Okay, we all know that Cassius Clay smack around Archie Moore for 4 rds in 1962 Los Angeles... However, aside from that fact, does anyone think a younger version of Moore such as from 1953 could've done better against the 20 year old Clay of '62???? Would a 1953 Archie Moore have had a legit shot at beating Cassius Clay??? I got my old video of "Clay-Moore" rolling and it kinda' reminds of what Willy Joppy did to Roberto Duran in 1998, but to a slighly lesser extent... Meaning Duran wasn't embarrassed as badly as Moore was.... A good man of youth hammering a legend over age 40.... MR.BILL:bbbhat
It obviously would have been a lot more competitive than their real fight,but the young Cassius Clay still wins. Too big and fast for Archie. Clay by UD.
