Dmitry Bivol vs Harold Johnson @ 175

It was scrutiny, it's a different champion. Moore was younger, better and seemed 36 at 46. That is the scrutiny.

Nobody is denying that Roy Jones at 28 was better than Benitez at 28. Nobody is denying that at 38, Hopkins was better than Roy; Marquez was better than Morales. Not only can you apply things selectively, everybody should. Especially when the old fighter in question is as odd and unique as Archie Moore. Also, if you don't want to treat each fighter as an individual and choose to apply a blanket criteria to everyone; Johnson beat Moore when Moore was 34, not 40.

I'm not even agreeing that Beterbiev was too old or sucked at that age or whatever that other guy was saying. But treating them as equals, is equally stupid.

 

Officially Moore was 37 when Johnson beat him which is pretty close to when Bivol fought Beterbiev at 39 and 40. My point to the original poster was you can't take away Bivol's win against an old fighter because he was old and then give credit to Johnson for his biggest win against an old Moore. That's a double standard. Either beating old champions hurts your legacy for everyone or for nobody. And H2H is an entirely different discussion that shifts the topic from consistency which is what I was originally talking about.

 

The census, which is official, has Moore born in 1916. He was 34

It's only a double standard if it's the same thing. Archie Moore and Beterbiev weren't the same fighter or at least the same level of past their best. Beterbiev looks at the end of the road, has been riddled with injuries, hasn't fought in a year and has no fights booked. Archie Moore won the belt a year later and was champion after that for 9 years with one org and 11 years with the other.

Not treating them as the same isn't a double standard, it's just the behaviour of a normal human.

 

His mother claims otherwise so bit of ambiguity there but whatever it doesn't really matter since its not the point of my argument.

Fair enough they're not identical situations because of Moore's run afterwards. But the double standard I'm calling out isn't about forcing them to be exactly the same. It's that almost nobody ever diminishes Johnson's biggest win by saying "eh, Moore was already old and past it." Yet plenty of people immediately use Beterbiev's age + supposed decline to downplay Bivol's victory as the person I was responding to did. If we're going to apply "old fighter" scrutiny case-by-case like normal humans should, then it shouldn't only get pulled out when it helps the narrative we like. That's the selective part I was originally pointing at.

 

Beating Beterbiev who was on a tear knocking everyone he fought out, sitting top 5-10 P4P, and still looked like a monster for most of both fights with Bivol isn't "beating up some old man." You judge how good the fighter was at the time of the fight not 14 months later after inactivity. There wasn't real evidence in either fight that he was a spent force. Most people had Beterbiev as the favorite in both fights with many thinking he would stop Bivol. That's not the profile of someone you're "beating up on" because he was old. That's beating the most feared fighter in the division. So yeah the age scrutiny still feels selective when it never got applied to Johnson vs Moore the same way. So yeah the age scrutiny still feels selective when it never got applied to Johnson vs Moore the same way. Not that it should that's my main point.

Also don't let the door hit you on the way out and enjoy reddit!

 

Stop using Chatgpt for your responses.

"You judge how good the fighter was at the time of the fight"

reread my post: nor did he ever look as visibly gassed and worn out as Beterbiev did in the second fight against Bivol."

"There wasn't real evidence in either fight that he was a spent force."

14 months of inactivity and completely gassing out in rounds where he would have still worked on in earlier years.

"So yeah the age scrutiny still feels selective when it never got applied to Johnson vs Moore the same way."

There is no "scrutiny" to be applied in the case of Moore because of the reasons listed above.

You do know wins do not stay put and can lose or gain value overtime, right?

He was still an injured and old fighter.

 

I've been on r/boxing for much more time than i've been here.

 

How did he look gassed and worn out when he won the later rounds in the first fight and the last round of the second? What specific rounds are you talking about where he supposedly gassed out? Because from what I remember he was competitive throughout both fights.

And it wasn't 14 months of inactivity. He fought Smith on January 13th 2024 so about 9 months between fights which is pretty normal in today's boxing. And only 4 months between the first and second fight. Unless he magically got old in 4 months?

He was considered the best LHW going into the fight and a top 10 P4P and one of the most devastating punchers in LHW history. Most people picked him to win both fights. You're devaluing the win because you don't want to give Bivol credit for beating a genuinely dangerous opponent that most thought he would lose to. Same with the Canelo fight.

 

Inb4 this thread gets locked

 

His mothers word is not the official story, you can bring it up if you want but it was you who said officially 37. That is blatantly false.

No, they don't - because Moore wasn't old or past it you're better off levying that argument at the Charles win.

Beterbiev's decline is supposed? I thought it was pretty obvious he isn't the force he was 7/8 years ago. It's not even something to be ashamed of.

 

By the standards of the era he was definitely old considering Louis at 32-33 and Charles at 32-33 were considered old. Whether he was past it is a different argument obviously going by his performances he wasn't. But I would say the same for Beterbiev who was the top ranked LHW going into the fight, had knocked out all his previous opponents, and was seen as the favorite going into both fights. My point wasn't that both wins shouldn't be counted because both were old. My point is simply that a fighter can be considered old but can still be good, and beating them is still impressive as it was for Johnson when he beat Moore and Bivol when he beat Beterbiev. Not trying to make this a debate about which is a more impressive win.

 

Classic forum is getting crazy Bivol would be a boxing master in any era, elite in any generation you place him in. There is no light heavyweight in history that could dominate Bivol, quite a few who would beat him tho

 

This is actually a very amusing post lol

 

Different fighters. Louis had been champion for ten years by 34. Charles' reign was over and had aged normally for a fighter of the era. Archie Moore can't be held to these standards because he defied them his entire career. He'd still be a freak today.

 

Fair enough Moore was special. On a different topic, always wondered about his longevity. Do you think it was his technical prowess allowing him to last longer than his competition? His athletic ability not declining as much as others in the era? Or simply not being as reliant on it as others? Alternatively maybe he actually got better as he aged or simply mastered his style the older he got. Always been curious about that with him.