Should Archie Moore rank higher than Duran?

HuH? Moore has far more losses at his best division... Duran has 1 loss at his... What on God's Green Earth makes you believe Moore was better in his best division is kinda mindboggling. The best fighter he faced in his best division owned him with ease. Duran... past his peak and best division beat the best fighter he faced. Huge difference here imo

 

Duran's win over Barkley, though incredible, could have gone the other way. His performance against Hagler is slightly overrated. Even though he was clearly, he won the title on a low blow. Various opponents considered mere minnows, even in Duran's prime, gave him tough fights. Esteban De Jesus was well over-the-hill in that third fight which many cite as Duran's best performance (for me it's Palomino).

And so on, and so forth. You quite rightly pointed out a couple of Moore's black marks. You will find more than just those as well, but then even Ray Robinson had plenty.

There comes a time when you have to be general in specificity and just say; yeah, Moore faced and beat much better opposition as a whole, and we can imagine Duran's consistency suffering had he existed in an era alongside Jack, Montgomery, Williams, Angott, Joyce and Dawson.

But I understand what your intention was; I brashly stated there is no argument for Duran, when you can in fact engineer it in his favour.

Duran's 72-1 and subsequent accomplishments are what makes him #9 on my list.

On ability:

Moore, to me, was very much a learning fighter. He lacked the one-punch durability of most pound-for-pound greats - his physical prowess came in the form of recuperative power and long term resiliency and it allowed him a lot of time in the game to perfect his craft, and in the early fifties he seemed to be right at the point where his last reserves of youth were met by terrific experience. As such, on ability I rate him alongside the Marvin Haglers of this world (a very, very small step below the best of all time). I don't believe Moore was less skilled than anyone in history - when you consider his defence and counter punching, which were both unique and top ten all-time for me - combined with seasoned fundamentals and wicked speed and power - I think 'Moore with a better chin' would have been one of the very best ever, head-to-head.

Duran I rate in the top three for ability, although that intangible asset that was the main component of Moore's career - heart - as you rightly pointed out, remains a question mark.

Thanks. I've been laying it on a bit thick! Like I keep saying, the man's career just astounds me at every analysis. He retained every ounce of class once retired, too.

 

Well, there is something to be said about the motivation that sprang from New Orleans. But for that, Duran may not have ever cared enough to even get up for those grandiose later accomplishments. And a man who still fights at 50 is a man either still trying prove something or outlive something. Of course, the fact that he couldn't control his wife's gambling may have had something to do with it too...

Moore with a chin or perhaps just in a different era would have been a world-beater. I see him as boxing's greatest spokesman of all time -better than Ali. MUCH better, in fact.

I like your views about the convergence where Moore's experience met his skill in the early 50s. I would add to it though, with a specific. I'm convinced that Moore was the monster created by Murderers Row. He and Burley have the best records against them (and I count them as follows: Burley, Jack Chase, Holman, Cocoa Kid, Lytell, Marshall, Wade, Booker... not Sheppard and Ez and and Bivins and Billy Smith, and not Moore) and Moore was twice the fighter when he came out of those wars than he was when he went in. Their ferocity is attested to by the fact that as late as '50, he was still struggling against one of them anyway.

I would agree with what seems to be your belief that Duran's skill matched Moore's. His powers of persuasion didn't, but when we consider that Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown -who knew more combined than Moore -emptied their heads into Duran, well, there you have it. Duran's athleticism, which was greater than Moore's shoves him ahead: Curbstone chin, very good speed and rxn time, one punch KO capability that was hurting some rather large guys late in fights and late in his career, and let's not forget agility. I think Duran was nearer a complete fighter than damn near anyone. But more had more character.... Duran's off-season gluttony hurt him and his legacy. He was also something of a headcase. Kinda like James Toney in his tendency to be a fat headcase. Imagine if Duran had the discipline of Hagler? He'd have been GREB-like.

As to his power at Middle -Robbie Sims told a close friend of mine that after he fought Duran, "experts" would comment that Duran didn't hit so hard at middle. Sims was like, "believe me, you just don't know."

I could and would put up a real fight with any knock on Duran-Barkley (despite the fact that I reject any notion that it was for a "championship." Duran beat a top contender who was beastly and thus took some vicarious revenge on Hearns. That suffices!). And I disagree with all my heart that Hagler-Duran is overrated (no one has named another lightweight frame that could take Hagler 15. Pernell? That makes me giggle.)


Anyway, I see Moore and Duran as P4P Peers for different reasons. When you consider a totality of measures -some favoring one, some favoring the other, I lean toward Duran but have no beef with Moore pulling ahead.

 

If I was to rate on who was a better fighter my top 3 would be

Robinson
Pea
Jones

 

I meant greater. Champ for a decade beat beat greater men within that division.

 

Fair enough, I have a different way to see this but I think it´s a subject for another thread anyway....

 

I'm a bit worried I was heard throughout the neighbourhood orgasmically yelling "Convert me, Manassa! Convert me!"

I wouldn't mind you putting up a thread on just that, Chris. I think it's perfectly worthy of its own thread. :deal

 

Achievements versus ability. Most Duran beater at his absolute best but Moore had a consistency, a resolve, and longevity. So it just depends on your criteria. I get what you're saying but that's what I'm assuming most mean when they say that.

 

both guys had flaws to their careers, it just depends what you like in a fighter.

i'll take duran's side as although no mas was ****ing embarrasing he is one of the few all time top in their division who also performed fantastically well above weight

 

Yeah Pete, I know what he means but I can´t separate both things...imo they are totally connected.

 

FOr me it's still Duran by about 7 spots.. In the overall scheme of things that isn't much when we are talking about the upper echelon of boxing. I am grateful to Manassa for posting some of his wins.. I had forgotten about some and it was impressive... what a fighter.

 

Really? I consider h2h and resumes two completely different things.

My top 5 h2h probably goes something like Jones Jr, Robinson, Whitaker, Ali, Ray Leonard

Whereas my resume goes SRR, Armstrong, Greb, Langford, Charles

 

I particularly like this. I may use it - with the proper credits, of course:

Fear not, those Hagler and Barkley (and Buchanan) jibes were just illustrative. Those form some of the constituent that is Duran's top ten placing.

I'm sure Duran hit fairly hard at middleweight, although I would contend the notion that he was a pound-for-pound better hitter than Moore - not that you were implying this - due to Moore's numerous stoppages of boxers (some decent, some ****) of 200lbs+.

You know I've been appreciative of Duran's skills (even if I think Ike Williams handles him, at least in the initial encounter; but we've been there before). In fact, he's long been one of my favourites. Duran holds the place in my head for 'most aesthetically and functionally perfect' for the Palomino performance. Not many can rival Duran's level of skill around that time. Jose Napoles and Archie Moore pulled off some stuff at the same level but not as consistently in one fight. Saying that, I don't know now, but either way, Duran's skills were truly elite.

Add those to a man who skips from a crouch and you have one of the best ever.

Rewriting history I'd start Duran in 1940 in a time zone more suited to his tenacity. I'd see his record take a beating but have faith in him pulling out a case for the #1, ever.

 

It isn´t for most people I believe....
Don´t get me wrong here, resumes are very important, obviously.

But I mean, I hear sometimes people saying "oh, fighter A is great because he beat fighter B, C and D.....and fighter B is great because he beat fighter C, D and F and whatever...." it is this cycle in resumes, and I get it, but I prefer to put H2H ability also in the mix....with a lot of value.

Because if you don´t see the high level of ability in all those opponents then rate them because they have wins between each others becomes a tad superficial IMHO. You know what I mean ? So H2H and resume are very connected!

Like I said, this deserves its own thread....it´s an interesting discussion.

And sometimes I feel like fighters like Joe Louis, for instance, were unlucky !
Not lucky !
Because he get criticized due to his lack of great HWs faced.... while he didn´t have no Frazier or Foreman to face....what he could do ?

Resumes can be circumstantial too! Just like any other stuff in boxing....

 

Nice post man, good points. I guess I'm just set in that way where I differentiate the two, a LOT.

For instance, I consider Marquez>Pacquiao

But Pacquiao has the higher ranking because of his resume.