Archie Moore beats Michael Spinks

With a name like 'brownpimp88', why should I even take you seriously? The first letter of your name isn't even capitalized!

 

Manassa is a place name where my favourite boxer (at the time of joining) was born. Yours is just embarrassing.

Look at Moore's record this way; his record was 11-5 against top thirty light heavyweights. Ezzard Charles, probably the best of all time, beat him three times (narrowly), and if you take that those fights off the list you are left with 11-2 incase you can't work it out.

 

No matter how many times I tell you Moore wasn't in his prime against Burley, it won't get through to you, will it?

I may as well surrender now then. I am dealing with a lack of comprehension that even I cannot comprehend; from both you and Mr. Magoo.

 

Why, because it suits your argument? No thanks. Some of the best pound-for-pound fighters Moore fought were heavyweights, or they were the best light heavyweight ever, or they caught him while he was still developing. I'll say this though; the best light heavyweight Moore beat was better than any that Spinks beat, and he was victorious in four of five fights. Because he actually fought people more than once.

It amazes me how you think Spinks is untouchable because he was unbeaten until his last fight. I mean, he never faced anywhere near the same adversity as Moore; not in opponents, not in circumstances.

 

I just typed out a fairly long post, but then deleted it all. I've decided I won't waste my time explaining things to you - not because I can't, but because it will never enter your extremely robust cranium. You will never realize or accept the differences in circumstances between Spinks and Moore; you'll just keep uttering the same, boring old rubbish.

"If Burley can beat him..."

"Spinks never lost until Tyson."

Yawn :dead

 

Actually, I have. Didn't you read this thread?