Is Archie Moore a Top Fifteen Heavyweight from 1900 - 1960 ?

Carnera had no idea how to use his size. He was a feather fisted hitter, he had no durability, and was involved in fixed fights.

Here he is getting his ass kicked by a fighter who used a lot of upper body movement defense just like Archie Moore

This content is protected

 

Baer hit his prime very early. He was only 24 when he knocked out schmeling. Uzcuden fought out of a crouch and beat baer. No one picks uzcuden over Moore do they?

Baer was a clown...he threw wide telegraphed hooks, kept his hands by his waist, had zero defense, had no ring intelligence....he’d be a sitting duck for a master boxer like Moore to pick off. Baer got easily outboxed often in his prime by far inferior fighters and hitters to Moore.


His only impressive filmed fight was vs schmeling, whom fought an awful game plan against him, and never got the chance to rematch.

 

Larry Gains beat future heavyweight champions.

Archie Moore didn't.

Larry Gains is one of the guys who never won the heavyweight title who I'd rate above Moore AT HEAVYWEIGHT from 1900 to 1960.

 

How many former, reigning or future heavyweight champions did Moore beat? ZERO

How many former, reigning or future heavyweight champions did Gains beat? TWO. (Schmeling and Carnera)

And, since you're such a Nino Valdes head, Larry Gains knocked out the "Nino Valdes" of the Post-Tunney era (Phil Scott) in two rounds.

 

Bottom line ,Baer was not prime for Loughran, Risko, Kennedy, Uzcudun ,Schaaf. Many might pick Uzcudun over a 21 years old Moore don't you think?

 

"Most of the top heavyweights from 1900 to 1960 weren't middleweights or light heavys."

No. And many weren't 200 lbers either. Hart, Burns, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Braddock, Louis, Charles, Walcott, and Marciano all won the title weighing less than 200 lbs.

The OP was about Jeffries to Marciano, which is actually to 1955, not 1960.

So I don't see why 200 lbs. should be the cutoff when 180-200 lb. guys were in fact heavyweights, and often the champion.

But using 200 lbs., these are the KO's--Abel Cestac, Embrell Davidson, Leonard Dugan, Al Spaulding, Frank Buford, Bob Baker, Bob Dunlap, Willie Bean, George Palmentier, James Parker, Bob Albright, and Alejandro Lavorante.

Actually, there is a case to be made for Moore not being in the top 15. I don't think it is losing to Marciano and Charles, though. The Ring did a top 25 at the turn of the century, and they ranked the pre-1955 heavyweights thus-Louis, Marciano, Johnson, Dempsey, and Charles. So if Moore had been able to beat those guys, he would have a case for the top 5, let alone the top 15.

But what Moore failed to do was beat a champion. He beat lots of good contenders, the best of whom on balance for his career was probably Jimmy Bivins,

still, one can bring up guys like Elmer Ray who holds wins over both Charles and Walcott, as does Rex Layne. I think Moore would have defeated Layne most of the time (Layne is on film. I have never seen film of Ray), but I have to concede that Moore's biggest wins aren't as big Layne's biggest. That should be weighed in the balance.

 

Nope this is the title of the thread.

"Is Archie Moore a Top Fifteen Heavyweight from 1900 - 1960 ?" The rest of your post is fine ,imo

 

Archie Moore has no wins over any men who held the heavyweight title.

If we're discussing who were the top heavyweights from 1900 to 1960, the guys who won the heavyweight title and the guys who BEAT the guys who would or once held the heavyweight title should certainly be considered.

Guys who never beat a heavyweight champ (past, reigning or future), IMO, don't suddenly leapfrog over the men who won titles.

Archie was a dominant light heavyweight when the light heavy and heavy divisions often "mingled" and overlapped.

But, in this discussion, outpointing Nino Valdes doesn't mean squat.

Moore did beat some guys who beat a past or future heavyweight champ (like Valdes decisioned Charles), but all that does is place him ahead of Valdes. Because Moore couldn't beat Charles when he fought Charles.

Moore never beat any future, past or reigning heavyweight champs himself when he was given the opportunities.

Certainly, his dominance at light heavyweight can't be ignored.

I just don't see him in the top 15 at heavyweight. There were more than 15 actual heavyweights who would've beaten him.

He was a light heavyweight who fought out of the crouch. It didn't turn out well for him when he fought the heavyweight champs he did meet. I don't know why it would've suddenly have gotten better if he'd fought Dempsey or Louis or rising contenders like Liston or anyone else.

 

"Would you even rate them in your top 100 heavyweights from 1900 to 1960?"

Yes, I think Baker would rank that high for most people. In fact in the top 50. And I also think Jimmy Bivins would rate highly, probably for most in the top 25. Remember that the heavyweight division back then was anyone over 175 lbs. We are comparing Moore to the heavyweights of the first half of the 20th century, not to those of the 21st century.

While Moore didn't beat a champion, he had great longevity even at heavyweight. He beat ranked heavyweights from 1946 (Curtis Sheppard) to 1962 (Alejandro Lavorante). Not many were that good that long. This should be put on the scales also.

Actually if you made a top 50 for the 1900-1960 era, I think Bivins, Baker, and Valdes would make it for most. Henry certainly might also. And then there are Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim. Maxim was ranked at heavy for years, and beat Walcott and Bivins. Johnson beat Charles, Machen, Bivins, Valdes, Godoy, and a slew of other top heavyweights.

For me personally, I would rate Bivins, Baker, Valdes, Maxim, and certainly Johnson in the top 50 from 1900 to 1960.

None in the top 15 though.

 

Larry Gains is one of

Really now? So baer was only In his prime when he won and not when he lost?

When do you think was Baers prime?

 

I screwed up. Should have read the title. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

DubbleChins Logic is off

Here’s why

Based on his logic

Then Joey Maxim rates above Archie Moore at heavyweight


Maxim beat two linear heavyweight champions Walcott and Patterson

 

Please read.

"Moore did beat some guys who beat a past or future heavyweight champ (like Valdes decisioned Charles), but all that does is place him ahead of Valdes. Because Moore couldn't beat Charles when he fought Charles."

Did Moore beat Patterson? No. Did Moore beat Walcott? No. Did Moore beat any heavyweight champ (old, young, novice, reigning)? NO.

Do you now have Joey Maxim in the top 15 heavyweights from 1900 to 1960? No? Then be quiet already.

Moore doesn't have the wins to make it into the top 15 heavyweights. And Moore didn't have the style to beat the top 15 heavyweights.