1951 Archie Moore vs 1927 Gene Tunney

But wouldn't you classify Johnson as a technician, by the book guy, rather than a mobile speedster?

 

Not sure they fight the bill. Pastrano is slick. The thing is, faster guys like Burley and Charles had plenty of craft in addition to their speed.

From the 30 seconds of Williams footage he is not that type of fighter. Unsure on Marshall.

I could be giving Tunney too much credit. I think Moore does better fighting bigger guys that he could set traps on in the center of the ring. He can out-box boxers by setting traps and countering. Moore doesn't have to initiate but has to be in range. How does he get off against Tunney. I can really see Tunney winning in a truly ugly and uneventful decision type fight.

 

I think Tunney had what it took. At the end of his career he was still getting better, with a style he seamlessly and almost flawlessly executed, tremendous physical gifts and confidence. He looks near perfect on film at that point.

 

At light heavy I'd give the (significant) edge to Moore...more experienced, stronger. but at heavy Tunney became stronger himself, and grew into a very well rounded, mobile style. That would have troubled Moore IMO. Tunney beats him at heavy...

 

I'm guessing that Tunney's speed, boxing skill, and (especially) his legwork would enable him to outpoint Moore. I see Tunney taking it by sticking-and-moving all night long. Moore might make it close, though.

 

The second Charles fight was an MD and the final despite being a loss saw Charles nearly get knocked out. So Archie is actually doing pretty well against such a style despite losing. Charles is also quicker, technically better and a more devastating puncher than Dempsey

Pastrano is slick, great movement and very quick so to draw with him way past Moore's prime is an impressive effort. His power though isn't in Tunney territory

What you have to remember is Archie probably wasn't yet prime against Burley, he was losing to other fighters around this time that he likely wouldn't at his best

Marshall if you've seen footage of him looks like a Roy Jones or Burley type of boxer, pretty quick too. He was at his best around the Archie fight too, so a big win considering the same style against Burley dominated Archie previously

Holman's style is hard to judge from those 30seconds, but he is considered a complete technician and defensive master

So no I don't think Tunney has a massive stylistic advantage here and hence why I see it as a 50-50 :good

 

Was Archie green or was his opposition much tougher?

 

Tunney had what was necessary to cope with Dempsey - strength.

That classic 'deflated-chest and defined back' build was present on many greats who had functional strength. Carpentier stayed rather meek in that department while Tunney naturally filled out another 15lbs.

Moore was more of a Snapper-Turtle than Mongoose; difficult to engage, tough to crack and very prickly. Had it been Archie in there instead of the Frenchman Gene would not of had much fun. This is a little unfair mind as the 'Fighting Marine' was decidedly drained that night.

Tunney is often thought of as a born 175lbs fighter but it proved to be a transitional period which naturally passed, not like Roy Jones who ate his crusts and whatever else to make 193lbs.

A fight at heavyweight is fairer than any other scenario considering Moore's own pedigree, but the smart money points to Tunney.

Gene's punch, something which is uniformly dismissed, packed a wallop, and it's much easier to imagine Tunney dropping that sharp cross on a crouching Moore than it is Archie suckering him in for those powerful clubs.

Light feet will keep Tunney from experiencing anything too rough as he takes a lively decision; close but clear.

 

I give Tunney the edge because of his speed and movement and grit, Archie very good at adapting and was smooth and quick and lets face it the most KO's ever...close decision with both men being rocked and this is not the post-Marciano beaten-Archie who fought Patterson

 

I like Tunney by UD or he might catch him late with the right hand.

 

i can't help but think that moore fought, and beat, much better opposition at 175. tunney is getting his just due on this thread, just want to make sure moore is to

 

Interesting breakdown ...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

His post-Championship comp was weaker H Johnson aside, but I think there was a clear progression from the Archie who was dominated by Burley and Booker, to the Archie who beat Holman and Marshall and giving Charles close fights

Physically too he became a very strong 175lber too, which I think suited his body much more than being a lanky 160lber