Ur way off w that bday. But just because they weren’t ranked at the time doesn’t mean they weren’t decent wins. Their name wins meaning they had talent enough at one point or another to be ranked. They weren’t nobodies. Point being he had enough in the tank still to be competitive. Even if he wasn’t his old self which no one on earth claims
We really taking former champs critics of fighters seriously? U must take Tunneys critic of Holmes seriously then I mean he did whoop Dempsey twice whose word seems to garner much respect. I can’t take that argument seriously. Layne beat two former champs. Not many contenders have that in their resume like it or not. Lastarza gets hyped by no one. I actually used to bad mouth him till I saw film of his fight w Layne. Sometimes Marciano had a way of making fighters look off. Which he did w Lastarza. The man was an excellent boxer. I recommend to watch that fight. Was he a killer? No. But was he just as good a contender as some of these guys throughout history? Yeah he was ok. Nothing special but he wasn’t a bum. Matthews was in the ring for all his fights if I recall not Hurley. Good coaches r an asset but that’s complete bs. Fighters have to perform and Matthews was also a good boxer. I wish there was a big bruiser good enough to compete for a title but men like Nino and Baker just couldn’t make the cut. They would have been ridiculed by the likes of u anyway for their own obvious faults. Rocky beat everyone in front of him that’s all u can ask. The division was strong w boxer types but not strong w KO artists or big bodies. Was filled w the likes of Charles, Johnson, Moore, Baker, Lastarza, Nino, Walcott, etc. men whom could box ur ears off some had ok power but we unfortunately never got a Liston v Marciano bout to truly test that chin n meddle.
Lastarza was a protected fighter,he got a title shot he really did not deserve. Mathews , was a decent Lvhy but nothing special, Marciano fought who was around,apart from Valdes but it was not a deep era.imo
You haven't addressed what I've said 3x in a row now, probably 10x if we include other threads. It's amazing. Simply amazing. Do you think fighting for 20 years and having over 170 boxing matches can reduce a fighter's overall health, athleticism, and functionality in terms of reflexes/timing/endurance etc? I want a yes or no answer God's sakes.
Athleticism can decide fights. I'm not saying it's the "only" factor. My "theory" that athletes will have diminished reflexes, timing, health, endurance, etc after they've competed for decades compared to their prime self is a fact based in human biology. I am not saying that if a fighter is past their prime that they are doomed to lose. What I am saying is that being past your prime and having lower athleticism/health can reduce your chances of victory. To deny this is to deny reality. The fact Moore won some big fights against boxers such as Johnson doesn't change the fact that Moore was no doubt faster, had more energy, and was more resilient and athletic in his prime.
My .02 is folks like Moore are unique, they’re freaks of nature to whom the usual ways of looking at things don’t apply, so they should not be used as examples.
Depends. One might lose some athleticism w age but gain ring savy and intelligence. Moore was a completely different fighter in the 40s than he was in the 50s and he was a better fighter in the 50s. Ur question was answered several times. U stating it wasn’t answered means u just can’t comprehend reality of boxing. Some men get better w age. Hopkins, Mayweather, Toney, etc r all in that mold. Savy boxer puncher types can last a long time in the game. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp not sure how u don’t understand.
His memorial stone lists his birthdate as December 13, 1916. I don't know his age for certain but I notice there is no first hand proof given for the 1913 date. I will accept it right away if a birth certificate or a census statement is produced. But the way such things are handled in the US, I accept as most likely the date on the stone behind which his ashes are kept. Whatever, he was fighting just as well either way. Whether 37 or 40, he defeated Harold Johnson in 1954. It seems another pointless point to me.
One post mentioned the 1940 Moore as being obviously more athletic. He was 159 lbs. Was that Moore really likely to beat the Moore of the 1950's who was fighting at heavyweight? And carried the weight well. At what point do you think the Moore of the 1940's, fighting at middleweight during the war years, and as a light-heavy in the late forties, deals successfully with the bigger version of the 1950's? Little off topic, but I am interested. Do you think young Foreman beats old Foreman?
Frankly, I don't think either one of us can be certain of his age. All we can be certain of is how well he was fighting.
