Yeah but he stil lost against LhW who had glass jaw and was beaten by LaMotta. Liston mother says that he is 1932 but he was in reality born in 1929/1930. People back then were not schooled and could not write or read. Ken Norton also claimed that he is older than he is and so? Anybody could say that he is older or younger just because times were rough. 20 almost 21 is hardly a Teen. You wouldn't admitt if I didn't caught you but since you lie sometimes yeah, it is common for you.
I think he'd have won those fights, the only one I see throwing a possible spanner in the works is Nino. But going with what we know about the Rock and Valdes, I d take Marciano to overcome maybe getting hurt, and stop the bigger man in around 10.
There is no verified DOB for Liston. I have provided 3 individual sources listing Moore's DOB as Dec 13th1913. I have provided a report of the Layne v Walcott fight which states categorically that," there were no knockdowns." You continually call me a liar and expect me to be polite to you? **** YOU .YOU IGNORAMUS! ps I am not your friend, I don't like you.I don't like the way you ignore primary sourced information,I don't like the way you don't admit your are wrong when you are proven to be so. I don't like the way you plough on with your own narrative long after you are blown out of the water with logic and facts.Go do one!
There seems so much discussion about Valdes and his ratings, I went over to boxrec and here are the National Boxing Association quarterly ratings. I do find validity in the position that The Ring is just a magazine, and these are actual official ratings April 21, 1953 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Jersey Joe Walcott 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Roland LaStarza 4--Dan Bucceroni July 7, 1953 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Ezzard Charles 2--Roland LaStarza 3--Dan Bucceroni 4--Bob Satterfield October 13, 1953 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Dan Bucceroni 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Roland LaStarza 4--Nino Valdes January 9, 1954 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Ezzard Charles 2--Nino Valdes 3--Dan Bucceroni 4--Roland LaStarza April 13, 1954 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Ezzard Charles 2--Nino Valdes 3--Don Cockell 4--Roland LaStarza July 5, 1954 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Ezzard Charles 2--Nino Valdes 3--Don Cockell 4--Roland LaStarza October 7, 1954 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Nino Valdes 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Don Cockell 4--Jimmy Slade Dec 28, 1954 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Nino Valdes 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Don Cockell 4--Bob Baker April 6, 1955 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Nino Valdes 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Don Cockell 4--Bob Baker July 7, 1955 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Archie Moore 2--Nino Valdes 3--Bob Baker 4--Don Cockell October 6, 1955 Champ--Rocky Marciano 1--Bob Baker 2--Nino Valdes 3--Hurricane Jackson 4--Ezzard Charles
Comments Valdes--Did not actually become the #1 contender until October of 1954. LaStarza and Charles in 1953 and Charles in 1954 were rated ahead of him. Valdes had lost four straight in late 1952 to 1953 before he turned it around and upset Charles. Valdes deserved the shot at Marciano in early 1955 over Cockell. In fairness to Cockell, he was a highly rated contender and lots of boxers who got title shots did not equal his rating status. LaStarza--was the number 2 contender behind Charles in July of 1953, but Charles lost to Valdes in August. The Ring rated LaStarza the #1 contender going into the Marciano bout. Valdes was still not really that much in the picture at this point. Satterfield--was rated #4 in July, 1953 and did not lose until he fought Charles. He added one KO. I assume he was still highly rated but boxrec only lists 4 men being rated by the NBA at this point in most of their ratings. When Satterfield fought Layne he was on a roll and rated #3 at light-heavy. Had a lot of big wins as well as big losses. He beat Harold Johnson and Valdes, and KO'd Baker in one, and had a slew of other impressive outings. Of course he also lost rather often and was the definition of erratic. Coley Wallace--was rated #6 in July, 1953. He won two more fights before fighting Charles. The second was a KO of Bill Gilliam, who in the last year had wins over Baker and Valdes. I assume Wallace was considered an impressive win for Charles, as was Satterfield.
Yeah and he could say that he was born in 1909 but is that true? Source is what someone said? Is that source better than census who claimed Moores age? Yeah like Cleveland Williams was just a teen with no fighting experience like you stated ahahaha. Bla bla bla...another liar who got his ego hurt.
I corrected my mistake both on the original thread.and the following one. You have yet to admit Layne did NOT floor Walcott despite my providing proof he did not. Now provide a census that says Moore was not 41 years of age. Disappear you fool,nobody agrees with you.
Yes he did I have seen that on old forum thread. Just because you are caught lying but If I didnt you would still continue to spread lies. Few people did, like klompton and ney which is nice. Biography of Archie Moore Archie Moore was born Archibald Lee Wright in 1916 in Benoit, Mississippi, the son of Thomas and Lorena Wright. He grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, and took the surname of his aunt and uncle, Cleveland and Willie Pearl Moore, who took him in when his parents separated. For a time he was addicted to drugs and served some time in a reform school called the Missouri Training School, but he had a religious conversion which changed his life. He was a professional boxer, fighting his first bout in 1936. He became the light-heavyweight champion of the world in 1952. He retired from boxing in 1962.
Just on Moore's age, I don't think it useful to got to the wall about how old he was. In a 1952 profile in The Ring he said he was 36 (making him born in 1916) 1916 is also the date of his birth on his grave marker. His mother is quoted as saying he was born in 1913. But who interviewed her and when? There were televised boxing shows from the LA Olympic back in the 1970's. At one of them in 1975, Moore was interviewed and said he was then 56 (making him born in 1918) because he had found out he was born the year World War One ended. Even the census would not be that valuable except for 1920 as Moore would be the one estimating his age. *so I don't think we really know. We only know Moore was still fighting well.
His resume would be better but not so much better enough as to pass people who'd otherwise be ahead of him. Marcianos 2 big obstacles to advancing further are longevity and his size. Swapping in slightly better opponents doesn't fix the longevity thing. In terms of his size Valdes might be the largest big win Marciano could have gotten but dominating Valdes(and lets say for the sake of argument he 15-0s him) isn't going to convice people that Marciano would have beaten Foreman, Ali or Lennox Lewis among others. The best possible scenario I can envision for Marciano would be somehow staying undefeated another 7 years and beating 20 year old Ali when he was 40. Also sidenot what did Rex Layne do to people?
Marginally better. Baker, Henry and Valdez were not that good, and LaStarza, Cockel and Mathews were not that comparatively that bad. For example, Valdes was 11-6 during Marciano's reign. Cockell was 10-2 overall, including the loss to Marciano, but 10-0 when he got the fight. In the end, Valdes beat Cockell, but they are pretty interchangeable. Baker apparently had brittle hands and thus could not really power punch with impunity. Clarence Henry was 2-3 during Marciano's reign. Mathews is a much, much better win.
Taking each in turn: LaStarza was clearly a better challenger when the fight took place, but I rate Valdez more highly at his peak. Again Cockell has better credentials on fight night, but I like Baker a bit better overall. In the above two cases his standing would go down in my eyes if they were direct substitutions, but go up if it had been the best versions of those fighters. Henry was a much better fighter than Matthews, so beating any half decent version of Henry woudl improve his standing in my eyes.
Definitely not. Replacing Valdez with LaStarza in 1953 would be giving Valdez a shot at the title solely because of the Ezzard Charles win, which justifiably got him from nowhere to in the rankings, but it didn't justify him getting an immediate title fight before Charles or LaStarza, who were still ranked ahead of him. Valdez in 1953 just didn't have the reputation that he would later earn by the end of 1954, so Marciano wouldn't have got much credit for beating Valdez and he definitely would've earned less money fighting Valdez instead of LaStarza. Clarence Henry arguably would've deserved the Marciano fight over Matthews had he not taken the Johnson fight, which did nothing for him and actually hurt his prestige as a top heavyweight. Henry's own people even tried to get a fight with Matthews around the time of his fight with Johnson, but after he lost to Johnson Hurley rightfully had no interest in a fight with Henry anymore and was only interested in matching Matthews with either Marciano or the winner of the Walcott-Charles fight. Not to mention Matthews was a better draw than Henry, so again Marciano would've made less money fighting Henry. Without the Moore blemish Baker would've ranked over C**kell, but Baker took an unnecessary risk by fighting Archie Moore, who not only beat him, but embarrassed him, which unfortunately badly hurt his prestige as a top heavyweight. Besides a payday Baker had nothing to gain by fighting Moore. Baker spent the rest of the year getting good wins, but it wasn't enough to justify a title shot or moving past C**kell, who patiently and wisely sat on his ranking for months. Also, once again C**kell brought more money to the table than Baker did.