Was Bernard Hopkins still elite in his forties ? Vote !

Before the Smith fight, Hopkins record at 175 is 9 wins 3 losses and 2 draws/no decisions with 0 ko victories. He lost to Dawson, Calzaghe and was beaten up by Kov. Personally I believe he would have had a lot of problems with Pastrano.

 

I personally dont rate any fighter he beat at 175 particularly highly. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

You are being pretty one sided there. Hopkins struggled with Wright in a fight you could argue either way, lost to Calzaghe, struggled with Pascal once, and really lost to Dawson twice.

Moore didn't struggle with Pompey, he coasted, took over at the half way point, and destroyed him by round 10.

Moore also did not struggle against Durelle in the rematch, destroying him without trouble in 3 rounds.

Bogus claim. Most feel Moore won, or the fight was at best a draw. You would be hard pressed to find observers who thought Pastrano deserved a win. And Moore is 46, at 46 Hopkins is losing clear to Dawson.

• The Associated Press reported that a consensus of boxing writers thought Moore won.
• The Associated Press, which scored the fight 8-2 for Moore, reported:

Old Archie, 201½ pounds of bulk and determination, stalked the 185-pound Pastrano about the ring from bell to bell. Willie jabbed, ducked, dodged and retreated. At the final bell, Pastrano stood tired in his corner. His handlers appeared in anything but a victory mood. Across the ring, Archie beamed, grinned, waved to friends and suddenly broke Into a spirited exhibition of shadow boxing.

• United Press International, which scored the fight 4-4-2, reported:

Pastrano, at 185 for his second comeback bout, took the third and fourth rounds with flicking jabs and was making Moore miss and look badly in the process. Moore, still recognized as world light heavyweight champ in California, rallied to take the fifth, sixth and seventh rounds with a punishing body attack. But Pastrano came back with a late rally in the 10th round that probably saved his draw.

 

Yes.

 

You are wrong and here is why: You make the same mistake a lot of casual observers make by using the Ring ratings. The Ring ratings were unofficial and did not dictate who was champion and who got a title shot. That was the NBA, the same governing body that had the power to and did strip Moore eventually for refusing for years to face his top challengers while taking on weak competition. Its true that Ring Magazine put Pompey as #1 AFTER Pompey was signed to fight Moore when Patterson moved up (another transparent attempt by the magazine to sell issues in foreign markets) but that had no bearing on who was actually #1 or deserved a title shot.

First of all past history with a fighter does not disqualify that fighter from getting a title shot if he works his way back into contention. Its not up to Moore to dictate who he fights. Second, Johnson was a damn sight better than anyone Moore defended against after turning 40 and spent the better part of 5 years ranked as Moore's top challenger with Moore refusing to fight him. Finally, dont pretend that Moore's refusal to fight him had nothing to do with the fact that Johnson was beating Moore when Moore had to come from behind to stop him. The fact is that Moore was seeking out easier fights and that was my initial point. He was resting on his laurels and EVERYONE in the sport knew it. Its not even up for debate. Its why he was eventually stripped.

Wait, so now you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. He was number 1 or wasnt he? Now you admit he was #3? In 1956 when he fought Pompey Chuck Speiser and Gerhardt Hecht were rated above Pompey. And Frankly if you want to get technical Patterson was was still rated by the NBA ahead of Pompey as well because their ratings werent released until the end of the month. The meeting to establish those ratings, the second quarterly ratings of that year, was held on June 1, Four days before Moore fought Pompey, and on that day, without knowing the result of the Moore-Pompey fight the NBA dropped Pompey all the way to #7. So if you really want to argue brass tacks Pompey was rated #7 when Moore fought him. Kinda similar to you touting his fight with Pastrano based on what Pastrano would do later in his career when Moore had to eek out a draw against a guy who was rated only #8.

Dont sit here and pretend that Pompey, Rinaldi, and Durelle were the most dangerous guys Moore could fight at 175. If you believe that your ****ing stupid. At best those guys were clubfighters. Pompey was a protected domestic fighter with no marquee wins to his name and the best guys he fought were middleweights moving up and even they werent that talented. When Jimmy Slade is the best name on your resume youve got problems going into a title shot. After he was cherry picked by Moore he did nothing and lost far more than he won. Rinaldi likewise was a protected Italian clubfighter who had never faced anyone when he first got a fight with Moore and only got a title shot based on his win over Moore. How is that for some circular logic. You didnt deserve a high profile fight like that, Moore showed up fat and out of shape and gets outpointed, so now Moore gets to kick the can down the road with a safe defense against an easy opponent that he should have never lost to to begin with. Horse**** like this is exactly why Moore was stripped a few days before their first fight. Yvonne Durelle had lost 19 times and drawn twice and had just been knocked out by Tony Anthony when he challenged Moore. But hey, since Moore had already beaten Anthony why not go for the guy who was even worse right? Anthony was the only contender Durelle had faced in the last 3 years. Why? Because when Durelle stepped up his competition he had 5 wins and 9 losses between 1954 and 1956 getting stopped four times and disqualified twice. And yet Moore went life and death with him and made him look like Rocky Marciano. So you really want to argue with me that Moore's ability wasnt severly on the slide and that as a result he was picking soft touches and even then not doing well against them? Give me a break. 3 guys who were absolute **** and each time he struggled or lost to them. But yeah, you keep going on with your Ring ratings as ammunition that Moore was some god in his 40s.

He didnt win the title back from Rinaldi. Their first fight was a non title fight. Jesus, not only do you not know anything about the ratings at this time but you dont even know who was champion. And no, he wasnt stripped for not fighting Johnson after the Rinaldi rematch. He was stripped BEFORE their first fight.

See the above and get back to me about who is talking out of their ass moron. Tell me exactly how long Rinaldi's reign as LHW champ lasted and how the Ring ratings (Which are entirely opinion based and unofficial) dictate who gets title shots. LOL.

 

He was behind against Pompey at the stoppage, and if you dont think needing two results to come to conclusive victory over Rinaldi and Durelle is struggling we can agree to disagree. The funny thing is Pascal, Calzaghe, and Wright are all better fighters than clubfighter scrubs like Rinaldi, Durelle, and Pompey. I think Ill take two fights against future HOFers and a fight against a champion over the likes them.

Dude Im not some boxrec warrior here. I dont need to go to quote AP reports. I can refer to the actual reports and not everyone felt Moore won against EIGHTH RATED Pastrano. Go read the ringside accounts, all of them not just the ones that agree with you. The only thing that garnered Moore a draw was a flash knockdown that some didnt even feel was a knockdown. Go read the reports about Moore huffing, puffing, chasing, not landing anything but one punch here and there and getting his head jabbed off. Then get back to me. Sorry.

 

Hopkins was fifty or near enough when he lost to Kovalev. Moore was retired by that point. And frankly put Hopkins competition, particularly the guys he lost to, against Moores at the same age and I dont see Moore winning those fights either. Thats the problem here. People have this mythos about Moore at this advanced age and frankly his record and performances at that age arent that impressive.

 

Ok minus the Kov fight, Hopkins was 9 2 2 at 175, not including his loss to Smith or his debut loss at 177. Not very impressive. I see your point, but how many fights did Moore have, 200? How many did Hopkins have, 60? Personally I dont believe Hopkins' comp at 175 was anything special as well. People have that same mythos about Bhop's comp.

 

Pompey was RING #1 so that's an independent body that saw him as the top contender. That's good enough for me. If you believe Pompey's rating by RING was a conspiracy to sell magazines to a tiny English speaking Caribbean nation well, the burden of proof is on you. So Moore faced the #1 RING Light Heavyweight in 56, which isn't too shabby.

What is your argument for Johnson being the logical contender? RING, naming him #1, the same magazine you just discredited.

The facts are: Johnson lost to Moore four god damn times and was upset twice there after, followed by a long rebuild period.

We were talking about Durelle. Who was rated below Johnson and Anthony.

And you know the NBA rarely mandated #1 contenders like organizations do today, they instead did 3 logical contenders. Pompey was NBA top three as you know. And to argue Patterson is petty, given him and Moore met at Heavyweight.

So your argument is that Speiser and Hecht were the more dangerous opponents Moore ducked. Hecht would get knocked out right after the April ratings and than by Pompey within the year, so you will be hard pressed to argue him as a superior opponent. And Speiser lost to Anthony, so hard to argue Moore took the easier road.

Moore chose the RING #1 contender and an NBA outstanding contender, who had avenged his only two loses in Pompey.

So what? Nobody in their right mind would hold that against Moore. Who was rated above Pompey? Hecht, the guy he would knock out into obscurity a few months later. Good call, NBA.

Pastrano was a long time contender in the heavyweight and light heavy ratings. And him beating Johnson just a year after Moore arguably bested him in a disputed draw can only be a positive.

This is pathetic. You keep going on and on about these dangerous guys Moore was ducking, but can't produce a single credible name. So far this is what you have:

Patterson-Who Moore faced at HW
Johnson-A guy Moore beat 3 times.
Hecht-Lost to Pompey.
Spieser-Lost to Anthony.

Given the result of Hecht/Pompey, it seems RING was correct in naming him #1.

Well you know what, I forgot the first Rinaldi fight was at HW. My bad. And yes, Moore was stripped by the NBA for not facing Johnson 6 months after Durrelle 2.

Well, I had a brain fart there and I'll own up to it. My mistake on that in no way validates your unsupported claims.

 

So? You are implying it was some life and death struggle, it wasn't. Moore cruised, took over, and destroyed him.

He didn't need a second fight be conclusive over Durelle. The first win was conclusive without controversy.
Yes, he lost to Rinaldi, but he was 44 years old and fighting his second fight in less than a month on the road, the decision was controversial as you know. The associated press scored the fight to Moore 5-3 and the 8 count on film is Bull****.

Yeah, but it's about the results. Moore has the controversial loss to Rinaldi in Italy at HW but he beat Durelle and Pompey without controversy. Moore also beat Lavorante, who was a top 5 HW, so if we are counting the Rinaldi loss, might as pull in the HW wins.

You are trying to portray wins as being worse than actual losses, and that's a hard sell.

Chicago Tribute says Pastrano was more tired than the 46 year old, and it was him who salvaged the draw with a last minute rally.

I've read 3 articles, no report of a knockdown by either man. Nothing that matches your claims here. Again, the Associated Press had it as a wide win for Moore and mentioned the writers at ring side thought he won. THE UPI report scored it a draw but like Chicago, reported Pastrano salvaged the draw by taking the last round with a late flurry. No reports mention any stamina problem from Moore, they all point how him smiling and joking around while Pastrano was exhausted.

So I produced my reports. Where are yours?

 

From Sports Illustrated:


As the NBA well knows, it's a rare champion who defends every six months nowadays, and it is all but unprecedented for a commission to insist on a particular opponent. Usually three top challengers are designated and the champion is ordered to take his pick from among them. The reason for this is that a promoter, and a champion as well, must have a little bargaining leeway. Some challengers, like Johnson, just don't draw well; indeed, Johnson draws so poorly that he was able to get only two fights in 1959. His style just does not bring a crowd up cheering from its seats. And Archie has beaten Johnson four times in five fights.

PENNSYLVANIA PRESSURE

The real, not the phony, reason for the NBA's insistence on Johnson is that he is a Philadelphian, and the Pennsylvania boxing commission lately has been showing signs that it might follow California out of the NBA. Pennsylvania has not had a big fight since its commission a few years ago enlisted in a campaign against mobsters. Immediately Pennsylvania became forbidden territory to the mob guys and their friend, James D. Norris. The boycott seems to be still in effect, and the commission seems to be under some pressure to bring a big fight into the state.

So the decision to strip Archie of his title was patently a political sop to Pennsylvania.


[url]https://www.si.com/vault/1960/03/14/585148/overmatched-the-nba-concedes-to-archie[/url]

 

Ring magazine ratings count for DICk. Read my lips. They are nothing. Period. Ring magazine rating a guy means no more than me rating that guy. And thats essentially your argument "I believe this, Rings totally unofficial ratings agree with me so Im going to take them as gospel." Congrats genius, thats not the way the world works. Neither do decisions in boxing get dictated by what happens in an unpredicted future. Period. It may help your argument look better in hindsight but it doesnt change the fact that Moore was looking for lower ranked, less dangerous fighters at the time. Period. It wasnt even a secret and became more and more apparent as the YEARS went on. When Moore defended against Pompey nobody knew that Pompey would beat Hecht 6 months later. Thats not the way it works. At that point Hecht had more experience and while I whole heartedly agree that Hecht was nothing special either what he was was more experienced, more proven, and had more big Euro wins than Ponpey which was all Pompey had anyway. So yes, at that point in time, when Moore signed to fight Pompey Hecht was the better choice. **** hindsight. And dont sit there and tell me Ring didnt rate undeserving foreign fighters to boost sales because Nat Loubet told me that was Ring strategy from the 1930s on. Pompey was from BWI but he fought out of Britain and Ring was being marketed at the time in Britain, and continental Europe heavily and their ratings and articles reflect that. I could give you other examples if you care debate that point.

Frankly if you had any understanding of history at all youd know that the ONLY reason Johnson wasnt rated #1 at that point was because of the poisoned orange incident against Mederos that resulted in a six month ban and Johnson tumbling. It was just blind ****ing luck that for otherwise you could say Moore spent five and a half years ducking his #1 who was a damn sight better than anyone he defended against after their first meeting.

Its not even worth debating if your only argument is "well based upon what happened later Im right." Your arguments and timelines are completely jumbled and not even rooted in any context of the actual times you are debating.

In regards to Pastrano why the **** would I read the Chicago papers for a fight that took place in LA?? I have the LA papers, I dont need to look at a wire report. I also have the film snd dont need to rely on other opinions at all. If you cared to read even a little about this fight you could easily find the wire photo of Pastrano down against the ropes that was splashed coast to coast: [url]https://goo.gl/images/2odA8P[/url]

But hey, youre really smart and knew that, just had a brain fart right?

Like I said, if you wanna paint splitting fights with a bum like Rinaldi, getting dropped 4 times by a bum like Durelle, and having to come back after getting outboxed by Pompey "not struggling" and conclusive then that says more about you than me. Trying to totally ignore the fact that Moore struggled so much with Durelle that it warranted a rematch by saying "well, the second fight was conclusive" is the most pathetic handwringing argument you could make and ignores the fact that this legendary fighter should have never had a second fight with a guy as limited as Durelle.

 

Pure conjecture. Wheres the evidence? None of this was borne out and frankly I cant think of a single person who would argue that Johnson was either an unworthy challenger, an unworthy champ, or worse than anyone Moore defended against from 1956 on. Care to argue that point?

 

There is nothing about a rating to take as gospel. They are just a guide we can use to determine the educated perception of a fighter in contrast to his peers at a certain point in time. In 1956, it seems Pompey was the best possible opponent Moore could fight per the largest and most influential publication in the sport. Even today, it's difficult to find fault in a Champion taking on the #1 RING fighter.

If you want to argue the NBA ratings, you also have to accept their system of grouping multiple logical contenders. Pompey as their #3 is just as good a choice as the #1 or #2. As explained, there was no single mandatory challenger to Moore's crown in 1956, and there isn't enough distance between Hecht and Pompey to argue a great injustice. Hecht getting knocked out in May likely didn't help his case. So looking at it within the time frame of the decision, Moore did no wrong, he picked the fighter on the hottest streak, rated the highest by the most influential publication.

And no, hindsight is our advantage as future observers. You are trying to criticize Moore for not facing dangerous opponents, yet we know very well that Pompey was superior to Hecht. You are asking for a plea to ignorance when we know better just because it suits your agenda.

And yet you are trying to make a case for a German fighter, that never left home. That's having your cake and eating it too.

Ducking the man he defeated 4 times and was never mandated as his challenger until 1960.

There doesn't appear to be any existing footage of the fight, if you have some, why don't you share it. Boxing historians would appreciate such a find.

Well, I'm going to link one final article.

[url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=umgUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MgEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7195,2595309&dq=archie+moore+willie+pastrano&hl=en[/url]

Actual quotes:

"Archie who appeared to have won a decisive victory over an opponent at least 20 years his junior."

Nothing about what you are talking about. So I have produced 4 sources now, and you have yet to produce a single one.

There is no report of a knockdown in 4 articles, nor official knockdown scored in the fight. The photo is likely took out of context. It happens. Where is a report stating that a knockdown saved Archie Moore? It looks to me, you never read anything about the fight, and assumed all this based off a single photo.

So can you produce anything you are claiming? Right now, this is a beat down with no resistance.

This is a strawman, I will only defend the things I actually said.

 

Let's reflect on your claim:

"At least Hopkins was fighting top dogs win/lose/or draw. Moore was patently avoiding them."

And in support, this is all you can produce. That in 1960, the NBA made unprecedented demands of a 6 month time line against a single mandated challenger that Moore had already defeated 4 times. Somehow this translates into patently avoid the top dogs.