Archie Moore v Rex Layne & Jerry Quarry?

Nice take

 

I'd say that Tyson's win over Holmes, who was a little younger than Archie in 56, was more emphatic than Patterson's win over Archie, yet there are those who think that a prime Holmes beats 1988 Mike Tyson.

 

Moore beats them both. Moore was a much better fighter than either on if these crude fighters. Quarry had some decent overall skills but against all-time greats (Moore is definitely that) he didn't do very well. Moore may not stop Quarry but he would win convincingly.

 

I thought he was 41 or 42, but then again it depends on whether Moore was born in 1913 or 1916.

 

I think Moore wins both fights just based on the styles.

 

Wasn't ask of me, but if I could comment,

What I think of Moore at heavyweight is that he probably would have been champion for at least a few years if Marciano were not around.

Someone like Quarry, one has to remove all kinds of fighters to figure him as the champion, at least as more than a paper champion of some sort, but the actual best heavyweight in the world. He didn't come close with Frazier or Ali. He couldn't beat Ellis or Norton. Picking him over Foreman is a bridge too far for me.

So in the sense of being close to the best, Moore was close.

As for ATG, I think I will pass on that considering the size differential of modern super-heavyweights.

 

You know I do lol top 20.

 

He wasn't an ATG heavy, he was a very good heavy but an ATG light heavy. So when you have Moore vs Quarry what you have is an ATG light heavy who was a very good heavy vs a very good heavy who wasn't an ATG.