Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

The fly in this ointment Bummy is that they are results others achieved against bigger men , not Marciano.
Add to this the well established fact that, because A beats B and B has beaten C, A necessarily beats C too. As we all know boxing does not always work that way.

The fact that Co*kell reached number 2 in the 50's says all you need to know about the decades depth.


If the 80's were MEDIOCRE BUNCH ,WHAT WERE THE 50'S?

Arthur Bacillieri were never world class and Farr was 3 days away from his 40th birthday and only boxing because he was skint.

Bucceroni weighed 182 for both Lastarza fights and before the first in his previous 2 fights scaled 178 and 179lbs.

Gilliam lost nearly as many as he won.
Wallace? Two wins over in and out Gilliam and one over a so so Bob Dunlap , yet you include him?

Mederos' record is very shallow.Wins over a washed up Lastarza and a faded Satterfield, who also kod him in2 rds leave him 21-19-3The fact that you included him demonstrates the paucity of your ammunition.
Ten Hoff wasn't world class.
Williams was a teenager and a late sub when he was thrown in over his head against Satterfield.

Shckor was journeyman who had won just 3 of his last ten fights.

 

Impressive thinking:good

 

Moore was a good heavyweight , not a great one, I've never seen his name on a list of great heavyweights.

 

But he wasn't born 30 years later , you come up with this objection every time such matchups are made.
It is matching two men as they actually were, not allowing one some hypothetical licence to add 20lb s of mythical muscle/ height whatever.

Fact is a lot of posters enjoy these matchups,[otherwise they wouldn't crop up with such regularity,] and the format they are suggested in.
If you're so sick of these threads,why not just sit them out?.:huh

Its like watching a TV program you hate, but tuning in every time it is on. It makes no logical sense that I can determine.

 

Why does Moore have to be on a list of ATG heavyweights for you to believe he was a great against heavyweights?

Moore won't get listed if he is already recognised as one of the greatest in another weight class will he? Why should he? His HW credentials stand up higher than Gerry ****ey, Lou Nova, Ron Lyle, Micheal Grant among leading contenders with good credentials not to beat a champion.

Archie Moore's resume at heavyweight is better and deeper than Micheal spinks who was never an outstanding HW contender in his own right… nor did Spinks ever beat a single prime elite heavyweight.

As far as outstanding contenders go Moore stacks up well. Beating a #1 and #2 has not been done that often by guys not to wind up HW champ.

 

rocky beats them all except holmes, Tyson and perhaps tucker.

Also terrible tim would be a serious handful for him with his spoiling.

 

I believe he was a great light heavy, but not a great heavyweight. We obviously have different definitions of the word,I believe it is grossly over applied.

 

You could make a case for Moore being one of the best heavyweights, never to hold the lineal title.

 

I agree.

I think the distinction between his LHW and HW success is the difference between Maxim, Johnson and Marciano, Patterson. Just a slightly harder road to HW greatness at the time.

 

Exactly, Moore is without doubt one of the best heavyweights not to win the linear title. There can't be that many who legitimately campaigned so successfully amongst elite without winning the linear HW crown.

 

You can make a very convincing case that not all lineal titleholders were great,and you would be correct.imo.

 

Briggs is horrible. Right there the statement is true.

 

One wonders what Archie's stats would have been like had he been campaigning with :

Langford ,McVey,Jeannette ,Wills ,Godfrey?

Or.
Louis,Bivins,Conn,Ray,Charles ,Walcott?


Or.


Ali Frazier,Patterson,Ellis,Quarry,Lyle,Norton,Shavers,Holmes ,Foreman?


Instead of.
King,Lavorante,Rademacher,Baker,Henry,Slade,Valdes ?

 

Jeanette and Mcvea look awful on film compared to a prime Archie Moore, so don't see Archie having too much trouble with them . Langford is 50 50

Archie best bivins 4 times including in Bivins prime in 1947. Conn did not fight in the same era as Charles Ray and Walcott. Different eras . I think Archie beats most of Louis title challengers

Moore would have done just fine with Ellis quarry Lyle shavers and even Norton. Holmes Patterson would have been too much

 

I don't think Archie was a great heavyweight but certainly a very good one