Possibly linked previously but here is some very nice (albeit it brief) colorized footage of Archie Moore vs Australia's Ron Richards. It's their rematch on 11 July 1940. They fought their first match earlier in the same year on 18 April 1940, Richards losing by way of TKO, round 10 of 12. This is apparently the earliest known film of Arch fighting in the ring (if anyone who knows better, please correct me). Arch looks pretty shredded though still solidly muscled at just 159 lbs. Here is a short, contemporary write up on the fight: - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/42232571 Here is the vision: - This content is protected
Archie had a very disciplined diet and was an S tier technician. Will get to a book of him eventually its literally few feet away from me..... BTW I find it interesting that despite his record that most don't discuss him as a dangerous puncher. Then again maybe I need to frequent more Archie discussions too?
As prolific a knockout artist as Archie was, I think the emphasis should be on the ‘artist’ part rather than the knockout. He wasn’t a guy with ‘dynamite in his fists’ a la Shavers or Foreman, neither a wrecking-ball puncher nor a beastly bludgeoner, not even a ‘sniper’ like Thomas Hearns. More, Archie was a guy who could break down an opponent and hit him ‘right’ more than just hit him with a terrific blow to separate him from his senses. Archie produced knockouts from attrition sometimes but behind that was accuracy and IQ to know just when and where to unleash the correct punch to end it … or start an opponent on the way to his end.
I get you but I would have to see more accounts of his fights. I'm sure he had some bone crushing ko shots as well but like u said not to call him a Shavers or Foreman. Very interesting fighter even after his career I feel like it's an obligation to study him.
Every time I watch him, even fights I’ve seen before, I’ll notice some small, subtle thing and just go ‘damn.’ He’s an encyclopedia.
Moore's mobility here makes his gallant later effort against Rocky seem like that of an animated statue. Thanks for posting this Pug.
I have cited these Australian Clips & Footage for years with the very clear visible quality as Proof Positive that those Old Fighters look NO Diff & Perectly Normal just like today... and they go back to 1937 or 38... now add in 15 - 20 year Careers and Hundreds of fights. how soon then Mr. Jones would a Tarver have 'grazed' your Chin??? that is the Facts & the Reality of these Old Fighters, ALREADY Did it, and Locked in History, they need prove nothing, its today's fighters that have to be weighed against such RECORDED Facts. Busy, busy.
No worries, certainly that's as svelte as we've ever seen Arch in the ring fighting. To think, 15 years and so many fights later, in his late 30s, he had to tackle the never let up Marciano and despite losing his early years mobility, what a performance he posted.
Better film quality does make all the difference for analysis - pristine 80+-year-old footage in this instance - crazy when you compare it to the poor quality of some fights that were filmed much later in the piece.
exactly and that is the point, how can anybody a) know that the Footage is poor or absolute crap, yet conclude so are the fighters and b) know that people have walked & talked and worked & played NO Diff than we do now, yet still come to their rediculous conclusion... and Yes, especially when we Do See SOME Old Footage that is great and like you say some even newer (old) footage that is also obviously poor, but still think these men can't fight with great skill, fitness or effectiveness(???). makes No Sense.
Really is. Never ending source of picking up ring IQ from. Would've loved to see him vs Charles n Walcott.
I have "Ageless Warrior" by Mike Fitzgerald. Haven't read it yet so sorry I can't speak on that haha.
Thanks, I appreciate that. That’s cool, even if you haven’t read it yet, it’s a starting point and I can check up on it reviews wise.
