Archie Moore vs. Joe Calzaghe?

Moore by stoopage.

Archiw proved it again and again in possibly the greatest ever era of LHW fighters. I'm a fan of Calzaghe but he's done nothing to prove that he's capable of going the distance let alone winning this one.

 

Calzaghe has never been KOd, or close to it.

He has shown excellent stamina.

That is plenty of indication he could easily last the distance in the slowly paced 1940s.

 

Moore by knee-cappage.

 

Calzaghe may be an Average Joe, but Moore is much more special. In fact, Calzaghe would be a Welsh dragon his feet during the fight, while Archie Moore would be wily like a Mongoose.

These metaphors suck.

 

Archie Moore beats the **** out of Calzaghe.
Who the hell has Joe fought to even be mentioned in the same breath as Moore.

 

1. Fought much better fighters than Calzaghe

2. Fought much more frequently than Calzaghe

3. Continued fighting long past his prime, unlike Calzaghe



That about covers it.

 

Equally bad, though, are exclusive belt clubs. Calzaghe is an example of the latter. Until Lacy, he didn't fight other beltholders and rarely fought the top fighters in his division. Then there are the multiple weightclasses to consider--Calzaghe never chose to move out of what is, essentially, half of the former lightheavyweight division.

So for most of his career he was the best fighter in 1/4 of 1/2 of the former lightheavyweight division that Charles ruled. Even if the total number of boxers in Charles era was less--and that's debatable--it would have to be eight times bigger to justify rating Calzaghe over Charles. Then factor in Charles' heavyweight accomplishments.

 

You're right. A child would think that Calzaghe was a better fighter than Charles. Fortunately, we're all adults here and can rate Calzaghe according to his actual merits--far below Charles. Unless you're afflicted with what I call "49-0 Disease".

 

Anyone thinking Calzaghe doesnt cause Moore stylistic difficulties is being ridiculouis

 

Hold on a minute!! Are you seriously saying that Wlad and Lennox are the only 2 fighters from the entire history of the heavyweight division that you immediately think of who would be favoured to beat Calzaghe??

Dempsey? Louis? Marciano? Liston? Ali? Frazier? Foreman? Holmes? Tyson? That's just off the top of my head, without really thinking too hard about it. All of these guys would handily defeat Calzaghe...as would many other heavies and light-heavies.

All these heavyweight ATGs don't spring to your mind as being favoured over a Supermiddle weight? I like Calzaghe, and hope to be there in Cardiff cheering him on against Kessler...but come on, man...why are you on a classic boxing forum if you can't think of any classic heavyweight boxers?

 

Holmes, but Conn basically proved to me Louis could be beaten by Calzaghe.

Marciano, I fancy Calzaghe to win too.

Also Dempsy and Liston probably lose.

 

Charles record is very dodgy.

I'm pretty sure Calzaghe would have retired instantly if he'd lost to any of the opponents Charles lost to. There are no excuses.

The fact is, everything is overlooked because he is in a whirlpool of classic boxer hype. Charles must be good to justify you view of the other fighters he fought. I call it a whirlpool as more and more non-great fighters get sucked in.

If Charles was anything like you make him out to be, he would not have lost to so many of those opponents - who you inevitable hype accordingly as your only means of defence. Even fighting frequently these opponents should have been foregone conclusions.

I accept Charles is allowed a few off days, but it is more than a few. We might as well call Kirkland Laing a top 10 ATG too.

 

Sorry, are you saying you think that Dempsey and Liston probably lose to Calzaghe?

As well as Louis and Marciano?

So you have Wlad, Lennox and Holmes to beat Calzaghe.

What about the other names I mentioned? Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Tyson?