Marciano in your top 10.

I have very low tolerance for straw men arguments. Not ME, I don't know when he was born. I am pointing out what Archie Moore himself has insisted was his birthday, what was on his legal papers, what is on his gravestone, what is officially observed at his birthday.

EDIT-1916 is in fact his true date of birth. So stop the 40 something bull****.

" The U.S. Census record from 1920 seems to put an end to the mystery. "Archie L. Wright" is listed as a nephew in the household of Cleveland Moore and was three years and two months old on the date of the census "— January 2, 1920.

If RING is your authority, he was recognized as the #1 HW contender when he fought Maricano in 1955. One can be both a HW contender and LHW Champion, you should not be baffled by this.

Are you so favorable to the Marciano was really a 230 bull that just happened to weigh 188 claims? 188 pounds in the ring is 188 pounds in the ring, that's that.

I don't believe you are being honest. You know exactly why you are framing your statements the way you are.

Wear and tear is impossible to prove on the basis of # of fights. Maricano might very well have been in the worst shape in that fight, he was suffering from numerous injuries and retired while Moore fought on successfully for many more years.

 

I'm pointing out the official facts.

Regarding if he was prime, I don't care if Moore was 62, 1952-1956 seems to be the peak of his fighting career. There is no other point in his career where I would say he had a greater chance of beating Marciano.

Depends on the fighter. You can't apply universal standards to this, we aren't casuals here.

 

Moore said he was 38 ,his Mother said he was 2 years older. I don't believe any fighter is prime at 38/40.Moore said in a taped interview that his legs were gone by the time he fought Marciano,it's in Heller's book "In This Corner".

 

Just bald Foreman?

 

Moore's claimed age is apparently born out by Census taken when he was about 3.

 

moores legs were gone as soon as Rocky stroked Archie's chin. They did fine before and after that point.

Moores legs held up superbly when he beat Bob Baker and Nino Valdes the #1 and #2 heavyweight contenders.

Archie's legs were holding up fine against Alejandro Lavorante, James J Parker and Pete Radmacher years after Rocky retired...

Archie's legs were the best in the business.

 

Well this seems to confirm it.

" The U.S. Census record from 1920 seems to put an end to the mystery. "Archie L. Wright" is listed as a nephew in the household of Cleveland Moore and was three years and two months old on the date of the census — January 2, 1920.


So 1916 was in fact his true of date of birth, making him roughly 38 when he faced Marciano. Not this "40 something" nonsense being claimed, that wouldn't even be accurate if his mom was right in the interview.

 

When Archie had fast legs on film, he was a MW with stomach ulcers that prevented him from digesting food and putting on weight. I don't see a 160 pound Moore beating Marciano, when he was getting knocked around the ring by Jimmy Bivins. He was too skinny and weak back then, always seemed to have a good punch though.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-archie-moore-1190575.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/10/nyregion/archie-moore-84-master-of-the-ring-dies.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boxer-archie-moore-dead-at-84/

Here are a few other sources to support my claim.

With regard to a LHW champion being a #1 HW contender as well, I get that. Don't you get that that means he was a LHW? He was the division's champion.

And Moore may have been in better shape than Rocky. I never said either way. What I said was Moore had had over 100 fights and that must have accrued some wear and tear - not least if he was this natural 188lber who had to keep making 175lbs. Look what it did to Roy Jones Jnr.

I'm not making preposterous, unsubstantiated claims. And I'm certainly not being dishonest. Seriously, I don't need to feel that I have won an online debate about boxing so much that I'll tell porkies to do so.

 

Out of luck on this argument, the mystery was solved. The US Census reported him as 3 years old in 1920.

" The U.S. Census record from 1920 seems to put an end to the mystery. "Archie L. Wright" is listed as a nephew in the household of Cleveland Moore and was three years and two months old on the date of the census — January 2, 1920.

He was LHW when he entered the ring at 175. Which wasn't very often in the 50s.

That's theoretical presumptions, what exactly is the case for substantial "wear and tear" that serves to discredit Marciano?

Moore cleared out the HW division, he was championed by the press, the NBA, and RING as the one man the Rock HAD to face. It was a super fight fought when it was demanded that Maricano dominated and won with no claims of controversy or injury. So it's hard to find much to criticize without sounding like sour grapes.

 

Thankyou.

 

Well, as far as it goes. But let's not derail that thread, you can make a new one. Would also be nice to get to know the criteria you are using. Pretty sure nobody is gonna agree with any of it but my guess is you are more consistent in applying your criterias than most of us.

Marciano beat better fighters than the largely unprovenUsyk.

 

It doesn't confirm anything, There's no link to a document. It's just something you've typed. His full name was Archibald. Do you really think an official census would call him Archie?