Archie Moore beats Michael Spinks

Three points:

1. An amateur career, however extensive, is not a suitable substitute for a professional one

2. Spinks having a better win:loss ratio has little to do with how good he was; he fought in a different era, where he had plenty of time to train for a fight and was able to focus entirely on the matter at hand, unlike a young Moore who was fighting for peanuts

3. I never said Spinks was totally out of Moore's league

 

Don't underrate the fights against journeymen and nobodies - Moore got the chance here to practise his skills before trying them out on the better fighters. A record with ten big fights and thirty fillers is far better than a record with just ten big fights.

 

What's wrong with a load of keep-busy fights if you're fighting the top opposition as well? Moore certainly fought a much better array than Spinks.

 

You are making a fool of yourself. Surely you must know that nobody would give Moore a title shot? It wasn't by his own choice that he didn't face Maxim until 1952!

Oh and on the numbers side of things... Firstly, your percentages are way off. Secondly, percentages matter little - it's the actual number of top fighters fought that counts. Or if you like, number of top fighters beaten.

Shall we look at that? Shall we?

I think we shall. We'll judge it by a Hall of Fame level measurement (someone like Holman Williams will be counted, because he deserves to be there):

Michael Spinks:

Larry Holmes x2
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Eddie Mustafa Muhammad

Archie Moore:

Jimmy Bivins x4
Harold Johnson x4
Holman Williams
Carl Olson
Joey Maxim x3
Lloyd Marshall x2

I wonder who beat the better opposition? :think
I didn't even mention the Chase-Hogue-Kid-Wade-Lytell bunch either, who were collectively probably as dangerous as the Philadelphia crew that Hagler faced in the '70s. Moore also drew with Eddie Booker and Willie Pastrano.

Seriously, you stick Spinks in Moore's era and see how he'd do. Don't let him have an amateur career, don't pay him a lot for his fights, don't give him a title shot when he deserves it, make him fight the best fighters more than once, make him fight until he's in his late forties. Then see how good his win:loss ratio is.

I really would like to laugh at this statement, but that isn't my style.

--

Summararily; percentages matter little.

 

Yes, I am absolutely positive he deserved a title shot earlier than he received one.

Have you read what you just wrote? You really expect Moore to fight a Harold Johnson or Ezzard Charles in every fight? What about their plans? Moore was just fighting the journeyman while waiting for his next solid opponent!

Three? Three? You did see the numbers on the right side of several names? Michael Spinks beat three Hall of Fame level opponents four times in total. Archie Moore beat six Hall of Fame level opponents fifteen times.

And? What is your obsession with percentages! I'm sure Ray Leonard has a better percentage than Ray Robinson but it doesn't mean to say he was better.

Why not? It was. 220 divided by 30 is not 35%, not even close. But your '30' figure was wrong anyway.

I did leave them off. Why did I leave them off, Mr. Magoo? I could have sworn I stated before my list that I would only include Hall of Fame level fighters. If you think Marvin Johnson belongs in the Hall of Fame, well...

... But if you want to throw that lot in there, then I'll throw in another twenty five from Moore's record. If that's okay with you?

No, you're right, he didn't. Probably because he was nurtured like nearly every modern fighter; paid good money and well looked after by qualified trainers, given ample time between fights to hone his body perfectly. Moore didn't always have these luxuries, and so performed worse on some occasions than others.

But luckily, even these losses still added to his experience.

What? An if my aunt had a dick she would be my uncle comparison would be saying 'if Emile Griffith had fought Joey Giardello, Gene Fullmer, Marvin Hagler and Jose Napoles a couple more times he'd have the best resume of all time.'

What I'm saying is that Spinks' record would more than likely look a lot less impressive had he been fighting under the same conditions as Moore. Hardly a ridiculous notion.

I certainly have more class than you. Look:

Wind your neck in. I might be handing you an intellectual and factual arse whipping, but there's no need to get your handbag out :good

 

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that Moore deserving a title shot before he received one is about as near to a fact as you can get in boxing. Unless you believe that a fighter who's beating all the top opposition should stay a contender?

What was Moore supposed to do? Sit there with no money waiting for Jimmy Bivins to sign another contract? You are quite unbelievable. Unlike Spinks, who was fighting for a new swimming pool, Moore was fighting for more humble belongings. He had to take those fights; did him good anyway, as I said before, he got to hone his skills on their heads.

See above.

Where is your logic? It seems to have vanished. You are discrediting Moore because he fought journeyman in between his big fights. Big fights that were more numerous than on Spinks' record! What's going on?

Quality over quantity? It's not like Moore only fought journeymen. He fought more top fighters than Spinks! And I don't know why that hasn't sunk in.

Of course, you will likely come back with the percentage argument. I thought you told me to look at the facts? The facts are that Moore fought more top fighters, regardless of what the bum:contender ratio was. If anything, Moore should be rewarded for the fact he beat up more people.

Good, so you admit you were wrong. Ah, but your revelation means little; since Moore fought more than just thirty top fighters. He actually beat more than thirty top fighters - well, as long as we're going by your criteria, which includes David Sears and the like.

But again, this percentage thing is totally irrelevant. Moore could have fought five hundred journeymen and just fifty top fighters for all I care; his percentage is going to be shite but he still beat more contenders than Spinks.

Let's take it to extremes; Tye Fields has a better knockout ratio than George Foreman. Does it mean he's the better puncher?

Nil.

Who cares?! Jesus! It doesn't matter if he had a better percentage. Moore actually, directly fought and beat more contenders/Hall of Famers. So he fought a load of nobodies in between... What about it!

Uh, I'm not comparing Moore to the other men of his era. I'm comparing him to Michael Spinks.

Don't you see your own problem? You have this uncanny knack to pluck things out of thin air that happen to be untrue or lacking of logic.

I never said Spinks was protected. I merely stated that he, along with nearly every other modern fighter, was far better looked after from a financial point of view than Moore. That's why Moore was fighting all those journeymen - but it benefitted him all the same. Experience. That's why he'd beat Spinks. Now if you're penalizing him for having more experience, well... U CRAZY SOLDIER!

You're forgetting that Moore fought more contenders and champions than Spinks. It's not just a load of journeymen he'd have to conquer; it would be a whole slew of Hall of Famers, far more than he had to in his own career infact. Far more.

What, you mean if he fought in Spinks' era? Nah. He'd have been managed well and looked after, paid enormous sums of money that would mean he didn't have to have a day job. Moore would likely do as well as Spinks did, or better.

I'm firmly seated, don't you worry about that :good

As for you...

Hm!

Your main gripe here is that Moore padded his record. I've pointed out to you that it doesn't matter if he padded his record (and it wasn't to benefit his legacy; he needed the money) - he was fighting all the best fighters as well. He fought them so many times that the only people left to fight in between were journeymen!

Regardless of percentages, which matter about as much as Moore's moustache, Moore fought more contenders than Spinks.

I had to put that bit in bold because so far, I've gathered your comprehension and tracking skills are in a shocking state. So, again:

Moore fought more contenders than Spinks.

Alright?

 

And by the way, I'm finished with you now. I'll leave it to other people to judge our debate.

 

I don't know about that, but I can say 'Chuck Davey was useless.'