How many does Archie Moore win vs the following ten fighters.

People are pretty hard on RJJs comp, lets look

Toney - ATG

BHOPs - ATG

McCallum - ATG

Virgil Hill - ATG? Top LHW stopped in 4 by RJJ, went 12 with Darius Michouski (sp)

Tarver (won the first) - allot of wins over contenders cleaning out 175 before he fought RJJ first time

Ruiz - top5 HW of the 00s

Montel Griffin - undefeated excellent fighter beat in 1 by RJJ

Reggie Johnson - 2 weight champ, went to an SD with Toney - easily dominated

Gonzalez - beat Darius Michauseski (sp)

Hall - beat comprehensively, arguably robbed against Darius Michauski (sp)

Harding - RJJ stops the man fresh from a win over Tarver

Woods - current champ with wins over Glen Johnson, Gonzalez, Hoye

Del Valle - WBA champ, easily beaten

Otis GRant - WBO Middleweight champ in his prime dominated and stopped

Malinga - beat Nigel Benn once (many say he was robbed in the first fight), went to an SD against Chris Eubank beat a few champs, robbed a few times

Tate - ko'd in 2, went 12 with ATG puncher Julian Jackson

Paziana - 2 weight champ, fresh off wins over an old duran, ko'd in 6 easily

Thornton - ko'd in 3, took Toney and Eubank 12 (both punchers).

Brannon - undefeated contender, excellent pressure fighter (video on this)

Sosa - beat 2 champion - Glen Johnson and 2 weight champ Charles Williams

People say RJJ would not be able to handle pressure fighters. I urge everyone to watch the Brannon fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6d0WOk-QuU

 

Bob Fitzsimmons~ Fitz obviously has the puncher's chance, but I think Moore's cool and edge in terms of skill sees him through some rough spots to score a late KO.

Sam Langford~ Two pretty similar approaches, actually. 50/50, but, Moore generally displayed a higher workrate, which might make him more likely to secure a decision in a close fight.

Jack Dillion~ Moore's height advantage, plus his educated jab, allows him to dictate the pace to secure a decision.

Tommy Loughran~ Loughran beats a lot of people with his jab and legs. But, as Moore showed against Johnson, it takes more than that to beat Moore.

Gene Tunney~ Tough fight to pick, but I get the feeling Moore pulls out a close decision, based on superior power, and equally sound defensive ability.

Maxie Rosenbloom ~ Moore doesn't stop him, but he wins.

Ezzard Charles~ It happened three times, when Moore was approaching his peak. Three times he lost. Charles vexes Moore, even at his peak, and pulls out a close win.

Bob Foster~ Foster was a pretty sound boxer when he had to be, and he kept his power throughout the fight. I say he scores a come from behind victory late.

Mike Spinks~ I think Spinks' versatility, and power, enable him to pull out the close decision.

Roy Jones~ Kind of the opposite of my Foster pick. I could see Jones easily leading the fight, but Moore breaking him down with bodyshots, and landing something big to pull out the late round kayo.

So...7 out of 10. Not too shabby at all.

 

I disagree, Moore has more losses because he wasn't as good as RJJ, he fought allot but few were elite.

Toney did not deserve a rematch after losing every round. He would have got a rematch if he didnt lose to Montell Griffin and others

BHOPS best win? Maybe but not his best performance

McCallum - definately an ATG BUT OLD. Then again McCallum aged like BHOPs

Hill - probably not but better than most fighters Moore ever faced

 

I voted 7. Although Moore hadn't reached his best yet when they fought, Charles did beat him all three times, so he has to be given the edge head-to-head, I though Moore-Langford was pretty even or maybe a slight edge to Langford, and I figured that with such a formidable roster he'd probably lose one or two along the line against the other eight, so 7 came across as the fairest total.

 

Few elite fighters?!?!?!? Let's see, here... from the early 1940s all the way through the early '60s, he fought the following future Hall-of-Fame opponents(I may have forgotten a couple somewhere in here):
Eddie Booker(three times), Charley Burley, Holman Williams(twice), Lloyd Marshall(twice), Ezzard Charles(three times), Joey Maxim(three times), Jimmy Bivins(five times), Clarence Henry, Harold Johnson(five times), Bobo Olsen, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Willie Pastrano, and Muhammad Ali.
I count 30 fights against future Hall-of-Fame opponents, out of 220 listed for him on boxrec. That means that a little under one in every seven of Moore's fights was against a future Hall-of-Fame opponent. All of this is just Hall-of-Famers, again, mind you- I'm not even going into the plethora of other quality contenders he fought all the way from middleweight to heavyweight over a span of 25+ years. In short, it doesn't get much more ignorant than saying Archie Moore fought few elite fighters.
Further, from mid-1949 through mid-1960, a rund of 80 fights which I consider to more or less encompass his prime(I'd say he really reached his peak in the early '50s and started declining in about '58, but a few years around the borders can be included), Moore was 75-3-2, and the only losses were to Harold Johnson(who he beat four times out of five), Marciano and Patterson, all of whom were definitely elite fighters. The wins included seven over future Hall-of-Fame opponents. Note his win-loss record is every bit as good as Jones' here, and in the three losses, we have two to great heavyweight champions, and one against a great light heavyweight champion who he fought five times(if Jones had had to fight Hopkins and Toney five times, I suspect he'd lose one to them, too). And their win resumes? Moore blows him away.

 

If you look at those hall of famers, it isn't very impressive, because he came up short against the very best he faced

Fighters who dominated Moore

Ali - completely dominated and stopped

MArciano - dominated and stopped

Patterson - dominated and stopped

Charles - beaten 3 out of 3

Burley - The Welterweight beat him twice, knocking him out and beating him on points knocking him down 4 TIMES!!!

Fighter he lost of went level with

Booker - knocked out, being put down 4 times. Drew the other 2 going down another 2 times

Holman Williams - 1-1

Pastrano - draw

Fighters he beat

Harold Johnson - won the series 4-1 - best wins? But not much of a puncher

Maxim - 3 wins near the end of his career against a weaker champion. Maxim was ofcourse Charles left overs. He go a gift decision against Patterson and got the W over SRR due to SRR collapsing with heat exhaustion rather than Maxim actually giving the man a beating

Lloyd Marshall - 2 good wins

Olsen - good win against a smaller man

Henry - fringe contender

Bivins - 4-1 fringe contender coming off allot of recent losses and probably past prime. Bivins won the first fight by KO when he was probably nearer to his prime.

Moore definately fought the best of his time, but he came up short against the very best of his time. Also the quality of many of these fighters is overrated (obviously excluding a few)

 

Why do people start on about jones chin being weak, he got old fast and didn't have his chin tested in his prime so how can people say it was weak etc.

 

Yes but the shot tarver hit him with was conisdered by many to be a lucky but big shot, i conisder shots like that as different as alot of boxers with great chin canbe put out by shots like that. In regards to sying chins don't get old i don't see that as accurate some fighters chin gets better with age, some fighter's chins get worse.

 

I am saying jones had a decent chin not amazing but not weak, half the people seem to make out he was glass jawed now becuase he got knocked out when he was past it, he semed to take ruiz shots ok a full blown heavyweight.
I also didn't say i conisdered the shot to be lucky, if you throw a punch and it lands it's not lucky, however against a prime roy that shot wouldn't have come within a foot of him.
You don' think that some fighters who take alot of punishment become more likely to be koed, also fighter's who where never koed then lose by ko are more likely to get koed in the future?
I conisder having a good chin as much about mentality as well as physcial ability.