just watched the moore durelle I fight .it was incredible how moore came back off the canvas to ko durelle. my question is, how the heck did patterson beat archie? moore to me seemed so slick and tough with lots of moves and good counters and offense and defense with good punching power. while ive never thought that much of patterson.
Moore said he ovetrained for Patterson, plus that his cocoon defence worked against him with Floyd and Ali as their quick punches to the top of his head disorientated him.
I do know that he had some out of the ring problems at the time. I believe Archie said it was his sorriest performance of all. Patterson looked sharper than ever, giving indication of how great he could have been had he stuck to fighting in his natural weight class. The fight was for the heavyweight title but it was more like two light heavyweights with Moore and Patterson fighting each other. Obviously a 40+ year old fighter would always have trouble with the kind of speed Patterson possessed as well.
Patterson made Moore look 100 yrs old in 1956................. Speed kills............ Moore was slower than Molasses compared to Patterson......... Patterson exploded that hook off Moore's jaw in round 5 and it was all she wrote........... MR.BILL
The Moore of the Durelle rematch might have made things interesting for Floyd, as that may have been the fastest and best version of the Mongoose we have on film. It was obvious Moore over trained and was probably psyched out for Patterson. Marciano beat him down with attrition and pressure. Archie probably tried to overcompensate for this by wearing himself out in the gym. He looked fine shutting out and taking apart big James Parker four months earlier in Toronto. I suspect he just made the mistake of trying to fix something that wasn't broken. (Moore-Patterson could have been made with both the LHW and HW titles on the line. I wonder how Archie might have done with the added incentive of defending his own championship.)
Styles make fights............ "Patty & Clay" was all wrong for Moore............ Moore could handle brawlers with power and aggression, but fleet-footed speed demons with power, all but killed Moore throughout his career...... YES! We all know Moore was near 146 yrs old in 1962 against the 20 year old Clay.... But still.?.? Moore had trouble with fleet fighters who could box and pop........... MR.BILL
I'll never forget the awesome story of Moore at 63 ko'ing the massive labourer with a flurry of bareknuckle bombs :shock:
Why? Youngest linear hw champ, first two time hw champ, good resume, longevity, his share of good fights, and after D´Amato he didn´t duck no one. He get´s underated and overlooked most of the time.
This. In fact, Patterson had already whupped Durelle on his way up, without any of the trouble Moore would later have.
Floyd Patterson was a great fighter, that's the main reason. I dont buy any "over-training" excuse about Archie Moore. The guy was a 20 year veteran professional, wise and experienced as they come. He knew his body and the best way for him to train more so than any other fighter. Truth is, Archie was old and unable to cope with Patterson. And he's probably fortunate Patterson didn't fight him for the 175 title too and cut his reign short.
I think Moore looked just as "bad" (maybe moreso) against Durelle as he had against Patterson. The difference is Durelle was just an OK plodding contender, whereas Patterson was an Olympic medalist and fast-rising phenom (and had already used Durelle for a stepping stone on the way up).
I do think that these kind of accusations could have had an impact on his performance: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10616FC3D5F15738FDDA00A94D9415B8689F1D3