Should Archie Moore rank higher than Duran?

I think the hardest thing with p4p is finding a level of consistency you are happy with and that reflects your perception of the sport.

A lot of lists are tweaks of previous lists.

I reckon going at it like a blank canvass is very hard separating certain guys.

I'm giving that a go and outside my top 5 it's open season. I think Charles should definitely be above Moore so that's 6 I'd always place above him but other than that he has as good an argument as any for the number 7 spot.

 

Same with me. Charles definitely has to be above - and I don't think you can argue Moore over B. Leonard, who was brilliantly dominant in a tough era. Langford is closer I feel, but as Langford beat better heavyweights I give it to him. All things considered, I think Moore is #7, for being just about the most resilient fighter ever. I'd like to see someone justify Duran or Pep but I don't believe it can be done. Fitzsimmons is difficult, but I choose to rate him #10 due to the level of professionalism in the sport during his time which I think lacked the competitiveness of Moore's day.

 

My top 5 is srr, Armstrong, Greb, Langford, fitz.

It's between a few for number 6 atm with Charles, Leonard, Ali, Pep all fighting it out, but like I said Moore is in contention for 7. It's all very close at this level very close indeed.

Moore might make my top ten when I do lust it all.

 

Dominance and superiority as a H2H monster are Duran's strong points in the comparison. That and the single best win between the two. Overall resume is definitely to Moore and he's one of the very few with even more impressive longevity. Both have fine multi-weight accomplishments. Depends on what you like.

As I said in my first post in the thread, I don't like either higher than 7 or lower than 12.

 

i think there's arguments for both, which is awesome

 

Sure it can.

Your stats regarding Moore's 64 against Duran's 25 top tens is valuable though there are devils in the details. Cocoa Kid for instance, should never have stepped in the ring with Moore at that time. He didn't stand a chance. Not a chance. Bert Lytell actually beat him in his own hometown in the rematch despite being outweighed by over 10 pounds (both fights actually) -and Moore's own neighbors booed the decision to the rafters.

--However, there is no argument worth a nicket that says Moore didn't fight tougher guys, in a tougher era, in what really should be the most important criterion.

But that isn't the whole story.

There is also Ring Generalship to consider. And Duran beats him there. How many fighters in the history of the world have the technology to evolve from a puncher to a boxer-puncher to a swarmer/pressure fighter to a counterpuncher and beyond? A peak Duran was among the top two or three most formidable fighter ever. Moore was a beast, but not like that.

Longevity -Moore wins here, but Duran's 5 decades shrinks the distance between them. That performance in Camacho I was incredible. He was 45 in there against a style that he never liked much in his prime.

Dominance -slight edge to Duran based on his lightweight reign. Moore was playing hard to get after a few years on the LHW throne -not that he didn't earn the right after earning his bones against killers real and imagined on Murderers Row.

Durability? Duran. And not by a little.

Performance against bigger men? I have Duran by a tiny bit. No lightweight frame in history has come close to doing what Duran's did. Moore, more or less a supermiddle, was naturally big enough to carry the size and force to deal with big guys.

Intangibles. -Moore. And not by a little. I stomp down Duran's score here because of Leonard II.

....
I have Moore at #6, Duran at 5, though they're separated by no more than .2. If those placement seem high, keep in mind I discount all fighters who reached their prime before 1920.

Moore and Duran are close, close, but Duran absolutely has an argument, unless we want to zero on one or two measures that favor Moore.

Now, Ezzard Charles --that's a different story. I can't see either Duran or Moore over him.

 

On resume alone you have to give it to Moore.....In my personal criteria though I consider Duran´s dominance and H2H ability as two great advantages in his favor....
It´s close anyway.

 

Yes

 

I agree about the dominance by Duran, on TOP of the Leonard win, on TOP of being fat and winning a middleweight title. Moore was nice and a fine ATG but Duran nicks it close but clearly for me.

 

I think it's a TOTAL Injustice that DeJesus isn't in the HOF.. In my opinion, and that of many others, he should be and thus that is 2 more wins over a HOF.

 

Err of course it can be done... Duran was more dominate at LW than Moore was in any one division. Duran was one prime loss.. Moore has many more than that. Duran has the best win between the two. Duran is better h2h than Moore is. Those points alone can justify it.

 

I think I consider Moore above.

I think I consider him a greater lhw than Duran was a lw. I think Moore has a deeper resume and achieved more as a fighter.

I think Duran was clearly a superior fighter but that isn't enough to close the distance. He does also have one of the best victories in history which makes the difference very close indeed. Both are in the 15-8 range for me.

 

I don´t get this line of thinking though, luf.
If you consider Moore above how you can say he was not the better between the two ? I know many people do that but I just don´t get it, to me the better fighter is always above ! :conf

Or when you say "fighter" you mean the style of Duran or something like that?

 

Well, what he means that at his very best, his utmost peak, Duran reached a higher level. That doesn't necessarily mean he ranks above, though. Accomplishments count, longevity counts and continuing to seek out challenges makes that possible.

There's no doubt Roy Jones jr and Floyd Mayweather reached very high levels during their career, but you got to push that oxcart to the farm and use that ability to take scalps, win belts, and fight often.

I'm personally of the opinion that Duran ranks above, but I've not studied Moore as much as Manassa has. He makes a good case here, as he did for Benny Leonard, and he did indeed convince me that he is the #1 Lightweight.