Pound for Pound Top Ten

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Manassa, Aug 5, 2009.


Page 4 of 6
  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    When Fitz fell to the canvas whilst still holding onto Corbett and the referee seperated the two before starting the count?

    The referee made a mistake by modern standards, but I think labelling him a cheat is pretty strong. Anyway, Fitz KO14 Corbett is the result that stands, it made Fitz the HW champion of the world despite his having turned pro below 154 and is a better win than anything Moore managed, as you've rightly pointed out.
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #46
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Your satisified or perhaps you simply have not seen any film of Harold Johnson at his best? I will tell you this....I prefer Harold Johnsons master boxing, jabbing clinic, technically brilliant 15 round shutout title performance over a man who nearly beat Muhammad Ali one year later on film. Harold looks better on film than Burley. Harold has a better jab, better defensive fundamentals, sharper skills, faster speed, and better workrate. Charley was a very good fighter, but he gets terrribly overated today. He does not stand out among the murders row to me...He was just another Williams, Marshall, Booker...All great fighters but none were a level above the others.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #47
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005

    Fitz would certainly not have beaten Patterson, Marciano, or Ali at 38-46 years old. Archie's wins over Hall of Fame heavyweight Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdez, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker are certainly more than enough to make up Fitz CONTROVERSIAL win over Corbett.


    Yes but the victory is tainted because of foulplay. Had he not cheated, Corbett would have been the winner by Kayo.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #48
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    I would bet if Manassa produced a HW list it would be with Fitzsimmons above Moore. Yours is otherwise?




    We'll never know what Fitz would have done against those guys.

    What we DO know is that Fitz beat a younger, bigger CHAMPION in Corbett and that he was 36 years old when Jeffries unseated him. We know that boxrec has him outweiged by 40ish pounds for that fight and that he probably could quite comfortably have made the modern middleweight limit around this time.

    In short, he was a supper-middleweight knocking out heavyweights.

    Moore might be a greater HW (though I believe you are basically alone on that point) but Fitz is off the scale pound for pound.

    Moore certainly proved he could defeat Hall of Fame Heavyweights Multiple times(Bivins) or 6'3 215lb Mandatory # 1 contenders Nino Valdez, or highly rated talented heavyweights Bob Baker , Clarence Henry(World Boxing Hall of Fame)
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #49
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007

    Could be.

    I've never seen Burley at his best on film either.

    The only exsisting film shows him kicking the **** out of a class fighter two weight classes above his best past prime. Makes you think, doesn't it?
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #50
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Personally I feel head to head Archie would defintley take Fitz. Fitz fought at a time when boxing technique was not up to par. Fitz cannot possibly think his low gaurd/no head movement will allow him to defend himself against moores snake like Sniper Accurate Powerful shots. Fitz may have been good at trapping for his era, but Moore was great at trapping for ANY era. Fitz had trouble with men who did not come to him. That is why corbett outboxed him so easily and floored him. Archies shoulder roll defense and upperbody movements will be traits fitz has never seen before in the ring...It will really confuse him....Archie has really long arms and a battle between two counterpunchers, I like the man with the long arms. I think Archies straight right down the pipe is going to clean fitz clock and once he has bob in trouble, Archie is the all time knockout king..he will finish ruby red
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #51
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007

    Controversy and cheating REALLY aren't the same thing. You are very hard on Fitz. As a guy who has been in I would think you would be willing to give the benifit of the doubt to a guy who has taken a knee before being seperated from his foe by the referee.


    Moore, basically, is a contender who failed repeatedly at the highest level at HW. Fitzsimmons is a champion. I don't see a case, really, for the first above the other.
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #52
  8. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    It is very impressive and I do think Burley was a great middleweight. He is impressive on film. I just hold a very high opinion on Harold Johnson. That's all.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #53
  9. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005

    You say he failed at the highest level...but look who he had to fight to get there. Rocky Marciano. When Fitz fought a man who came close to Marcianos greatness at heavyweight, he twice got demolished by Jeffries. Moore did floore the granite chinned Rocky
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #54
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    I do too. And you know more about him than me, so perhaps I need to take another look. But pound for pound I honestly don't think there is a contention.
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #55
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Moore also had the chance against the more vulnerable Patterson. I've got Fitz to beat Patterson. But you do have to point out points for being the man. The reason Wills scores so highly on HW lists is he has a very storng case for being the man, inspite of his never having been champion. Liston was the man without holding the title. Peter Jackson, probably, too. Fitzsimmons was the man. Moore was never the man at HW. He was the man at LHW.
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #56
  12. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Well This is a good point but you have to ask yourself this. Moore was a month shy of 40...Not only do I think this was Archies worst fight on film because he was going through lots of issues at the time (Yes this is an exuse and does not hold much water)....but archie was starting to slow down by this time. Finally age was catching up with ole archie, even if a little. I think the Archie of the early 50s through 55 was a sharper faster fighter....Archie made a horrible mistake of fighting a gruelling schedule in 1956 right after taking a horrible pounding from Marciano...

    Which brings me too...Would Fitz have been able to beat Patterson at 39 and 11 months old? i doubt it. Fitz beat Corbett at age 36. Would Moore beat Patterson at 36? It would be a much closer fighter IMO.


    As far as Fitz vs Patterson...With Floyds Size, Speed Combinations and Power...I cant see how fitz could ever survive patterson's onslaught. If Fitz cant take corbetts best, floyds combinations will murder him.



    This is a very good point. I do firmly think Moore Established himself as one of the best heavyweight CONTENDERS never to win a belt the way he ransacked through a respectable list of dangerous heavyweight contenders.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 5, 2009
    #57
  13. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    91
    Nov 10, 2008
    To be fair Suzy, different fighters age differently and a 38 year old Moore was alot better than a 38 year old fizsimmons but thats not saying much really. You need to measure them both at their best for it to mean anything IMO.

    For the record i rate Fitz higher (although i dont rate fighters pre 1920 in this instance i will on resume and ability) however i think Moore beats him
     
    GPater11093, Aug 5, 2009
    GPater11093, Aug 5, 2009
    #58
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,017
    48,122
    Mar 21, 2007
    Point taken, but I think crushing puncher v smarmer is one of these clashes that makes more sense going with the styles than with the ages. But I could be wrong. Patterson could beat old Fitz, unquestionably, overwhelm him. But that wouldn't be my pick.

    Remember that Fitz had his own dice with death whilst to old for that type of detail - at his time of life, to land Jeffries was rough. Certianly tougher than landing Patterson at Archie's time of life.


    Prime for prime i'm secure in my pick. It's a question of what goes first - Fitz's durability or Patterosn's chin. Fitz's durablity IS the more proven of the two, even if Patterson's chin is better than given credit for (looking at his actual stoppage losses, his chin is fine).





    You remember I started that thread in general saying Moore would be the #3 HW right now? I believe that. But I don't see him ever dominating an era though he wouldn't have to be THAT lucky to land the title in the weaker eras. However that is speculation.
     
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 5, 2009
    #59
  15. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,125
    Jun 2, 2006
    Johnson was a great fighter ,but he was kod by a 38 year old Moore.
    Moore was not that flattering to Johnson in interviews.He beat him 4 out of 5 ,twice in Philly.Moore was allways more complimentary to Burley,you are probably correct in that Burley was not noticeably better than Williams or Marshall,Im not sure about Johnson though.
     
    mcvey, Aug 5, 2009
    mcvey, Aug 5, 2009
    #60
Page 4 of 6