Archie Moore's heavyweight record versus Jack Dempsey's

Yeah there will inevitably be a few crap ones in there but if they were top ten rated, even in a weak era it shows they had a pulse. To beat such a variety is worth a lot as an actual heavyweight, but for a former welterweight it looks great. Valdes and Baker were quite good (at least Brennan level I think) and both 210lbs, Lavorante was rated and about the same size. Kalpfell, Parmentier, Bean, Spaulding, Davidson, Dugan and Cestac were C level but at least 210lbs each. There is no point to this, just saying, Moore beat a lot of big boxers for someone who at nineteen weighed 145lbs. He beat plenty of 200lbers as well.

Anyway, Bivins was very good as well of course at around 185lbs, if not in his peak but still a handful.

Some of the others were deceptively good, like Bert Whitehurst and Ted Lowry even if really they were journeymen.

3-0 against Joey Maxim is significant to me as Maxim was regularly rated at heavyweight after beating of mediocre boxers there. Worth more at light heavyweight but as good as Firpo surely.

 

That's the big question... Not sure yet. I suppose Moore would be above or below by a space? Big call, but the opponents are up there for comparison and don't look too dissimilar either way. Maybe you could say Dempsey obliterated people but I would reply that Moore was better for longer.

Janitor, unfortunately Dempsey is but a pawn here. I'm just selling my argument.

 

Boxers who were at some point RING rated as beaten by Moore (Hall of Famers in bold):

Sammy Slaughter
Ron Richards (x2)
Johnny Romero
Jack Chase (x4)
Nate Bolden (x2)
Fred Henneberry
Marty Simmons
Jack Coggins
George Kochan
Curtis Sheppard (x2)
Buddy Walker
Rusty Payne
Bert Lytell (x2)
Charley Williams (x3)
Billy Smith (x3)
Henry Hall
Alabama Kid (x2)
Bob Satterfield
Phil Muscato
Leonard Morrow
Jimmy Slade
Clarence Henry
Nino Valdes (x2)
Bob Baker
Bob Dunlap (x2)
Yolande Pompey
Tony Anthony
Willi Besmanoff (x2)
Charley Norkus
Yvon Durelle (x2)
Giulio Rinaldi
Alejandro Lavorante

Jimmy Bivins (x4)
Harold Johnson (x4)
Joey Maxim (x3)
Lloyd Marshall (x2)
Carl Olson
Holman Williams
Cocoa Kid

Sixty four in total, forty eight 'normal' and sixteen in the Hall of Fame. From what I could find anyway.

 

Moore at one point went 54-2-1 (disqualification and decision loss) between light heavyweight and heavyweight and went 10-1 against Hall of Famers in that period (1948-'55):

Jimmy Bivins 2-0
Harold Johnson 4-1
Joey Maxim 3-0
Bobo Olson 1-0

I'm of the opinion that if Sam Langford is a top five pound-for-pound lock then it would be fair to place Moore between #8 and #12, but for me, any lower is doing him an injustice.

Laying it on thick

**** it he's #7 for me now.

1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson
4. B. Leonard
5. Sam Langford
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Archie Moore
8. Willie Pep
9. Roberto Duran
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

 

Well, around 15-20 or something. Moore for me would be the #2 light heavyweight, say #16 at heavyweight and #20 at middleweight. Seems reasonable.

 

Circumstantial maybe. I could see Moore thrashing an inactive Willard to a late stoppage.

 

Well, I would have him lower but it seems harsh on Dempsey as there is little difference between the two records. I give Dempsey the benefit of the doubt that his top end victories might be better and that his ascent may have been more electrifying. But like I said, Moore's longevity counts too (and why shouldn't it? I feel 'time near the top' is an underrated component these days).

It has to be said, I tend to rate heavyweights pound-for-pound - it's a different division now with a higher average of big fighters with skills. I wouldn't expect Moore to hang with Lewis or the Klitschkos, however, if we keep the heavyweight name tag on the division, at least we should differentiate like we do with other weight classes, for example, I think Dick Tiger is better than Bob Foster pound-for-pound, but not in an absolute sense; Foster was a bit bigger. Therefore it is understandable that Moore could possibly rate in the same region as say, Ken Norton, who most regard highly.

Thinking about it, sixteen is too high but #19 is fair I reckon.

 

Seems like you're saying Willard could win. His chances wouldn't be very good. Moore would enjoyed a lovely feast. Patterson was quick, skillful and energetic. Moore at that age had to pace himself, especially after the grueling Marciano fight, and in retrospect Patterson was more than a handful for him. I don't believe a 1919 Willard had the speed to beat that '56 version of Moore, let alone from 1951.