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

Well, the Schmeling of 1925 was not Ali. Ali was an Olympic champion. Ali wasn't losing to guys like Jack Taylor.

As for Berbick, you are now asking whether beating a washed up old man is worse than beating a green fighter?

It depends, I suppose, but one thing is for certain, Banks beating a green Ali, or Berbick beating an ancient Ali, is nothing compared to Frazier or Norton beating a still close to the top of his game Ali.

 

Beating a "green" Ali is certainly better than getting stopped in four by a green Ali. Which Sonny Bank and Archie Moore BOTH did ... same year, too.

Enough about Moore being a top 15 heavyweight.

 

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

Exactly. But he still beat Schmeling about the same time.

"Don't be a jerk."

Let's keep it about boxing history. Tell me why beating the 1925 Schmeling amounts to much except that Schmeling would later become a good heavyweight. He clearly, off his record, was ordinary in 1925.

How good Ali or Patterson or for that matter Sugar Ray Robinson were at the same age isn't really pertinent.

 

If Moore had beaten a future or former champ, I'm sure he'd be in the top 15.

BUT HE DIDN'T.

If Moore had been denied an opportunity to fight a future, former or reigning champ, I'm sure THAT denial would boost his claim.

But Moore got to fight FOUR men who either would become champs, were champs or were 20/21 years old, and Moore lost TO ALL OF THEM.

Beating Nino Valdes and Bob Baker doesn't get you there.

 

"Beating a "green" Ali is certainly better than getting stopped in four by a green Ali."

Name the guy who actually beat a green Ali.

Jack Taylor did beat Schmeling.

"Enough about Moore being a top 15 heavyweight."

I rate Moore as a top 15 heavyweight from 1900 to 1955. to 1960, I think it is iffy, as at least two extra top 15 fighters are added.

 

"Beating Nino Valdes and Bob Baker doesn't get you there."

I agree, in and of itself. But the whole career might be a different matter.

 

* Because blacks were denied a shot at the World Heavyweight Title, Larry Gains won the 'Colored' Heavyweight championship, the Canadian heavyweight championship and the Commonwealth heavyweight championship.

Archie Moore wasn't the heavyweight champion of ANYTHING.

* Larry Gains beat two men who would go on to become the UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION after he beat them (Max Schmeling and Primo Carnera).

Archie Moore lost to every guy he ever fought who was or became the heavyweight champion ... whether they were 20, 21, 24 or 32 ... still green or a solid veteran.

* Larry Gains beat top heavyweight contenders of the era, including Phil Scott, Jack Renault and George Godfrey.

Archie Moore beat top heavyweight contenders of his era, too, like Nino Valdes and Bob Baker.

Archie Moore was also a dominant light heavyweight champion.



... So why should anyone rank Moore HIGHER at HEAVYWEIGHT than Gains? They shouldn't.

And I don't rate Gains in the top 15 heavyweights, either. Because beating Carnera and Schmeling and being the colored champ and the Commonwealth and Canadian champs don't quite get him there, either.

But Moore's record CERTAINLY doesn't get him in, either.

Moore has fewer big heavyweight wins than Gains.

Stop with the nonsense.

 

Exactly. His entire career is Hall of Fame worthy.

His HEAVYWEIGHT Career doesn't get him in the top 15.

 

Actually, this is a pretty good post.

*the problem is that you are focusing on Moore not being able to beat great fighters like Charles in their prime. But Charles rates pretty high for me. Losing to him doesn't mean you are certainly not in the top fifteen. Nor Marciano obviously. And Moore losing at 45 to Ali?

Your criticism of Moore never beating guys that "good" is a much better spin on this argument, and has validity.

Ali aside, if Moore could handle Charles and Marciano, he would be in the top 5, not just the top 15.

 

A fair enough position.

 

You could say that about anyone.

The truth is Moore didn't come close to beating them both.

Jersey Joe Walcott came MILES closer - considering he actually beat Charles TWICE (including via KO), he floored Joe Louis twice and lost a close decision, and he floored Marciano and was leading going into the 13th round - and I haven't seen anyone rate Walcott near the top five.

Moore could only dream of doing something like that.

But when he got his opportunities for the title, he failed pretty emphatically.

 

"Archie Moore wasn't the heavyweight champion of anything."

I think you are wrong about this. I believe the fight with Valdes in 1955 was billed in Nevada as for the heavyweight championship of the world.

Not that this point about regional or limited championships is credible.

Moore not being the Canadian or Empire heavyweight champion was basically because he wasn't eligible.

 

And Gains not being World Heavyweight Champion could also basically be because he wasn't ALLOWED to fight for it because of his skin color.

Interestingly, two guys involved in the elimination tournament (after Tunney retired) - Schmeling and Scott - were both stopped in two rounds by Gains.

Moore got his world heavyweight title shot twice, and got knocked out both times.

Can you imagine if Archie Moore was denied ANY heavyweight title shot, yet two heavyweights he would knock out in two rounds were included in a vacant title tournament and one of them WON IT?

What did Moore do again at heavyweight?

Oh yeah, he decisioned Nino Valdes a couple times.

 

"The truth is Moore didn't come close to beating them both."

The first Charles fight was apparently very one-sided. The second was close, in fact a majority decision, off boxrec of the 5-4-1 sort.

Box rec reports that in the 1948 fight Moore had Charles "on the verge of a KO" when Charles suddenly rallied and KO'd him.

As for Marciano, Moore did hurt and drop Marciano.

But certainly the bottom line is Moore lost.

While it might be true that beating both Marciano and Charles (at his peak) would put anyone in the top five, who in fact ever beat both of these men?

 

You could argue Joe Walcott beat Ezzard Charles AND Joe Louis. And Walcott did better against Marciano in their first fight than Moore did, that's for sure.