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

Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

 

This content is protected

Marciano_Fraizer : Remember, here, though, that those losses were all in the mid-to-late '40s, before Moore's best years. At that stage in his career, he was still occasionally losing against journeymen, and he was only going about 50-50 against top opponents. Look at it this way- from 1945-1948, Moore's record was 33-8-2, with three of the losses coming against non-elite opposition. On the other hand, in a run going from 1949 through 1955, Moore went 45-1-1, with numerous wins over elite opposition and only one(reportedly somewhat questionable) loss, that coming against an elite opponent. Even in the next five years after that, he went 28-2-1, with the only two losses coming against great heavyweight champions(this all totals out to the 75-3-2 run I was speaking of before).
In short, Moore was clearly performing at a considerably higher level at that stage in his career than he had been when he was knocked out by Charles and Bivins. According to his biography, he had finally settled down in Toledo, Ohio in early 1949 and had a steady job and income, which allowed him better nutrition and training, and he seems to have matured as a fighter all-round. And since- despite the fact that he fought numerous Hall-of-Famers and top contenders, some of whom were monstrous pucnhers- he was only stopped by two great heavyweight champions in those entire 12 years, I don't think you're really too justified in speaking as though Moore was prone/especially vulnerable to being knocked out.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Marciano_Frazier says: Why not? He absolutely annihilated Satterfield, who was widely considered one of the hardest hitters alive, he handled Valdes twice, and Valdes was one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around, he twice soundly defeated Hatchetman Sheppard, who was considered one of the hardest-hitting heavyweights around(only man ever to stop Joey Maxim, too) and who Bert Sugar lists among his hardest punchers ever, and he went 12 years and 80 fights being stopped only twice, those against Marciano and Patterson.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Marciano_Frazier: I think you have a somewhat skewed perception of Moore's style, here. Just which of his fights have you seen? You seem to think of Moore as having been sort of a defensively-vulnerable pressure fighter, which he was not. The Long Beach Independent, May 2, 1955, describes Moore as being "considered the most skilled technician in the ring today," and, as it's put in "The Rock of His Times," Moore "didn't have a 'rock 'em, sock 'em' style that would have had promoters clamoring for his services."
John Lardner of Newsweek wrote of Moore, "He is a consummate ring craftsman, perhaps unmatched in our time for a union of style, subtlety, wisdom and power." According to the CBZ, Moore was a "clever and crafty boxer who knew how to fight. His boxing "savvy" was uncanny; He could box and punch and was game beyond belief."According to Herbert Bean of Life, Moore was "the last of the great ring technicians." Sandy Saddler always called him "Mr. Moore" as a sign of respect for his status as one of the greatest masters of the trade who had been seen in many years. Moore was a brilliant boxer/puncher, an adaptable fighter and a guy who, in his prime, could really do it all as fighters go.

This content is protected

 

I fancy that Dillon might be a rather good stylistic foul for Moore.

 

Dillion was tough as shoe leather, but I never saw him on film. Is there any film of Dillion?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

As I pointed out above, Moore did beat some very dangerous hitters. Durelle caught a slightly-slipping Moore cold, and he did nearly have him out, but Moore still came back and beat him, then crushed him in the rematch. Bit of a fluke, I'd say- in my opinion, Moore had a pretty average chin, but his defensive skills, ring savvy and experience made him incredibly hard to knock out in his prime- in the last 14 years of his career, he was stopped only by Marciano, Patterson, and(while at the very end of the road) Ali, despite facing literally dozens of top fighters. When you caught him flush, you could hurt him, but once he'd perfected his turtle-shell defense and reached the height of his career, that hardly ever happened, and even when it did(ala Durelle), his survival and recovery skills were unbelieveable. Perhaps his best stylistic match-up would be against the type you describe, but I certainly wouldn't just then say, "He therefore loses to the guys on the list with a lot of power."

 

This content is protected

I see your point. Moore fought a lot and did well from 1949-1960. Do you think Moore beat better competition from 1945-1948 or any other three years from 1949-1960? I think Moore's toughest opponents were in the years of 1945-1948 ( Omit Marciano and Patterson at heavyweight from 1954-1960 ).


My point is durability in boxing really doesn't change much. It usually diminishes as the years roll on. While Moore did beat some punchers, Sheppard was 3-3 in his last six and, he caught Satterfield early.

Even from 1949-1960 in Moore' prime years, he was floored by Billy Smith, and Harold Johnson. Neither guy was a light heavyweight puncher. I see too much evidence that suggest that Moore when faced vs skilled punchers had could be knocked down or out. Every man in the poll is skilled, and most of them are punchers.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Well said. I agree with what you said. I agree Moore doesn't automatically lose to anyone in the poll. We are talking about Archie Moore here. He was an all time great light heavyweight who could beat anyone on the list on any given night! At the same time, many of these matches are close ones, which is why I feel 7 or more wins for Moore is unlikely. In truth most all time great are lucky to have a winning record in their own era vs other all time greats. Winning 5 or 6 of ten is very good.

 

There is not sadly.

By all acounts he seems to have been the prototype for Jack Dempsey.

 

Archie beats them all.

 

Dillon was, by all accounts, a pretty smooth boxer, who could work well in the trenches. That having been said, Moore was just as adept on the inside as "The Giant Killer", and, given Dillon's disadvantage in terms of height and reach, that's where he'd have to make his living.

That's why I pick Moore.

 

I voted for six. In my fantasy world, he wins six outta ten.

 

Is there any film on Dillon Janitor?

EDIT:

Just read your above post. By all accounts then, accounts from that era when the fan and analyst alike knew no better than their own time period, these reports are enough to pick him over Moore mate?

 

Bottom 4 beat him 10/10 times. He smokes the rest 10/10 times, Jack Dillon particularly in 1 round.:yep