How was Moore able to stay a top level fighter for so long but Joe Louis couldn't

Louis had 25 title defenses, which is more than any other heavyweight champion. Feels a bit silly to criticize him for not having the longevity of the seemingly immortal Moore when he had pretty good longevity himself. Louis spent his entire career at HW taking bombs from big guys like Carnera, Simon, Baer, etc while Moore campaigned at LHW for much of his career and didn't fight at the elite level until he was already a seasoned veteran with good defense.

 

To me the answer is simple, everybody is different. I believe that if two men were to go through the exact same experiences, punches, opponents and so on, there longevity could still be five years different or more.

Obviously, how often a boxer gets hit, how hard a boxer gets hit, how well the boxer takes care of themselves between fights and other factors play into it but if everything was the same, one man could still last much longer than the other.

 

Good post. I agree, it's kind of like asking why Fury isn't as tall as Valuev.

 

There are 2 reasons.
First, Archie started out fighting middle weights. He learned his trade fighting quality, quality fighters; you don't need me to rehash his record. He fought probably 20 guys that were better than virtually any heavyweight. He developed skills that worked on middle weights so heavies were easier.
Second, he crossed eras. He started during a time when guys had to fight a lot to make money. And they had to fight good fighters to draw fans because they made money off the gate. He ended up in an era where the fight clubs were losing ground to television.
The gap in knowledge and skill is what allowed a man in his 40s fight at such a high level for so long, that and fighting bigger, dumber guys. Look at his record during his physical prime, when he was fighting guys like Burley, Booker and Charles.

 

Firstly, I think Joe Louis had more than enough longevity. He was champion for nearly 12 years and was a contender for a bit both before and after his title reign. Secondly, I think his military service from 1942-1946 cost him some time in the ring. Lastly, I agree with those who previously posted about him losing some of the key components of his fight game such as hand speed and precision. I would also be remiss in neglecting to mention that Archie Moore was one of the most unique fighters in all of boxing history. A true anomaly who remained competitive to an age where a lot of men of that time were nearing the end of their lives

 

Well,. Joe Louis was world Heavyweight champion 11 years non stop. That to me is a top level fighter for a very long time. Top ten arguably, top 20 all time easily.

Archie Moore to me there is no question, no argument that he belongs at least in the lower tier of the top ten of all times, mine are 1. Muhammad Ali, 2. Sugar Ray Robinson, 3, Roberto Duran, 4 Julio Cesar Chavez, 5. Henry Armstrong..six to ten and then eleven to twenty that is where Moore, Jimmy Wilde, Willie Pep, Barney Ross, Benny Leonard and arguably Joe Louis, maybe Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Rocky Marciano, Tony Canzoneri, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Salvador Sanchez, Manny Pacquiao, Bernard Hopkins, Carlos Monzon and many other greats fall or could fall into.

They were both phenomenal Moore and Louis in their career. Joe Louis had a similar case to Ali when it came to his time as Heavyweight champion and Ali's first time as Heavyweight champion i n that there were significant wars raging on in an international scale. The difference is Louis went to the military and Ali did not. Louis went more as a symbol and as a logo and from what I hear, he did not do combat (I could be wrong about this) but he did not box that much those years that he was in the ARMY, so that might have helped or hurt his career Im not sure.

Did Archie Moore serve as well???