think there's arguments for both, which is awesome

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Manassa

All things considered, I think Moore is #7, for being just about the most resilient fighter ever. I'd like to see someone justify Duran or Pep but I don't believe it can be done.

Sure it can.

Your stats regarding Moore's 64 against Duran's 25 top tens is valuable though there are devils in the details. Cocoa Kid for instance, should never have stepped in the ring with Moore at that time. He didn't stand a chance. Not a chance. Bert Lytell actually beat him in his own hometown in the rematch despite being outweighed by over 10 pounds (both fights actually) -and Moore's own neighbors booed the decision to the rafters.

--However, there is no argument worth a nicket that says Moore didn't fight tougher guys, in a tougher era, in what really should be the most important criterion.

But that isn't the whole story.

There is also Ring Generalship to consider. And Duran beats him there. How many fighters in the history of the world have the technology to evolve from a puncher to a boxer-puncher to a swarmer/pressure fighter to a counterpuncher and beyond? A peak Duran was among the top two or three most formidable fighter ever. Moore was a beast, but not like that.

Longevity -Moore wins here, but Duran's 5 decades shrinks the distance between them. That performance in Camacho I was incredible. He was 45 in there against a style that he never liked much in his prime.

Dominance -slight edge to Duran based on his lightweight reign. Moore was playing hard to get after a few years on the LHW throne -not that he didn't earn the right after earning his bones against killers real and imagined on Murderers Row.

Durability? Duran. And not by a little.

Performance against bigger men? I have Duran by a tiny bit. No lightweight frame in history has come close to doing what Duran's did. Moore, more or less a supermiddle, was naturally big enough to carry the size and force to deal with big guys.

Intangibles. -Moore. And not by a little. I stomp down Duran's score here because of Leonard II.

....
I have Moore at #6, Duran at 5, though they're separated by no more than .2. If those placement seem high, keep in mind I discount all fighters who reached their prime before 1920.

Moore and Duran are close, close, but Duran absolutely has an argument, unless we want to zero on one or two measures that favor Moore.

Now, Ezzard Charles --that's a different story. I can't see either Duran or Moore over him.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

On resume alone you have to give it to Moore.....In my personal criteria though I consider Duran´s dominance and H2H ability as two great advantages in his favor....
It´s close anyway.

[orriray59]

Classic has been interesting lately, very nice to see these posts.

[PhillyPhan69]

Yes

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by Vic-JofreBRASIL

On resume alone you have to give it to Moore.....In my personal criteria though I consider Duran´s dominance and H2H ability as two great advantages in his favor....
It´s close anyway.

I agree about the dominance by Duran, on TOP of the Leonard win, on TOP of being fat and winning a middleweight title. Moore was nice and a fine ATG but Duran nicks it close but clearly for me.

[KuRuPT]

I think it's a TOTAL Injustice that DeJesus isn't in the HOF.. In my opinion, and that of many others, he should be and thus that is 2 more wins over a HOF.

[KuRuPT]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Same with me. Charles definitely has to be above - and I don't think you can argue Moore over B. Leonard, who was brilliantly dominant in a tough era. Langford is closer I feel, but as Langford beat better heavyweights I give it to him. All things considered, I think Moore is #7, for being just about the most resilient fighter ever. I'd like to see someone justify Duran or Pep but I don't believe it can be done. Fitzsimmons is difficult, but I choose to rate him #10 due to the level of professionalism in the sport during his time which I think lacked the competitiveness of Moore's day.

Err of course it can be done... Duran was more dominate at LW than Moore was in any one division. Duran was one prime loss.. Moore has many more than that. Duran has the best win between the two. Duran is better h2h than Moore is. Those points alone can justify it.