I think it's 50-50. Both are in their ABSOLUTE primes. Archie was stronger, harder punching, better offensive arsenal, better upperbody movement, slicker head movement, more crafty and savvy, and more proven against opposition. Tunney has the edge in jab, mobility, footwork, durability, combination punching, sense of range, and handspeed. Defense, size, ring intelligence, physical condition are EVEN. I gave the slight edge to Tunney in durability, but when you take into consideration the only puncher tunney EVER fought was an old Jack Dempsey(who knocked him down), perhaps it's much closer than we thought. Moore was floored more often because he fought much bigger punchers and much more punchers. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUT71-jyY2s[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQB1V9Puuw[/ame]
This was a natural development considering the other thread. This is rather basic, but I think Moore just has issues with speedy mover type guys. Tunney is greatly skilled and he's not Burley or Charles, obviously, but I just think Moore does not handle speed, nor great movers well. I favor Tunney by decision.
Disagree because Moore fought so many different styles. You can't pinpoint one style that gave him flaws when he beat so many different ones. Also, Gene Tunney never fought a prime large 175lber who packed elite punching and finishing skills combined with a cagey defense. Btw, Moore deserved the decision in the Ezzard Charles rematch..
Which reports say that? Either way, Charles beat him 2/3 times and dropped him good near the end of that rematch.
I pick Tunney to beat Charles ,and Charles beat Moore 3 -0 Tunney by unanimous decision. Moore was sure knocked down more often and not always by much bigger punchers, try 44 times.
If Tunney fought as many big punchers as Moore did we may see a lot more knockdowns on his ledger. The number of big hitters he fought is practically nil. Definitely nowhere near what Moore had to face.
That 44 is hard to ignore, I admit:smoke But consider: Tunney had 86 bouts and 599 rounds, with a washed-up Dempsey being the one big KO puncher on his ledger. Moore had over twice as many bouts- 219- and 1,474 rounds against some of the most dangerous punchers in history, many of whom he fought several times! Marciano, Satterfield, Sheppard, Marshall, Payne, Burley, ad infinitum. At least 13 of the knockdowns Moore suffered were to current or future HW champions, some of whom he fought when he was pretty well past his best- Ali, Patterson, Marciano, Charles. I count OVER half of those knockdowns(27 by my count) to be against nothing but top men, many with a big punch- Marciano, Burley, Marshall, Sheppard, Booker, etc. Keep in mind that Tunney had a style that was all about practicing non-engagement, whereas Archie waded right in against your firepower. Tunney kept his distance against guys that were firing pistols and rifles. Moore bored IN against guys that were firing howitzers and bazookas. What if Tunney had a style similar to Moore's and fought that style against the class of puncher Moore faced? And for as many fights/rounds/years? Might we see a similar number of knockdowns (not to mention KO losses) on Gene's record? Food for thought. My synopsis is that Tunney's chin, while undeniably sturdy, still wasn't tested all that much. Definitely not when compared to Moore, whose chin was tested CONSTANTLY.
Maybe it's just me, but as great as Tunney was I don't even put him in the same room as Archie Moore. To me that's like comparing a Gulf War veteran to a WW II veteran. The latter took all the risks and faced all the dangers. The former? Very few.
A true 50-50, Tunney is quicker and more fleet footed, Archie no slouch himself the superior technician, stronger, better in fighter and better puncher, although both very good punchers What about Pastrano, Harold Johnson, Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams?
You may well be right, I'm just thinking out loud really. I can't argue Moore fought bigger punchers, but he sure hit the floor a lot.