Marciano v Liston

Touche mcvey!

 

No he wasn't, Floyd was a 9-5 underdog in their first scrap and a 4-1 underdog in the rematch.

 

For the second time, I haven't rated Williams anywhere,that rating is bestowed upon him by Herb Goldmanatsch

Who did better against who means jack ****. Ali was given hell by Frazier and Norton ,but kod Foreman. Foreman used both of them as yo' yos. Its a stupid argument and you know it.
ps ,It's Mildenberger, not Mildenburger as in Hamburger.

 

-What would you define as Moore's peak LHW run?

-You've moved the goal post as your initial comment specifically stated "Moore was past-it and fighting at the wrong weight when he lost to Marciano"

-Anthony, Pompey, and Durelle were the top LHW contenders. The only better LHWs at this time would be Harold Johnson, whom Moore already beat 4 times. How can you say he was milking his run, when he was defending against his top contenders once or twice a year.

-After Patterson, Moore certainly slipped out of the HW division's upper tier, keeping busy against fringe contenders and defending his LHW title. Until he destroyed Lavorante whom had interestingly enough just KOed Folley.

 

He beat a prime future Hall of Famer and current #3 HW.

Who was better in 58?

Here's how it went down:

#1 Machen/#2 Folley fought to a stinker of a draw in their eliminator.
#4 Harris got an impressive win over #3 Pastrano, so he got the title shot.

Is Cus to blame for Folley and Machen blowing their eliminator match?

You should probably check.

Leading to the Patterson 58 defense:

Harris beat Norkus, Baker, Besmanoff, and Pastrano
Folley beat Valdez and Bethea, and drew with Machen
Machen beat Jackson, Maxim, Baker, Valdez, and drew with Folley.

 

Not a great style match-up for Marciano. Liston had a great jab that landed with the force of a right cross. Rocky tended to cut up and swell. It would be a great brawl while it lasted. I don't think Marciano would be kayoed though. I envision a Liston victory via cuts and an eye or two swollen shut. Liston will call Marciano the "bravest and most game opponent I ever faced."

Liston TKO (doctor stoppage between rounds) 9th

 

Late 40s through 51-52

And? I haven't said anything that repudiates that. I given you my definition of "prime". Moore was nearing 39 when he fought Marciano. That's enough right there to indicate that he was past-prime. He was also an ATG light-heavy fighting at significantly lower effectiveness at heavyweight. That indicates he's fighting in the wrong weight class.

So obviously the goalposts haven't moved.

You might want to recheck the record. The vast majority of his fights after Marciano were against journeymen heavies and non-title light-heavy bouts.

And btw, there's no magic in the words "top contender". If Anthony, Pompey, and Durelle were the best the division has to offer then obviously that's a very weak era at light-heavy and does Moore no credit.

 

and promoted by you! Using herbs rating as proof of Williams worth is endorsing nonsence. Nobody should be promoted as at ATG level if he he has zero form at that level. This applies to the big cat 100%.
Williams offered the same level of resistance in a championship fight as Brian London.

 

I'm selling nothing here if you have a problem with that ranking, take it up with Goldman, not me! I don't need others arguments to state my case .I think I'm doing very well against you at the moment!
ps., No c in nonsense.:good

 

-So what stands out in "1952" that makes you feel his prime ended. The 21 fight win streak where he scored definitive victories over three Hall of Fame rivals, captured the LWH title, and did a clean up of the young HW challengers?

-Moore lost to Marciano and Patterson, but beat better versions of the guys Machen and Folley would make their names off in Valdez, Baker, Maxim..etc. Machen and Folley lost to lesser fighters and even guys that Moore beat or would go on to beat. So why big up Liston's wins over Folley and Machen in 1960 while dismissing Moore?

-I was disputing your claim that he was millking the belt, when in fact he defended the title the required amount of times against his top contenders until 1960. Even after he was stripped for not fighting Johnson a 6th time, he continued to fight and compete against the best LWH's like Pastrano though he was finally struggling. You want title milking see, Gus Lesnevich.

-There is no magic in "journeyman", by definition a consistent top three contender in his weight class cannot be a journeyman. You are using the term as a slur to degrade, not by its definition. I'm at least using "top contender" in the proper context.

As for no credit. Durrell was very tough and gave Moore hard classic fights. Anthony was 20 years younger, well regarded, and favored over Moore. Pompey had a good run before burning out. Quality defenses, especailly after Moore already cleaned out Maxim, Johnson, and Olson.

 

Are you claiming a fighter can't have some good wins after they're past it?

Answer me this:

Was Ali prime versus Foreman?
Was Louis prime versus Walcott?
Was Holmes prime versus Mercer?
Was Dempsey prime versus Sharkey?
Was Ali prime for Frazier III?

You claimed he was "defending his LHW title against all comers twice a year" at the time he was fighting Patterson. Well that's false. Here are Moore's title defenses during the period in question:

1959 Yvon Durelle
1958 Yvon Durelle
1957 Tony Anthony
1956 Yolande Pompey
1955 Bobo Olson

That's once a year. In between those defenses you have a lot of no-names with records like 18-21-1 and 32-16. Now, I'll say it again, I have no problems with a respected but aging fighter milking his belt for a while and I'm not using it to "bash" Moore because, like I said, I have no problems with him doing it. But lets not make it out to be more than it is.

Are you claiming a journeyman can't get ranked during a weak era for a weight class? Somebody better call Jesse Ferguson because he clearly missed the e-mail on that one.

Durelle ran up a 79-19-2 against non-entities in Canada and Europe before facing Moore. Sounds like a journeyman caliber fighter to me. Anthony never did anything in his career to make any fair minded observer consider that to be anything more than a run-of-the-mill win for Moore. Same thing with Pompey: He racked up some wins fighting nobodies in Britain then went 7-10-2 in his last 19 fights.

Come on. I understand you like Moore but refusing to overrate a fighter's past-prime record does not constitute bashing. I'm going to leave it at that as I get the impression you're trying to make this about me instead of an objective look at the record.

So, I'm done here.

 

We aren't talking "some good wins", we are talking a 4 year 21 fight win streak that included many good to great wins that left him at the top of two weight divisions in 1956. And it appears you base your claim that Moore was "past it" in 1952 on absolutely nothing.

I was refering to his entire LHW reign as he defended the title twice in 54, I realize now you were talking about "after Marciano"

Again, I fail to see how meeting his top contenders in mandatory defenses once a year is milking a title.

Ranked in the top 3 consistently for multiple years, earning two shots at the World Title with a couple wins over other top 5 contenders? NO. You are no longer a journeyman, you are a contender.

You failed to address why you feel 60-61 Machen and Folley are better fighters than 55-56 Archie Moore. I'm not making this about you, I've argued based on opposition and reocrd that Moore was better. When you consider how the Lavorante situation turned out, a motivated Moore may very well have still been better than them in the real twilight of his career.

 

With a bullet inside his gut. Prime Big Cat would have literally knocked London out of the ring.

 

You think so? Based on what exactly? Against common opponents Williams did not do any better than London. In back to back fights Howie Turner went the distance with both Williams and London. Brian actualy knocked Roger Rischer out in the first round where as it took the big cat three rounds... zora Foley beat machen but lost to London....Williams drew against machen... Billy daniels went 20 rounds with Williams but lasted only 3 against Karl mildenbErger. This talk of WIlliams as a mighty force of 1950s and 1960s world heavyweight boxing is utter nonsenSe.

 

This kind of cherry-picking of facts is pretty easy to do.

Folley was in his prime when he beat Machen and 36 years old when he lost to Brian London. Eddie Machen soundly defeated Brian London when they met but could only draw with Williams (majority draw actually - the 3rd judge had Williams a fairly comfortable winner, as did the Associated Press). Ernie Terrell came away with a loss and a debatable split decision win against Williams but comfortably defeated both Folley and Machen.

Roger Rischer and Billy Daniels did indeed lose other fights during the course of their careers. Doesn't change the fact that they were both top-10 contenders when convincingly beaten by Williams.