But here’s the thing my good man, you aren’t actually debating. You really aren’t. Talking over someone, whilst only solely focusing upon the negative aspects of a career, is NOT an objective debate. I’ll give you 2 examples of your debating style: (humour me for a minute) We’re in a bar. I say to you: “Roy Jones was a great fighter you know” And you reply with: “I don’t think so. He lost to Tarver and Johnson. He was embarrassed by Calzaghe. He lost to Green. He lost to Lebedev and Enzo Mac. He has 10 losses on his resume” Or I say to you: “Duran was an amazing fighter. A true top 20 ATG” And you reply with: “Nah. He lost to Marvin, Hearns, Ray, Benitez, Lawlor and Joppy. He lost almost 20 times” Now they are perfect examples of how you are debating here. Yes, Archie lost to Marciano and Floyd. However, the man was in his early 40’s, where he’d fought around 180 times. Imagine Floyd Mayweather fighting comparable opposition, at 43, having amassed 180 fights. Yes, Archie lost 3 times to Ezzard Charles. However, Ezzard Charles was one of the greatest fighters of all time. Mike Tyson lost to Evander twice, and to Lewis and Douglas etc, but he’s still one of the greatest HW’s of all time. Now we’ve looked extensively at Archie’s negatives, so why don’t we now ALSO look at the POSITIVES. His incredible skill set. His great longevity. His knockouts. His great wins over guys like Lloyd Marshall etc. There’s posters on here, educated men, who believe that Marshall could have beaten Roy Jones. As well as losing, Archie beat some great fighters, where he has a very impressive list of wins. He even beat some guys who beat the guys he lost to. Again, look at the WHOLE picture. Archie Moore is a top ATG fighter. By ANY metric. Yes, he lost. So did Greb and Robinson. It happens when you fight crazy schedules and fellow great fighters, again, something that was completely alien to Floyd. Regarding Floyd, yes, he never lost to a Charles x 3. He never lost to guys like Marciano and Patterson. But at the same time, he NEVER fought anyone as good as Charles, or fought hundreds of fights until he was 50. Here is my ranking criteria: Ability Overall resume Wins Accomplishments Longevity Floyd did not have MORE overall ability. And you can’t just claim that he did, just on the grounds that Archie lost and he didn’t. That’s casual fan ignorance. Floyd was better defensively. Archie was better offensively. Also, Archie was ONE of the early pioneers of the defence that Floyd Snr and Roger implemented with Floyd. So Floyd was not more skilled. Floyd does not have the better overall resume. Floyd does not have a group of wins that are better than Archie’s. Floyd did not have greater longevity. All Floyd has above Archie, is a zero, and the accomplishments, but from a modern day era, where there were 4 belts, 18 weight classes and a day before weigh-in. Yes, again, Floyd was a genius. He had a GREAT career. But you are ranking him as a top 5 ATG, when again, he never fought a prime ATG, where most of his best wins were against faded fighters. Now if you wish to proceed with the debate, I would like a few things from you please: 1. Give me your ranking criteria. 2. I’d be really interested to know where you rank Roberto Duran. 3. Give me Floyd’s best wins/opponents. Now if you can do this in a respectable manner, then we can continue with the debate, and I will of course answer any questions that you may have. If you don’t wish to do these things, then we can simply move on. Thanks.
Great post. Every historian as well as anyone of respect, all have Archie Moore as a top 20 ATG fighter. It appears that this guy doesn’t want an actual debate.
In his 14th fight at 19 Floyd fighting at 168 lbs lost an 8 round decision to Maxim only 2 years removed from being LH champ. By the way the crowd booed the decision and all the writers present thought Floyd was robbed. This may actually prove the opposite case. Why not look more directly 2 years later when Floyd still only 21 at 182 lbs totally dominated Moore from the opening bell and iced him with 1 punch in the 5th? With all due respect first time I’ve ever heard Harold Johnson described as a great fighter but all I can give you is my opinion: he wasn’t.
Just means you know nothing about Harold Johnson. ATG fighter. If Archie fought Patterson as the 52 version he probably knocks him out. Archie was 64-4 at HW only losing 3 of those fights at the age of 40 plus. To atg HOF HWS. The other loss was to HOF Bivins off a dirty shot which he avenged 4x.
I dunno about that. Patterson would always be a major problem for Moore with his explosive punching power and speed. Patterson destroyed Moore only 1 year after Moore dropped Marciano and went 9 rounds in a spirited effort. Styles make fights.
If ifs and ands were pots and pans the world would be a kitchen. And if 61 Paterson fought 52 Moore it be worse it’d be 2 or 3 round KO for Floyd. Light heavyweight division had Bob Foster and little else similar to the 50s maybe even a little worse then in the late 70s you started to get a lot of talent coming into the division. It boomed in 80s and 90s fueled by a lot of network tv broadcasts. Johnson was a nice fighter would have been a solid top contender but hardly an ATG.
Instead of looking at hypotheticals, why don’t you just look at what actually happened. In real time. His skills. His wins. His accomplishments. His longevity. Whether he lost or not, he is a consensus top 25 ATG fighter. I’ve never seen a list from a respected source/person, where he’s been omitted. Now where he specifically ranks, will of course always be objective. But you have no argument in saying that he wasn’t an ATG fighter.
Your opinion isn’t valid. To even think HJ isn’t an ATG he’s in the HOF hurts every argument you could possibly make. Your hate for the era is clouding your judgment.
My hate for this era? I don’t hate any era why would I? Buddy think you’re taking this all a little too seriously. Maybe it’s time to step away for a moment find an additional hobby?
For what it's worth, Harold Johnson finished #12 all time at 175 in the survey here from several years back. This content is protected
Not taking it too seriously at all. But why should I even discuss anything with you if you can’t see the obvious? Not sure how anyone could watch HJ and not think an ATG.
This thread from my perspective has been you arguing with invisible people that I put on my ignore list already lol. Seems like I made the right choice. I'll take Archie. Insane career. A man born in 1913 that started boxing at 21 years old, that retired at 220 fights, having a successful title defence against a top #3 contender in Guilo Rinaldi at 47 years old, 26 years and 214 fights into his career, just two years before he retired is ****in insane. Knocked out Howard King in 1 round the next year at 48. If Archie had access to HGH or EPO he'd be immortal. If Archie had access to HGH or EPO and only had to fight once or twice a year he'd age backwards.