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

Seriously, WTF are you talking about?

Maxim and Johnson were light heavyweights. They never won the heavyweight title. They never even challenged for the heavyweight title. Moore beat them multiple times at light heavyweight.

HOW do they count as HEAVYWEIGHT WINS for Moore? They don't.

Max Schmeling BECAME the heavyweight champion. Primo Carnera became the heavyweight champion. Larry Gains beat both of them before they won the title. That counts for something. Schmeling and Carnera weren't has-beens. They didn't win a portion of the title later.

They (Schmeling and Carnera) both became THE HEAVYWEIGHT champion.

Gains' wins over them certainly counts more than Moore beating two light heavyweights (who never won the heavyweight title) at light heavyweight.

Like Gains, Archie Moore fought a number of future heavyweight champions, too. Moore was the big favorite when he fought a 182 pound, 21-year-old Floyd Patterson and Moore got knocked out in Five.

Moore had 96 pro fights and was 32 years old and in his prime when he fought the 24-year-old Ezzard Charles the first time. Moore lost. He fought Charles two more times in the next couple years. Moore lost ALL OF THEM, and Archie was even knocked out the last time.

An old Moore fought a 20-year-old Cassius Clay, and Moore got knocked out in four.

Primo Carnera is certainly no Ali, but Primo was 26 years old and he had 61 pro fights at the time. He was no slouch. And he was a year away from winning the title. How is beating Joey Maxim at light heavy a better "heavyweight" win for Moore than Gains beating Primo Carnera a year before Primo's heavyweight champion?

And Max Schmeling and Floyd Patterson weren't levels apart. In fact, I'd probably favor Schmeling at his best against Patterson at his best.

The point is, Gains fought future heavyweight champs when they were younger, and he won.

Moore fought them and lost every time, usually by knockout.

I wouldn't put Gains in the top 15, either, for what it's worth.

 

If you remove the only win over a former heavyweight champion (Charles) from Johnson's resume, he beat the same guys at heavyweight Archie Moore did.

Archie Moore's wins at heavyweight do count for something. No one disagrees with that. But they don't add up to a top 15 position at heavyweight.

Archie Moore fought Ezzard Charles three times and lost three times (once by KO).

He doesn't get credit for a win over Charles because somebody he beat defeated Charles years later. Moore had plenty of chances to beat Ezzard Charles on his own. And Moore wasn't old. And he wasn't shot. And Moore didn't do it.

Beating Nino Valdes and Bob Baker doesn't get you ranked in the top 15 heavyweights from 1900 to 1960.

The guys who actually beat heavyweight champions who reigned between 1900 to 1960 and guys who actually became heavyweight champions between 1900 and 1960 probably warrant greater consideration. That's all I'm saying.

 

I would say close but no.

1900-1960

Fitzsimmons
Jeffries
Corbett
Sharkey
Johnson
Langford
Wills
Dempsey
Sharkey
Tunney
Schmeling
Louis
M. Baer
Walcott
Charles

That's 15.

Marciano
Patterson
Liston

That's 18

Bivins, Ray, Jeanette, McVey, Burns, Ingo...all have a case for top 20

Maybe #19-#25 for Archie Moore from 1900-1960. Not bad at all considering he was a light heavyweight.

 

"Johnson . . . beat the same guys at heavyweight Archie Moore did."

Well, really, Johnson has a better heavyweight resume. He beat Bivins, Valdes, and Henry, but also Charles, Godoy, and Machen. Truthfully, Harold Johnson is more impressive at heavyweight than a lot of heavyweight champions, but he was a light-heavyweight. It does confuse this ranking business. The problem rating Johnson above Moore at heavy is that Moore proved superior to Johnson in the fights they fought.

"Beating Nino Valdes and Bob Baker doesn't get you ranked in the top 15 heavyweights from 1900 to 1960."

This is a solid point. Bob Satterfield beat both of these men just as decisively. Even Bill Gilliam actually beat both of them. Harold Johnson is a much better scalp for Moore than these two.

"The guys who actually beat heavyweight champions who reigned between 1900 to 1960 and guys who actually became heavyweight champions between 1900 and 1960 probably warrant greater consideration."

I agree with this if these victories were over the champion when the champion was at or near the top of the division. Let's say Elmer Ray over Charles and Walcott. Or Rex Layne over the same two. Or Johnny Risko over Jack Sharkey in 1928. Or Steve Hamas over Schmeling in 1934. Or Gains over Carnera in 1932. These types of wins should count very heavily, and for me do count more than anything else.

But just beating a champion, especially one green or past it, won't put anyone that high for me. Gains deserves credit for beating Carnera in 1932. Beating a 19 year old Schmeling in 1925? Max Dieckmann and Jack Taylor were doing the same. Schmeling was not world class yet. He might not even have been Euro class yet. Luigi Musina KO'd Carnera in 1945. That isn't in the same ballpark as Gains' win.

"Archie Moore's wins . . . don't add up to a top 15 position at heavyweight."

This is certainly a defensible position.

 

"Gains fought future heavyweight champs when they were younger, and he won."

Schmeling was certainly younger. He was still 19, and coming off a loss to Jack Taylor and a draw with one Leon Randall.

Why does beating a guy who isn't world class yet count as some sort of great win? Gains beat a green and rather inexperienced fighter here.

Gains beating Carnera is a strong win. I think it reasonable to consider it better than beating Maxim in a heavyweight ranking.

But, what about consistency. Gains went on to quickly lose to Walter Neusel, and got KO'd by Don McCorkindale a short time later. These guys aren't in the same class as the Ezzard Charles whom you dwell on.

An aspect of Moore's career you are overlooking is he consistently beat most guys and wasn't losing to second raters. The losses you are dwelling on, to Charles, Marciano, and Patterson, were to top champions. My guess is all of them would be rated by most above Carnera. And how good Schmeling became doesn't make him a big deal as a teenager.

Maxim beating Patterson is also an experienced fighter beating a teenager.

 

It was also pretty much considered by all to be bad decision. Most had the "teenager" winning.

 

Beating "a guy" who isn't world class yet isn't a "great" win.

But beating a "future World heavyweight champion" as a pro is a good win. I don't care if he's "green" or not. It's the same man. He's young. He's strong. He may not have all the skills down, yet, but it's HIM.

Had Doug Jones beat a "green" Muhammad Ali, that certainly would've been a better win than Berbick edging Ali's corpse in the Bahamas.

 

I have seen the film, and I thought Maxim won.

So did all three judges, and the TV commentator, Tommy Loughran.

It was a competitive fight, though.

I have read that the press all thought Patterson won. I wonder if Patterson being the hot young fighter and Maxim a boring old face might have something to do with how they viewed it. Don't know, but what is certain is that opinions vary.

The late John Garfield, who used to post here, and was in the crowd at the fight, posted that he thought Maxim won.

Patterson, though, had an extensive amateur background, being an Olympic champion, and I think was far more advanced at 19 than Schmeling was.

 

I'm not overlooking anything about Archie. I totally respect him. I've said repeatedly I'm not trying to bash him.

His run at light heavyweight and his spell as a top heavyweight contender. Are great.

He just doesn't have the wins against the best heavyweights (at any stage of their careers), that's all. That hurts him.

Beating some light heavys who later went on to beat some fading champ (who already defeated Moore three times when they were both good) ... doesn't LIFT Moore into the top 15 heavyweights.

 

We've all seen the film.

 

Ali was already a top contender.

Schmeling was in a DNA sense the same man. In a boxing sense, I don't think so.

How important was Jack Taylor's win over Schmeling two fights earlier? How high do you rate Taylor?

 

You know what I mean. If Sonny Banks had floored and scored a decision win over "just turned 20 a few days earlier" Clay, that would've been more impressive than Ali-Berbick.

Or do you disagree with that, too?

Jesus Christ.

 

I didn't say or imply you didn't.

What I said is that I have watched the film and I thought Maxim won.

 

In terms of making the top 15 heavyweights from 1900-1960, not very high.

Don't be jerk.

It's not like Jack Taylor had Larry Gains' career.