Which Heavyweight Champions Does Archie Moore Beat?

You must really think low of Moore and the men he beat.

I don't see any reason why Moore could not replicate Evanders success against Champion Douglas. Moore would find his chin with the big right. What earth would give you the impression an I'll motivated fat man swinging wild uppercuts and walking into right hands could beat the Mongoose.

Champion Foreman was outboxed by Shultz and was barely passable against c listers. A punchers chance but this isn't a speed demon Patterson or 90 punch throwing Marciano.

Champion Moorer wasn't disciplined enough to avoid a tired slow Foreman. He would get outboxed by Moore and likely took out.

Ingo has a punchers chance but he was just too limited and slow. Moore proved he could eat these types up.

 

Not really. But I could say the same in reverse.

LOL. oh I see. We're not taking these men at their best now are we? We're selectively choosing them when they looked like ****.. Well in that case I'll make it easy on myself as well.. James Tillis probably would have beaten the version of Archie who fought Ali.

See above.

Outboxed? He out threw and outlanded schultz and the stats are available online.. And unlike Schultz, Moore would be there to get hit..

No.. Because he was trying to knock him out and was hammering him all night, before finally getting tagged by one of the hardest hitting heavies of all time. I don't think he'd have that problem with Moorer who likely wouldn't make it past about the 8th.

I'll give you that one, but its still up in the air for me.. Ingo resoundingly beat Eddie Machen and Floyd Patterson - one of whom convincingly beat Moore.

 

The thread title is asking about Heavyweight Champions Archie could beat. So you have to take the Heavyweight Champion version of these men, not the one random night they inspired to their absolute peak potential. Even than, I doubt they are beating Moore.

You going to argue Schultz as being more elusive than Moore? Lots of luck with that. In a 15 year peak against a variety of greats, Moore was only there to be hit clean by guys that were faster (Patterson, Charles, and Ali) or durable high volume swarmers.

Moorer isn't outboxing Moore, and probably couldn't even outslug him; they both hit hard and Moore would have the hand speed, durability, and defensive edge.

Machen isn't in Moore's league, man. Difference between a good technician and a great one. And you can't even argue size on this one, because HW Moore and Machen were the same weight range, roughly same height, and reach.

Ingo also lost convincingly to Patterson twice. And Patterson was a horrible match up for Moore, too much speed. None of these other guys are beating Moore to the punch like that.

 

Yes this is 100% your implication "if he can't get past Marciano and Patterson the disadvantage is going to increase". This is totally implying size is the be all and end all again.

It is saying everyone else is bigger so no chance Archie!

Size is a factor, but so is greatness. For a smaller guy to win he has to be a great deal better or smarter than the big guy. Nobody was smarter than Archie and he beat plenty of big guys. He knew how to do it. Proven at it in fact. Surely there are defending champions out there who could drop a fight to a proven world class big man beater?

If size was the only factor how come Moore beat so many world class big guys? You need to look at all the angles here to at least be fair here.

 

mm, Let's see.....A pressure fighter who wasn't as good as Archie Moore beat Johnson. His name was Marvin Hart.

Johnson does not do well vs. pressure fighters who can punch. He also had issues with fighters who can jab well as O'Brien did.

Moore has the power, jab, offensive skills, and reach edge in this match up!

Had Johnson fought neither Hart or O'Brien your bigoted @ss would be saying yeah right if someone suggested they could beat him. But he did. Look at the results.

Moore > Hart or O'Brien.

Draw your own conclusions!

F off. The hate is all yours old man. Now try saying what I wrote is not true. :hi:

 

The fact that you're selecting the very worst version of Douglas pretty much says all about your confidence in Moore to beat him when he even remotely resembled a world class fighter, and picking the one who fought Holyfield is just as "random" as me picking the one who fought Tyson.

Schultz was hard to hit, had decent height and arm length and still got outlanded by a 45 year old Foreman. Moore liked to mix it up and would be there to get hit had mid range. I don't see Moore surviving Foreman's power and wouldn't be able to land much meaningful through George's cross arm defense - something he learned from Moore himself.

Moorer had the power to hurt Archie. He also had the size advantage and a southpaw stance. Not an easy proposition at all.

Not claiming he was in the same league. But he was certainly an elite contender who didn't last very long.

But at least he beat Floyd once and dropped him twice in their rubber match - something Moore couldn't do. Nevertheless I'll give you Johannson.. But I stand by my guns that there weren't very many heavyweight champions that I'd favor Moore to beat.. he fought two of them and got beat convincingly.. Neither of them were prime when these fights happened.. One of them is viewed by many as one of the weaker champions in the divisions' history and both of them were among the smallest.. Doesn't exactly bode well for him in too many fantasy matchups.

 

It has nothing to do with confidence, the topic of the thread is asking which Champions Moore could beat, not which top contenders.

Moore would have a field day countering old George. And since when did he like mixing it up? He did so when he had to, and he wouldn't have to here.

Moore can hurt Moorer to, and was a vastly superior boxer.

Ingo would beat the Moore from the first Durell fight but that is three years removed from his HW title contender days and not the best night

Well of course if you are subbing Tokyo Douglas in for Champion Douglas and implying Moore was more hittable than a fringe Euro fighter. The odd thing is I think Ingo has the best shot of these Champions.


Not sure when you think Patterson's prime was, he peaked early as an all time great offensive machine with an athletic power punching style ideal for giving defensive back foot fighters hell. He was also 18 years younger...I think discrepancy like that is often a bigger factor than actual age.

Marciano being the one past prime certainmy a different spin but at 33 he was still operating in top form. Patterson is hardly one of the weaker champions in history, and his career as a whole is underrated. He was better than Sharkey, Carnera, Rahman, both Spinks, old Foreman, Braddock, Moorer, Douglas, ..etc

 

Legacy wise? sure Patterson rates higher than some of those men. Head to head? Pretty sure he loses to a good number of them. At any rate we've seen Archie's title fight record in heavyweight championship bouts and it stands at 0-2 and against men who were under 200 lbs and were either past prime or hadn't reached it.... Doesn't bode well for him beating too many heavyweight title holders.

 

I don't know if I would call Marciano past his prime against Archie Moore in 1955 . Charlie Goldman called it the best performance of Rockys career. My own opinion it was the best defensive of performance of his on film...and his stamina displaying in round six was something only few fighters in history have ever done on film

Of the names mentioned above I would only favor buster Douglas over Patterson. No one else beats Floyd in my opinion.

Marcianos a top 10 all-time great heavyweight Patterson is a top 20. Moore losing to them should hardly be a knock against his legacy. A lot of heavy weights and history would go 0-2 against those two

 

This is selling Patterson absurdly short, he would likely beat all them in their title defense form.

Patterson past his best beat Chuvalo, Cooper, Powell, Machen, and Bonavena, deserved nods against Quarry and Ellis. He rebounded from a brutal defeat to destroy Ingo and actuall got off the canvas in the rematch to outslug him. List on and Ali had his number and that's it. You telling me he's losing to these misfits?


Well I don't think Marciano and Patterson ever looked better than when they beat Moore.

 

Now who does that speak volumes about?

 

The original question--

"Which of the lineal champions could he beat over 15 rounds."

I take this to mean which champions could he beat at some point when they held the championship. Not necessarily their best moments as champions, but just sometime when they were champion.

Prior to 1960, I think quite a few

Corbett (if Fitz could beat him, I think Moore could)
Fitz (actually a fight of light-heavies, although Moore might be the tad bigger)
Hart
Burns
Willard (Moore might well handle any version of Willard over 15 rounds, but the fat, inactive 1919 version is for me a decided underdog)
Sharkey (Sharkey was champion going into 1933. In that year he was KO'd by Carnera, and beaten by Loughran and Levinsky. I favor Moore to win)
Carnera (Carnera's size would be something Moore never faced, but the skill level is world's apart. Styles make fights, and Carnera might have a better chance here than sheer ability in the abstract might indicate, but I have to make Moore the favorite)
Baer (the Baer who fought so indifferently against Braddock certainly could lose to Moore)
Braddock (I think Moore is simply the better fighter by far)
Leon Spinks

Against those men I favor Moore at least at some points in their title reign.

others

Jeffries--who knows in a 15 round fight. Jeff's defense wasn't the best, and I see him eating jabs and rights all night. Possibly sheer size and strength pulls it out for him, but I don't see this as an out fight.

Johnson--at his best Johnson wins, but was Johnson at his best in the last few years of his reign? Moore is a level above the likes of Flynn and Moran. How does a fat, aging Johnson deal with him. I think Moore could well beat him from 1913 to 1915.

Dempsey--same as Johnson. A favorite at his best, but does the aging, inactive for three years, Dempsey of 1926 bring enough to the table to handle Moore. I think that is an open question.

Tunney--well, I favor Tunney, but he never fought a clever boxer with a punch like Moore.

Schmeling--I would make the Schmeling of his championship years a solid favorite.

Louis--I think any championship version of Louis (even the late forties version) should be strongly favored.

Walcott--should win, but better be on his game.

Johansson--looked great against Patterson and Machen. Otherwise, so-so. Toss up fight for me. The 1960 Johansson, after a year of going Hollywood, might no longer have been at the top of his game.

 

That's weak.

Bowe never looked better than he did against Holyfield, does that mean Evander was his worst opponent?

Tyson looked his worst against Mcbride, does that mean he was his best opponent?

 

Fair post.

 

Not quite as weak as your cherry picking pin points of time where Moore might have beaten a champion at his worst.. But nonetheless you still left yourself open for that one. :bbb