This. Archie actually did better against the bigger heavyweights and said he preferred fighting them, since they were easy to figure out and much easier to land on. His heavyweight record was very impressive. Unfortunately age and years of playing around with his weight eventually caught up with Archie by the time he got his two title shots in the mid 50’s, since I don’t think Moore from 1951 to 1953 would’ve been stopped by either Marciano or Patterson.
That's how I see it. You could argue this was Marciano best win, and not be dismissed when you see what Moore did at heavyweight after this loss. In the old days a very skilled light heavyweight who is slowing down could actually better off at heavyweight as they weren't as fast as long as the light heavyweight moving up had defense, and could hit as Moore could.
I think Moore was obviously a good heavy in his era. The main point I would disagree with is that Moore was in a weak era. Not compared to earlier eras. I think the heavies and light-heavies of the 1950's stack up well against what I have been able to gleam from film of the 1910's, 1920's, 1940's, etc., fields. My view is that boxing is, perhaps with some glitches, steadily improving as are other sports. I don't know what historical great, even Ali, I would favor over Fury. The guy is 6' 9" and 273 and can box and move. The old champions, no matter how great in their own eras, would have been out of their depth if thrown into the modern ring.
I think boxing has been in a terrible place for two decades...but Tyson Fury is a h2h nightmare in any era against anyone. Really impressed me. I think his match with AJ will say more about his legacy then anything. I also think he’s good for boxing. I do agree the 50s is often underrated imo. Many ATG LHWs and HWs
Damn saw an article or post the other day someone said it was like 22 over 200 and he went 21-1 w the loss to Ali with a decent amount of KOs. Love how he has so many fights it’s tough to pin down an exact Hw record. Could have been as many as 25 wins but it was in that range
Archie's heavyweight record has always stuck out to me. Especially how twice he managed to outslug the massive Nino Valdes. Quite a feat.
Ya, big for heavyweights. Moore was a little guy. Let's see here, what heavies did Moore take out: Bob Satterfield Jimmy Slade Nino Valdes (twice) Clarence Henry Bob Baker Howard King Bert Whitehurst James J. Parker Willie Besmanoff (twice) Buddy Turman (twice) Pete Rademacher Alejandro Lavorante James J. Parker was a big guy, and Archie stopped him while on the decline. Archie's two wins over Valdes to me are still the crowing achievement of Moore's heavyweight career.
Add in jimmy Bivins x4. But beating Baker, Nino, and Henry in their primes when everyone was avoiding them was quite the feat.
Moore's record against men who held the heavyweight title is 0-6 with 4 knockout losses. Charles beat him three times well before 1951. Moore was an excellent light heavyweight champion. And he was a legit heavyweight contender. But every man he faced who held the heavyweight title - from Charles to Ali - stopped him. And I don't think Moore would've had better luck fighting Joe Louis or Sonny Liston. Moore just wasn't good enough to be heavyweight champion. That's no slight to him. He was still great.