Nobody knows if Langford or Liston's head stones are correct . Just keep up the insults its what you are free with, providing proof is another matter.Moore did not contradict Heller when he printed his DOB as 1913 Box Rec has 1913 Wikipeadia has 1913. CBS has 1913 NY Times has 1913 ESPN has 1913 IBHOF has 1913 Boxing Wiki has 1913 Brittanica has 1913 Moore claimed he was born December 13, 1916, but his Mother said he was born December 13, 1913.
Moore stated his belief he was born in 1916 in his Peter Heller interview recorded in October, 1970 Moore's interview in my copy of Heller's In This Corner begins with Moore discussing his incarceration in reform school: "I am now fifteen years old." (page 305) "I found myself this day gazing from a window on the third floor of Juvenile Hall, the House of Detention." (Page 305) "I was sentenced to three years, and the next day was in chains, headed to Boonville, the State Reformatory for young men." (page 307) "When I got out in 1934, I went to the CCC camp." According to Wikipedia: "He was sentenced to a three year term at the reform school at Boonville, Missouri. He was released early from the school for good behavior after serving twenty-two months." So Moore in October, 1970, believed he was 15 years old when sentenced to the reform school. He served twenty-two months and joined the CCC when he got out, which he says was 1934. This means Moore believed he was 15 in 1932. Consistent with a 1916 birthdate.
In the interview with Peter Heller in October, 1970, Moore touches on the wear and tear issue. In This Corner--Page 309. Archie Moore: "It is not the length of a career that wears a man out. It's the amount of punches he takes. I didn't take too many. I learned defense." Page 310: "I wanted to have all the knowledge I could about defense because I knew I would have to have it if I was not able to get a title in my early years, then I would have a long haul."
I think it useful to mention that if Moore was born in 1913, he would have been legally an adult in 1932. Past his 18th birthday. Would he have gone to a reform school? Or to the state prison? That Moore was tried as a juvenile supports the 1916 birthdate.
What I posted was that "Layne and Bucceroni were rated at the top of the division in 1953." In the NBA quarterly ratings, Bucceroni was rated the #4 heavyweight contender on April 21, #3 on July 7, and was rated the #1 contender October 13: Champion--Rocky Marciano 1--Dan Bucceroni 2--Ezzard Charles 3--Roland LaStarza 4--Nino Valdes "Bucceroni was not Ring ranked when LaStarza beat him and Bucceroni had beaten him the year before." The first LaStarza-Bucceroni fight was on December 21, 1952. The yearly Ring ratings In the February, 1952 issue, ending with Decemeber 20, had LaStarza the #4 heavyweight and Bucceroni the #7 light-heavyweight. The Ring Magazine ratings for the period ending May 18, 1952 (in the July issue) had LaStarza as the #3 heavyweight, and Bucceroni as the #4 light-heavyweight. The last NBA quarterly ratings before the rematch had LaStarza the #4 heavyweight, and Bucceroni the #4 light-heavyweight. The rematch was on May 30, 1952. Bucceroni weighed 181 for both LaStarza fights. He last made the light-heavyweight limit in March of 1951 against Murphy. Bucceroni was first rated in 1950 and was consistently rated through 1954, rising to #1 heavyweight contender for a brief period in late 1953. Personally I make no big distinction in those days between light-heavy and heavy ratings, and which one a guy fits in is often arbitrary. Moore, Johnson, Satterfield, and Bucceroni were active in both divisions.
OK, fair enough. But can we admit the greater point that when 65-70 percent said Walcott won, it we can pretty much take it that he won? Also, can we finally and at long last admit that Valdez was not #1 after beating Charles and that Marciano had no obligation to fight him, because that is a matter of historical record.
both of you in this argument were right. the word that should have been used was MOST of, and that would have prevented the 'literal' arguments... but in GENERAL Terms, it was clear what was meant, often people will casually say all in the 'General' sense when they are expressing a majority. I think Most people understood what you meant. General understandings have really become a lost 'understanding' since the advent of Social Media, this is why we get such literal condemnations coming from people on the Internet, usually the Tech Generations i.e under 45 years or age or there about. Documentation is always necessary in the final research anyway. It levels out the discussions.
" Archie Moore was born in Mississippi on December 13 th 1913." Opening line of Heller's chapter on Moore page 303. "I hit Rocky Marciano some shots that would have taken the head off the average guy,but he kept piling up on top of me and finally you understand,when he got me in a position where he could hit me,then it wasn't long before I had to crumple because I had no legs.Probably I hadn't had any legs for the past four or five years".Archie Moore page 315.
I take nothing from it. When experienced and respected ringside judges such as Nat Fleischer John Lardner Bill Corum Red Smith James P Dawson Frank Forbes Judged171 fights Marty Monroe Judged 171 fights Scored for Louis. I'd say it must have been a very close fight in which some may have sored for Walcott's cleverness and some for Louis' aggressiveness its all about interpretation, I haven't seen the whole fight and am not prepared to judge a fight on a few highlights,that seems a reasonable and logical way to treat it.
Guys, not to take sides on the old "How old is Archie" debate, but just chiming in with something I once read (which must have been in the '90s) in Ring Magazine. Apparently Ring dug deep on the matter and researched the U.S. Census. Now, although I remember it, I thought the actual text was lost, as I no longer have that magazine. However, boxrec's wiki has the quote in Archie's bio. It states: Moore claimed he was born December 13, 1916, but his mother said he was born December 13, 1913. Moore joked, "I have given this a lot of thought and have decided that I must have been three when I was born." The U.S. Census record from 1920 seems to put an end to the mystery. "Archie L. Wright" is listed as a nephew in the household of Cleveland Moore and was three years and two months old on the date of the census — January 2, 1920. I will add something from Ring's article that was not on boxrec's and that was that Archie also disputed his mother's claim on where he was born. His mother said Benoit, Miss., but he claimed Collinsville, Illinois. On that point it was determined that his mother was correct.
"Archie Moore was born in Mississippi on December 13, 1913." Mississippi and December 13 are not disputed. That early date is the one Heller uses. Moore begins by saying he was 15 and in juvenile detention hall. And his interview makes clear it was 1932 as he joined the CCC in 1934 when he got out. He mentions that he studied boxing in the reform school and the CCC. Moore said he was born in Mississippi, but was sent to his aunt and uncle in St Louis when he was 2 and 1/2 months old. So his aunt knew exactly when he was born and she raised him. Why would he be three years older than he thought he was, and the State thought he was? He was tried as a juvenile. I am still waiting for a primary source for a 1913 birthdate. His mother supposedly said that date, but it is at best hearsay if we don't know when she supposedly said it and to whom. What we do know off this interview is she and his aunt were present when he was sentenced as a juvenile. "I had no legs. Probably I hadn't had any legs for the past four or five years" So the wins over Johnson, Maxim, Olson, Valdes, Baker, Henry, etc. came when he had no legs? That is his "excuse" for losing to Marciano. He goes on to talk about Patterson: "I think I could have beaten Patterson if I had not over-trained, the same way I could have beaten Marciano had I not been interfered with." The interfered with business is Moore's claim back then that referee Kessler gave Marciano extra time after the knockdown. The film does not show that at all. The quotes reveal that, not surprisingly, Moore had an ego. He is dredging up excuses for losing to Marciano and Patterson. Moore thought he could have and should have won both fights. I would say the normal thinking of a very compettive athlete.
But 70% scored it for Walcott. And will you now concede the historical fact that Valdes was NOT #1 after beating Charles and Marciano was under no obligation to fight him?
