Archie Moore (of the Rocky fight) Vs Bob Fitzsimmons (Of Jeffries II)

Who do you think has better top 5-7 wins between Moore and Fitz?

 

Both if you could

 

Foster was an experienced guy and dominant lightheavyweight but was not as successful as Moore vs quality heavyweights. IMO the level of boxing know how started to increase post Corbett and Fitz who was an incrediable fighter of his era and although Fitz has the wins over Corbett I find it hard t

Really hard to judge the era's Foster was a true light heavyweight who was dominant amoung other lightheavyweights and blown up middleweights of his day- some devastating KO's, he was also unfortunate to face Ali and Frazier who were ATG heavyweights but credit to Foster he went out on his sheild. Do you beleive Fitz would have done better vs Ali or Frazier? I have to admit I find it hard comparing era's - Fitz was a great fighting freak of his day but hard to say how fighters would develop in other era's and visa versa

 

I don't think Fitz would beat Ali or Frazier (though he has puncher chance against anybody, so why not against Frazier?) but Foster lost against worse HWs than Ali or Frazier. It's not like he beat everyone he met expect Ali and Frazier. Fitz beat every relevant heavyweight in the world outside of Jeffries and he fared better against Jeffries than Foster against Ali and Frazier.

 

I think that Dempsey win might be the best for Fitz, though I'm not sure about it.

Archie's best win is probably Johnson, similar level to Corbett in my opinion.

I also think that Ruhlin and Valdes are on similar level, if anything Gus has slight edge.

 

Ruhlin and Valdes

This raises the issue which is a fundamental problem with these match-ups. We have a lot of film of Valdes, looking good and looking not so good. What we can see is that he for his time is a huge and well built man with basic boxing skills, a strong jab, and KO power in both his right cross (Jackson) and left hook (McMurtry). Valdes also seems vulnerable to getting hit by a right cross (Satterfield) and is overall so-so defensively.

I have only seen Ruhlin in the very brief surviving footage against Jeffries and he looks awful. Although Jeff is marching straight forward with his left below his waist and his right low, Ruhlin doesn't shoot a jab or cross his right. He just runs.

Frankly, Ruhlin doesn't look as good as McMurtry, let alone Valdes. So seeing him as better than Valdes seems to me a total extrapolation from where he stood in the division of his era versus where Valdes stood. I still wouldn't necessarily agree if only going on records with rating Ruhlin above Valdes, but after considering the film evidence?

Even though Ruhlin was nicknamed the "Akron Giant" he would be considerably smaller than Valdes. An inch shorter with a shorter reach and 15 to 20 lbs. lighter. He was about the same height and weight as Cesar Brion.

 

Valdes doesn't look great on film at all, at least for me. Moore completely dominated him, he was tough but didn't have any decent defense.

Ruhlin in Jeffries footage was visibly hurt from the start of the round. He actually hit James with a few jabs but they didn't make any impression on big Jeff. We don't have enough footage to make it clear, but Ruhlin definitely had better resume.

 

BOTH GREAT, BUT FITZ POWER JUST TO MUCH

 

In a head to head sense?

I don't think Corbett would be a top 5 Moore victim, to be honest. 18 fights in 17 years... he was barely a professional boxer.

 

I still wish we don't have longer version of Fitz vs Lang. Bob seemed to school young fighter until he got tired.