Re-evaluating Durelle flooring Moore

You’re right about the first three. Thought it was later. But the last bout in 54 he was at his best. Had already beaten Charles, Nino, Satterfield, etc. and Archie knocked him out. Idk what more you want the guy to do. King was an obvious warm up bout. He didn’t like paying sparring partners he preferred warm up bouts.

 

Moore ,in Heller's book said "Harold couldn't draw his breath at the gate," and "he makes you do all the work,".Bottom line Harold was coming and Archie was going.I don't blame the Mongoose for keeping away from the improved Johnson, they wouldnt have drawn a big gate and God knows Archie had waited long enough to get his own title shot, getting a pittance for fighting Maxim,but Johnson was the standout contender.
Rinaldi was unknown when Archie dropped a non title fight with him,I remember BI running a feature on him "The Kid Who Licked Archie Moore".The organizations gradually began withdrawing recognition of Moore because of his failure to defend against Johnson.

 

Moore did something champions do...he was floored...not once...but 4 times...and he came back to win the fight. Something Mike Tyson never did!!!

 

Not many people dropped Tyson, so his opportunities to come from behind were more limited.It works both ways.
Not that Tyson's career is at all relevant to Moore's.

 

I shouldn't have thought so,but Moore said Durelle hit him harder than Rocky did.

 

In terms of whether he had deserved the title shot against Moore:

I think Johnson and Anthony would likely have been considered more deserving at the end of 1958, but both had previously been defeated by Moore without controversy. Pastrano was campaigning at heavyweight at that point and wasn't ranked at LH. Durelle was probably next in line, as wins over Holt and Hinnant (both ranked) and a controversial draw against Anthony got him into the top 5. It wasn't a particularly deep division, but I'd say Durelle was worthy of his top five ranking, and the title shot.

In terms of what Durelle displayed against Moore:

I mean, relatively non-descript contenders have fought out of their skin to trouble all time great champions in the past. Durelle was a bit limited, and was indifferent to training most of the time, but he had good hand speed and power, and if someone wasn't taking him seriously, he could certainly make you pay for it. It was a really good attempt against an aging, unsuspecting but still great champion who still had enough in the tank to withstand the challenge.

 

I will just reiterate that past experience should not preclude a fighters title shot if that fighter has fought his way back to the top of the rankings. It had been four years since Moore barely beat Johnson. In that four years Moore had gotten older, slower, and struggled to make 175 while Johnson had continued to be a stellar fighter. Nobody doubted that Moore was ducking Johnson and thats why he was stripped. Durelle lost his rematch to Anthony BEFORE he got his shot at Moore and after Anthony had been defeated by Moore. So there was no real justification in picking Durelle over Anthony or Johnson beyond the fact that he was low hanging fruit being ordinary and having found himself briefly ranked. Moore jumped on it. I dont think anyone doubts that Moore was calculating when he took the least threatening opponent of the three. I will reiterate that Moore was more than willing to fight his paid sparring partner six times. It was only an issue fighting fighters multiple times when Moore knew there was a chance he would lose. Even after Moore was stripped when promoters were clamoring for a unification he wanted no part of Johnson. He knew Johnson would win. He had simply slipped too far and Johnson had maintained if not improved. Durelle had 19 losses on his record and just in the previous few years hed been stopped 6 times. It didnt take a contendor to beat him either much less an all time great. Hed been beaten multiple times by fairly mediocre opposition.

 

I have no disagreement with those scoring Moore for the general level of his competition in the late fifties,

but I want to say something about Harold Johnson. I think Johnson is one of the most stylish boxers to watch on film, and generally deserves to be considered underrated, but his late 1950's into the early 1960's is underwhelming. They rated him #1 more or less on his perceived stature (which was correct) and on what he had done in the past.

Johnson rebounded to the number one contender spot in 1957 by beating a couple of heavies, the dangerous but aging Satterfield, and the second tier Bethea, plus the second tier light-heavy contender Hinnant. Moore that year was fighting Tony Antony, Eddie Cotton, and Luis Ignacio.

Over the next three years, here is whom Johnson fought and defeated:

1958
Burt Whitehurst (24-11-2)
Ollie Wilson (10-12)
Howard King (38-15-7)
Rudy Watkins (14-13-1)

1959
Johnny York (8-11-1)
Sonny Ray (19-8-6)

1960
Clarence Floyd (10-8)

The only two who were rated LH were Ray (lifetime 22-18-7) and Floyd (!) (lifetime 11-13). That they were rated shows the weakness of the division at the time. Whatever Durelle's limitations, and he was spotty at best, I think he was more dangerous than those two.

In 1961 Johnson is anointed LH champion by defeating #6 contender Jesse Bowdry who in the previous year had been stopped twice by Henry Hank. He defended this title against another so-so type, Von Clay. Moore meanwhile successfully defended against the NBA's actual #1 contender, Rinaldi. The question I pose is why didn't the NBA match Johnson with someone like the undefeated Euro champion Erich Schoppner for their vacated title. Schoppner might not have been anything that special, but he looked the better contender at the time and certainly in hindsight.

From Paul Andrews in 1955 to Cotton and Jones in 1961, I don't think Johnson met a man who was rated in the top 5 LH. That is a long time to hold the top ranking w/o fighting the best competition.

Johnson turned his level of competition around and proved he still had it starting in later 1961 with consecutive wins over Eddie Machen, Eddie Cotton, Doug Jones, and Gustav Scholz. The wins by Moore over Rinaldi and Johnson over Scholz were very welcome in validating their title status at a time when the American contenders after Moore and Johnson were for the most part a very unimposing group.

 

It doesnt really matter what your opinion of the rankings is. What matters is the rankings. Johnson was the guy and the fact (and it is a fact) that Moore was ducking him is what matters. It doesnt matter if you think Durelle was more dangerous than Floyd or Ray because we arent talking about Moore defending against those guys, we are talking about him defending against Johnson, his #1. Whether Durelle was more dangerous than opponents of Johnson or Anthony isnt germane because we are talking about Moore defending against a better class of opponent than Durelle which Anthony and Johnson clearly were. Does anyone doubt that Johnson would chopped Durelle to pieces? Anthony had already stopped him just before Moore defended against Durelle so thats not even up to debate. Furthermore, when Moore defended his diminished version of the title against Rinaldi you make the point that Rinaldi was rated #1 by the NBA but neglect to mention that he was ONLY rated #1 because he had defeated Moore (which is kind of a circular way of getting a title shot: Moore goes to Italy, takes on a no-hoper in a non title fight, loses, then gets to double dip and defend against that no hoper and wins easily.), because Moore had been dumped completely from the ratings, and because Johnson, the real number 1 had now won the NBA's version of the title, this all allowed Rinaldi to climb higher than he normally would have been rated due to the vacuum at the top. A more cynical person might think Moore was extending his reign with poor performances against no-hopers like Durelle and Rinaldi or you could just take it at face value and say Moore was slipping so badly he couldnt even be counted on to beat these guys as he would in his prime, which was my initial point.

 

I don't think the ratings are exactly the issue. It was a reality to the boxing fan that Moore had already beaten Johnson 4 of 5 and had KO'd him in a championship challenge. If Johnson wanted public support for a 6th fight with Moore, I think it would have been useful to build public enthusiasm by impressively eliminating the other contenders. Instead Johnson sat on his rating. Seven fights between 1958 and 1960 against nondescript opposition isn't going to impress the fan in the street or foment public demand for yet another shot at Moore.

Off his overall record, I think there must have been factors at play which prevented Johnson from getting fights. In the end the impact was the same as if Johnson's strategy was to wait until Moore got too old and fat to make the weight.

You can certainly make the case that Moore was slipping against Durelle and Rinaldi. But the much younger Johnson isn't even doing as much. Moore at least has the excuse that he was well into his forties.

As for Rinaldi, he is after all the only light-heavyweight to beat Moore after 1951. He solidified his challenger status with wins over 9 other men who were in the NBA LH ratings between 1957 and 1960 prior to the title fight with Moore. Nothing changes the fact that Rinaldi was rated higher by the NBA in 1961 than the men Johnson was winning his title recognition by fighting.

I say this judging Johnson a truly great fighter and a top ten light-heavyweight.

 

I like you disregard the ratings (the reason Moore got stripped) in order to tell us what the fans collectively thought 60 years ago.

Its also bizarre to question Johnsons competition and credentials for getting a title shot while defending sub par fighters like Durelle and Rinaldi. Who werent winning any fights against a whose who of competition. Again, I point out that the only reason these mediocre fighters got two fights with Moore were because he struggled with both, then gave them rematches which extended his “reign” and I use quotations because he had been stripped by the second Rinaldi fight which brings me to your next point: you laud Rinaldi as the only LHW to beat Moore after 1951 (Johnson). Thats true but it ignores the fact that after 1954 Moore had just six fights at LHW, one of those coming against a chinny MW and four more coming against mediocre foreign competition. Which is exactly the point. He wasnt putting his title on the line and was refusing to fight his most threatening opposition. The last time he put his title on the line against anyone worth a damn was Johnson and Johnson was winning the fight and dropped Moore before Moore came from behind to stop Johnson in the 14th. Everyone knew Moore was killing himself to make weight, he was slipping, and Johnson wasnt. Period. When the nest Durelle could muster was splitting two fights against Hinnant (who lost his rematch to Durellle by taking the fight on less than a weeks notice after failed to win his previous two fights, one of which was a one round KO loss to Johnson) and a disgusting display of dirty fighting and home town reffing against Mike Holt who never beat anyone before or after then dont try to justify him getting a title shot over Johnson.

 

I can't really debate this as I have other obligations for the next month

"what the fans collectively thought 60 years ago"

If I gave the impression I am speaking for all fans 60 years ago, I didn't want to. But the issue is was there a groundswell of support for a 6th Moore-Johnson fight? I don't remember one and I while it is daunting to admit it, I was there and following boxing back then and had been for a number of years. I don't recall magazines like the True Yearbook or the Police Gazette spending much time on Johnson's case. This was more an insiders thing, but possibly it was different in his home state. I don't see how one can overlook that beating the top men would have strengthened Johnson's case and improved his image with the general public. Speaking only for myself as a young fan at the time, Johnson fought so little on TV that he was mostly off my radar. I think I saw the film of his KO defeat by Moore, which was part of the Big Fights package which they used as filler if the scheduled bout ended early, a lot more often than I saw Johnson in live fights, which were rare.

I don't dispute that Moore's competition in the late fifties wasn't that great, although other than a 6th fight with Johnson I don't know whom exactly he was supposed to be fighting at LH. Spieser? Ranked #1 for a while, but was he all that good? Schoppner stopped him. Hecht? KO'd by Pompey. Schoppner? Eventually beaten by Rinaldi. And my point, whom exactly was Johnson fighting? What LH opponent between Andrews in 1955 and at least Cotton in 1961 (a man also beaten by Moore) did he fight that was better or more highly rated than Olson, Pompey, Antony, Durelle, or Rinaldi?

Also, whatever else is said about the mediocrity of Moore's opposition, your take on Olson is very one-sided. He was the middleweight champion, on a long winning streak against top competition, including a decisive win over the still high-ranked Maxim, who was coming off wins over Patterson and Andrews. Olson had only been stopped to that point by Robinson, who stopped a lot of guys. This fight was put in the Polo Grounds as a big attraction. Knocking Olson as an opponent is all hindsight. I think he was viewed as a formidable challenger going into the Moore fight. Olson would still be good enough to be the key stepping stone for Torres on his way to the LH title almost a decade after this title challenge.

I think it though very good to scrutinize Moore and the LH division of that era. My take is Moore fought the best out there except for Johnson. And I see no reason not to ask if Johnson was also fighting the best out there.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

My early experience is similar to yours. To my recollection, "the best out there" in the light-heavyweight division wasn't very good, and Johnson's record against them was about as good as Moore's. I also remember that there wasn't any hue and cry when the NBA stripped Moore of the title and sanctioned the fight between the Johnson and Bowdry for the title without going through the motions of requiring "an elimination tournament. Johnson was pretty well understood to be the best light heavyweight in the world, and even Moore's own complaints were mostly pro forma rather than serious. Not like for example, when the WBA arbitrarily stripped Foster of his title 10 years later. Foster battled back against the politics and "regained" that portion of the title, but Moore didn't really try because he knew he had little chance of defeating Johnson. In fact, the NBA did him a favor actually by saving him the embarrassment of taking a beating and losing to Johnson. Instead he was able to extend his career for a year or so cherry-picking ham and eggers in the heavyweight division.

 

I haven't got time for a long debate, but on this point "Johnson's record against them was about as good as Moore's"--whom exactly was Johnson fighting? Even Durelle, the least qualified of Moore's title opponents, was rated #3. Who was rated #3 that Johnson was fighting prior to becoming NBA champion?

"the NBA stripped Moore of the title and sanctioned the fight between Johnson and Bowdry for the title without going through the motions of an elimination tournament."

I don't know about a tournament, but couldn't they come up with someone better than the #6 guy?

There is an article from The New Yorker called "The Mongoose" in which Moore expresses his take a flying leap attitude toward the NBA: "When I wanted the NBA to recognize me as a challenger they let me wither for five solid years."

There seems to be a position that the NBA is the end all and be all of boxing back then. The writer of this article has this to say about the NBA--"Moore is the recognized champion where it counts--in New York, Massachusetts, and California, and abroad. The NBA, representing the small time, the remaining 47 states, decided late last year that Moore was not defending his title often enough and declared the title vacant."

Later he had this comment. "The fact remains that Moore is in the big money and Johnson is not."

Reading this article it is obvious that the reason Moore wasn't defending is that he was no longer able to make weight. A title fight with Schoppner fell through because Moore couldn't make weight. His walking around weight was 190 to 215. He made weight for Rinaldi by outright starving himself. Marciano visited Moore's training camp and is described as appalled. He is quoted in the article, "The weight-making will beat Archie. That is the big thing."

I think Moore should have resigned the title, and probably would have except for old hard feelings against the NBA politicians who had earlier shafted him. Apparently to spite them, he tortured himself to get down far enough to defend against Rinaldi.

As for Johnson, he appears to have been content to just wait until Archie was no longer able to make weight and then assume the crown.

"Johnson was pretty well understood to be the best light heavyweight in the world"

An understanding is not exactly the same as proof in the ring. That came in 1962 after Moore was gone. Perhaps there was nothing Johnson could have done and nobody he could have fought to force a 6th Moore bout, but he really wasn't fighting anyone to make it come about, nor taking any chances of losing his rating status.