Archie Moore - #1 All Time LHW?

Some debatable points.

It is not a given that Tunney won the series with Greb, or that Loughran lost the series with Greb.

It should also be noted that a lot of people thought Loughran beat Tunney despite being green.

 

Not necisarily.

Charles did win 3 out of 3 but it was a bit of a fluke in some ways.

Alsoit might theoreticaly just have been a styles thing.

 

Really good list. Langford sometimes gets thrown in there too.

Not sure if I'd have Qawi top 10 more like an honourable mention... Perhaps O'Brien, Gibbons...

Tunney is definitely one of the elites despite being underrated and over criticised these days.

 

#1 LHW champion, but not #1 LHW overall. You had better consider Matt Franklin, the fighter and others

 

Archie was an all time great fighter but I do not feel he was number 1 at light heavy ... Charles was clearly better. I would pick Langford and Foster as well ... a top five for sure ...

 

Absolutely, a case can be made! The IBRO collectively ranks Moore #1, last I checked. Moore was undefeated at light heavyweight for over a decade at the end of his career. He had the longest light heavyweight title reign of all time, was the oldest light heavyweight champion ever by a furlong, beat some of the best opposition ever, and his longevity was unrivaled. Basically, the only major reason you'd NOT rank Moore #1 at light heavyweight would be the three losses to Charles, which make a case for Ezzard's superior standing, but let it be noted that those fights featured Charles at the peak of his powers against a Moore who was not yet at his heyday- Charles was an early bloomer, Moore an incredible late one. I'll also say that it was probably kind of a fluke that Charles came away with the win all three times, noting that one of their fights was a close decision on Charles' home turf, and in their last encounter, Moore supposedly nearly had Charles out before Ezzard mounted a hail-Mary comeback. Had they fought in, say, '52-54, when Moore was at his peak and Charles was starting to slip, I expect Moore would most likely have won, particularly given that Charles lost to a couple guys Moore beat in this same time frame (Valdes and Johnson). Moore's longevity, sheer depth and breadth of resume (beating top light heavyweights all the way from the mid-'40s through the early '60s, even drawing with future light heavyweight champ Pastrano in the second-to-last fight of his career), and extended dominant run all the way up into his mid-late 40s certainly gives him a case for outranking Charles on the whole, in my opinion. As SuzieQ has pointed out, this is a similar situation to the one between Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins, in which their relative historical standings will vary greatly hinging upon one's criteria.

Moore is my #1 all-time light heavyweight.

 

Moore is my #1, I dont really dont consider Ezzard Charles as a Light heavy because he never won or defended a title same with Tunney.......Archie could box,punch, take a shot....and he proved it

 

Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Michael Spinks
Roy Jones Jr.
Bob Foster
Gene Tunney
Sam Langford
Tommy Gibbons
Billy Conn
Tommy Loughran

 

:admin I´d like to see that explanation. Jones wasn´t even the champ in his time.

 

Neither were Charles or Tunney, who are also on the list- do you object to them, as well? And although Jones was never strictly linear champion, it must be pointed out that the concept was severely devalued by this time due to the confusion over various belts, Michalcewski's refusal to fight outside Europe, etc., and that Jones was legitimate champion in more or less everything but name. I think Jones is perhaps a bit high, but his inclusion is reasonable.

 

Excluding Charles and Tunney and Langford who I feel where Heavys

1)Archie Moore
2)Billy Conn
3)Tommy Gibbons
4) Michael Spinks
5)Bob Foster
6)Roy Jones
7)Philidelpia Jack O'Brien
8)Tommy Loughran
9)Harold Johnson/Joey Maxim
10)Battling Levinsky

 

Me too.

It was certainly a fantastic resume: two of the best fighters of all time (Greb and Walker), plus two future HOF heavyweight champs (Baer and Braddock), among others.

Still, look at Harold Johnson's resume for example - Charles and Moore both are on it, as are a host of other quality contenders from his day. I don't see what separates Loughran's resume from several others just within his own weight class, let alone everyone else in the history of boxing.

 

But look at the body of work of Tunney and Charles and compare it to Jones. Also Jones was only able to collect so many belts was because DM was stripped from two of them. I mean DM won the IBF title and then the IBF stripped him because he couldn´t defend it 8 days after he won it. than look at the farce with Rocchigiani and the WBC belt, Jones roid affair and his level of opposition. And why do you critizise DM for not fighting out of Europe but not Jones for not fighting out of the states? Double standard, isn´t it? His career at 175 isn´t good enough for a spot in the top10. There are more deserving fighters.

 

Moore had around 14 fights near the LH limit ,from 51 to 61 his other contests were at Heavy.He was beaten 9 times while inside the LH limit during his career,including a 1 rd ko loss to Leonard Morrow.