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

Not when he was 21 and 22 years old. Found anyone to agree with you on this?

 

Until you define when his prime was, you have no argument.

I believe his prime was 1931-1935

Most people would agree with me

Losses in his prime to Loughran, Risko Braddock Uzcuden and Louis

 

The headline is 1900 to 1960.

In 1960, Sonny Liston was 31-1 and a top contender. He's a contender I'd take over any version of Moore.

In 1960, Patterson regained the title from Johansson. Patterson knocked out Moore in five to win the vacant belt.

At the start of 1960, Johansson was the champion. Does Archie beat Johansson? Maybe. But standing in front of Ingo throwing punches out of the crouch didn't prove to be a good strategy for Patterson in their first meeting. So I don't know why it works for Moore.

Gene Tunney beat Jack Dempsey. Max Baer knocked out Schmeling and Carnera.

Who was the best heavyweight Moore beat?

In fact, Dempsey, Tunney, Baer, Schmeling and even Carnera, vs. Moore, isn't a good night for Archie.

Beating Embrel Davidson is not the same thing. Not REMOTELY the same thing.

Moore was 5'11 and fought roughly around the low 180s.

Moore fought three of the SMALLER heavyweight champs from 1900 to 1960 -- Charles, Marciano and Patterson -- and ALL OF THEM knocked out Moore.

If he couldn't beat some of the smallest heavyweight champs, how is he going to take the hammering shots of the bigger champs and contenders?

Forget it.

Tommy Loughran beat better heavyweights than Moore. Loughran isn't among the top 15 heavyweights, either.

 

Baer didnt turn pro till May 1929!
You said he was in his prime when he lost to Risko,Kennedy,Loughran ,Uzcudun this is patent nonsense.Suze you have made some great threads since you've been back but you sure haven't won any arguments.
Nice to have you back in the fold though.

 

To make this easier I figured I would make a top 50 Heavyweight list Jeffries-Marciano just like HE said in his thread title


Based on Head to Head and Accomplishments combined


My top 50 Jeffries-Marciano

* Moore fits right in at # 15

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jack Johnson
5. James Jeffries
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Max Schmeling
8. Sam Langford
9. Jersey Joe Walcott
10. Gene Tunney
11. Harry Wills
12. Max Baer
13. Bob Fitzsimmons
14. Elmer Ray
15. Archie Moore
16. Billy Conn
17. Jack Sharkey
18. Harry Greb
19. James J Corbett
20. George Godfrey
21. Harold Johnson
22. Jimmy Bivins
23. Joe Jeanette
24. Sam Mcvey
25. Primo Carnera
26. Bob Pastor
27. Larry Gains
28. Tommy Loughran
29. Buddy Baer
30. Fred Fulton
31. Jess Willard
32. Marvin Hart
33. Gus Ruhlin
34. Tom Sharkey
35. Joey Maxim
36. Turkey Thompson
37. Clarence Henry
38. Bob Baker
39. Nino Valdes
40. Tommy Gibbons
41. Ernie Schaff
42. Rex Layne
43. James J Braddock
44. Tommy Burns
45. Joe Baksi
46. Lee Savold
47. Lee Q Murray
48. Lem Franklin
49. Jonny Risko
50. Lou Nova

Honorable Mention: Kid Norfolk , Steve Hamas, Denver Ed Martin

 

Speak for yourself man. You grasp at straws sometimes. Like now. Still haven't answered my question when Baer's prime was, how many times do I have to ask you?

The whole point of this was talking about Baers ugly loss to crouch swarmer Uzcuden . In my opinion Uzcuden beat a prime Baer as I have Baers prime pegged 1931-1935

He was in his prime for any loss 1931-1935. Throw the keneddy loss out, but the others stand pat. So its not nonsense.

still waiting on you for your answer....quit dodging

Happy to talk with you.

 

Now you are arguing with OP who clarified he meant Jeffries-Marciano? Stop trying to change what he started

Jeffries-Marciano

Moore was a top 15 heavyweight

 

32-34

 

You're obssessed with this archie crouch thing. Ive already posted film showing archie darting in and out of range with a fast jab, using good footwork. But you cant stop bringing up this "Crouch". You clearly underrate Moore as a puncher and finisher. Moore was capable of hurting and knocking down any heavyweight champion pre 1960.


You massively overrate Carnera. Larry Gains, who used the same upper body movement of Archie except Gains couldn't punch, easily outpointed Carnera. Carnera couldnt take a punch, couldnt hit really hard, and had no concept on using his range.

Moore beat 5 very good heavyweights Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, and Clarence Henry. Some of those fighters Marciano's and Patterson's management avoided big time.


Moore was only 5'11 but also had a 76" reach. Very Long Arms

The problem with your argument is Marciano, Charles, Patterson were much better heavyweights than all those "bigger champs and contenders" pre 1960. Much Better. If Moore got to fight Baer, Sharkey, Carnera for the title...moore might have swept the field. Much easier competition than Charles, Patterson, Marciano

 

Ahh how convenient. You pick the three years Baer didn't lose. It was during these years that he beat up on Ham N Eggers outside of Schmeling. He never rematched some of his earlier losses to even up the score. Wonder Why?

Schmeling was a great win. very impressive. About the only reason I actually rate Baer. Otherwise his career was a complete farce.

I'd love to know why Baer at age 24 in 1934 was prime, but in 1935 at age 25 he was suddenly "past his prime"

 

Totally agree about Carnera. He was a big goon. Louis said Carnera had nothing other than "Intimidation" because of his size. The guy couldnt hit, he couldnt take a punch, he was not talented as a boxer, he had no idea how to use his size, he pawed and pushed his jab....and of course the alleged fixed fights

 

The fact that he didn't lose during that time is pretty indicative of his prime imo. Happy to explain 35 Baer was inactive and had hampered by bad hands what should have been his physical prime wasn't after 34 ,because of his lack of dedication,his hand issues and his inactivity,Baer didn't fight from June 33 until June 35 and he barely trained for Braddock.