Was Bernard Hopkins still elite in his forties ? Vote !

Well, no one is argueing that Hopkins was an atg lhw or that he was Moore's equal at lhw. He wasn't. However, considering their careers past 40 (at lhw) I think Hopkins compares favourably to Moore. Equal at least.
Also, I don't think anyone as illusions about Hopkins competition. It was not the best in history for sure but it was what was available and those fighters where mostly the best around. Let's look at them ignoring his debut and the Smith fight.
Tarver W - Easy win over the lhw champ and the guy who beat the only man who beat him easily so far.
Wright W - Close win at a catch weight over a Top5/10 p4p fighter and the guy who most thought beat the guy who beat Hopkins last.
Calzaghe L - Close loss to the smw champ and maybe the greatest smw in the history of the sport.
Pavlik W - Easy win at another catch weight fight over the mw champ, the guy who thoroughly beat the last guy who beat Hopkins.
Ornelas W - fringe contender but I think Top10 ranked at the time, nothing to write home about.
Jones Jr. W - well, Jones was shot or close to it, got his ranking at that time due to his ranking than anything else. Money-wise that fight made sense. But otherwise, eh.
Pascal D - A draw (IMO Hopkins won) against a former smw contender and at the time lhw beltholder.
Pascal W - Easy win over a former smw contender and at the time lhw beltholder.
Dawson NC - well, no contest.
Dawson L - Loss against the at the time best lhw around who most thought had a stylistic advantage over him.
Cloud W - Win over a long time Top10 lhw contender and belt holder.
Murat W - Win over a Top10 lhw contender.
Shumenov W - Close win over another beltholder.
Kovalev L - Bad beating against one of the best in the division just 2 month shy of his 50th birthday.

To be honest, none of the current contenders at lhw right now has that resume - maybe Ward comes close. So, I don't see how one can not be impressed by that.

 

I know this is correct but it applies equally to Hecht too.
RING magazine rated Hecht as number 1 contender. Maybe because he was European ?

 

Good points, Bodhi. You're a fellow that can always be expected to write intelligent, valid stuff on these boards. However, some things need to be addressed as well. Your comment about the current contenders not having that resume is true, but it seems that none of them are willing to fight each other. I mean how often do any of these fellows call Beterbiev out for example. And no, I'm simply not impressed by Hopkins' 175 resume.
Tarver lost to Hopkins after he had split 2 fights against a fellow that BHop had beaten at middleweight in Glencoffe Johnson. In my opinion, the version of Jones that Tarver beat was pretty much past his prime and didn't have the footspeed and reflexes that made him so elusive throughout his career. I have never rated Tarver very highly. His signature win is basically a shot Roy Jones.
Winky Wright is a fighter that I hold in the highest regard: very smart, tough as nails great jab, defence etc. But that was at 154 and 160, not at 170 which is where he and BHop fought a wrestling match. Ronald moved back down after that fight.
Pavlik was a natural middleweight that perfectly used his height and reach advantages to his gain against shorter men with shorter reaches. He had a slight advantage in height and no advantage in reach against BHop. Before he fought BHop, he had only fought once above middleweight (and never at lightheavy where he fought Hopkins) and that was the 2nd against Taylor at super middle. He moved back down to middle before and after fighting BHop.
Calzaghe was a great fighter himself. But his fight with Hopkins, JC's penultimate fight, was his debut at 175. Plus he was no spring chicken himself at around 37 and was clearly past his best.
The rest of his resume simply doesn't impress me. I know there are belt holders there but, so what. Shumenov? Pascal? Weak era. Dawson looked to be real good, but his career ended up proving otherwise. Right after he beat Hopkins, he was stopped by Ward, although he appeared drained to me at 168. It's obvious you and I interpret Hopkins' career differently even though we've both written down facts. As I wrote to Klompton, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

This true and frankly I believe this. I cant believe that there was nobody better than a lanky, fattened ex MW from germany in the LHW and frankly there was, it was Johnson, the problem was that Johnson was still trying to rebuild after suffering the suspension for the Mederos fight. An incident that he took blame for dished out by the same commission that Kentucky Cobra believes was biased for Johnson which wasnt his fault and he suffered because of it. That incident threw the division in flux which is why I say it was pure dumb luck on Moores part that it happened because he took advantage of it. You can argue that point at that point in time but how many times can you look at Moore constantly picking lesser qualified, less dangerous opposition and not see a pattern here? Frankly my argument is vindicated by history because Moore was stripped specifically because of this.

 

First, thanks, right back at you. I'm fine to agree to disagree, also I don't think we are that far apart.

Of course the lhw era was weak and the opponents mostly a footnote in boxing history at best. But one can only beat what is available. And if you think back, people did not expect Hopkins to do even that. What makes it impressive IMO is the age he did it at. Aged between you early and late 40s you are not supposed to beat the young contenders of your era, no matter how weak.
However, I am a bit biased here . B-Hop is kind of a role model for me - he showed what one can achieve relying mainly on focus and discipline instead of talent.

 

This all comes down to what one defines as elite.

If by elite you mean among the very best in the division's history, I don't think anyone would claim that.

On the other hand, if we're talking about elite as one of the best in the division during the time he was active in it, it's hard to argue against Hopkins being that.

 

I think pound for pound rankings are often based on accomplishments and not how good the fighter is currently. If you're 45 you need to prove your still worthy of a high ranking by beating the 1st or 2nd best out there, not relying on what you did 5-10 years ago to retain a high pound for pound status.

Hopkins was close to elite in his 40's, partly because of his style ages well, partly because he was a rule bender, and partly because he didn't face anyone on Kovalev's level at 175 pounds until the very end of his career.

 

Oh bull****. The sanctioning body still controlled the sport back the and its exactly why Moore was eventually stripped. It was not a guide it was an agreed upon dictum by the majority of state commissions across the united states and governing bodies throughout the world. And yes, I take great issue with the Ring ratings of that era. They were often arbitrary and often designed to sell magazines. The Ring ratings are the weakest argument anyone can fall back on to defend their favorite fighting some undeserving POS because the Ring ratings were completely unofficial, often totally biased, and most importantly had no pull or teeth. The NBA did.

Once again you are incorrect. You consistently show your lack of understanding and knowledge of this era. The NBA only released group rankings such as this ANNUALLY at the end of their second quarter. Those rankings, despite showing 1,2,3/1,2,3/1,2,3 were still counted as Champion, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 etc. which you can see when they released their next ratings report. So yes, there was a single mandatory. You can split hairs all you want and you can focus on this one instance with tunnel vision and ignore the totality of Moores reign in which a very clear pattern immerges but is that good history? No.

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.

I'm making the case that Moore defended against one #1 challenger in 6 years as champion. I'm making the case that at the instant Moore signed to fight Pompey Hecht, who was rated higher, was a more experienced and more proven challenger.

Never mandated? Bull****. Go check your facts. Harold Johnson was rated for the better part of five years before Moore was stripped. And frankly that's the point, history is on my side. Moore abused his status, increasingly so, and was stripped for his constant refusal to play by the RULES. It wasn't some ridiculous edict the NBA handed down that was unfair, it was a last straw to get him to defend against his most qualified challenger. The argument that he shouldn't have to fight a guy that came from behind to defeat more than two years previous (and increasingly so as the years went by with Moore ignoring the challenge) is patently ridiculous when you consider that during the same time period Moore fought Harold King 5 times winning each one easily,Buddy Turman twice back to back winning each easily, Yvonne Durelle twice (to a conclusive ending according to you LOL), Willie Besmanoff twice, Bert Whitehurst twice winning both by stoppage, Joey Maxim three times winning all easily and trying for a fourth fight with him. Clearly Moore cared little about rematching an opponent that he had defeated before if he felt that he could win a rematch easily. But hey, I'm arguing with someone who thinks Durelle, Rinaldi, and Pompey were better fighters than a HOF champion and apparently that Howard King was as well...

A boxing historian has the find. And this boxing historian doesn't give two shits what appears or doesn't appear to some know nothing. You wouldn't be the first kid with his head up his ass to question a film in my collection only to be proven wrong. In fact when I get back to the house I'll post still shot sequences of the knockdown from the film and then you can kiss my ass. Sound fair?

 

You haven't produced a single source even originating in California much less seated ringside. Here, let me help you:

Long Beach Independant, Frank Harvey, seated ringside: "Ancient Archie Moore, former light heavyweight champion, was hard pressed to hold youthful Willie Pastrano to a draw in the 10 round feature at the sports arena Monday night before a disappointing crowd of 3,000. Moore, the aggressor throughout the battle was unable to corner the New Orleans dancing master, who scored repeatedly with jabs and hooks. Archie tried desperately throughout the fight to land a knockout punch, but was unable to corner the elusive Pastrano who piled up points while Moore stalked him trying to end the fight with a single punch."

Los Angeles Times, John Hall, seated ringside: This was the report whereby the wire reports were derived so I wont recap except to say that the actual report is bizarre in that Hall scores eleven rounds even though this was only a ten rounder. Hall makes the point that a knockdown wasn't counted against Pastrano because the ropes saved which is neither here nor there because a fighter saved by the ropes should be counted down (and Pastrano's ass is almost touching the canvas with his hands on the lower strands so he was as saved by the ropes as saved gets). Regardless Hall makes the point that this incident was the turning point then goes on to give his bizarre score card and yet criticizes the scoring of the judges which he calls bizarre. After scoring 11 rounds of a ten round fight. Whatever. LOL.

Writing for the same paper Jim Murray poked fun at Pastranos defensive tactics and Moore's inability to land or corner him: "Fighting Willie Pastrano, as Archie Moore has found out, is about as much fun as fighting dandruff. Willie couldn't have been harder to find if they turned out the lights. Archie spent most of the night scouring the ring for him like a guy looking for a collar button, looking under the mat, behind the stools, and in all the dark corners. Willie fought at such long range he didn't really need a ticket to get in. For all the punches he threw, he could have mailed the fight in... ...They called the fight a draw, probably because nobody at ringside could recall seeing any punches landed except when they touched gloves at the start." -this assessment is ridiculous. Pastrano so far outscored Moore its ridiculous. Yes he was dancing around like a jackrabbit on crack, which I was impressed with and I don't usually like defensive fighters, but he landed five to ten punches for every one Moore landed. Moore stalked and moved forward. He was the aggressor but you score on effective aggression and Moore was almost totally ineffective except for in isolated spots. When you throw one punch at a time and miss most of them you've got problems against a guy like Pastrano.

Pasadena Independent, Bill Miller, seated ringside: "Ancient Archie Moore, dragging an unexpected 201 1/2 pounds with him, couldn't catch up with speedy Willie Pastrano last night and had to settle for a split draw... ...The battlers went at it fast and furious at the outset but little damage was inflicted in the opening round. Archie concentrated his attack to the mid section in the second and began slowing up his quicker opponent. But Pastrano came to life in the third and put on a dazzling boxing exhibition as he peppered Moore almost at will. Pastrano's left continued to be effective in the fourth but in the fifth Moore buckled his knees with a stiff left to the chin (this is the knockdown and again I'm not sure how it wasn't counted). That seemed to momentarily take the steam out of Willie and Archie slowed him down even more with some solid jolts to the body in the sixth. Moore sent home a whistling right to the chin in the seventh but it woke up Pastrano. He turned on his boxing skill and began scoring big points. (this where in the film Pastrano repeatedly snaps Moores head back with lefts and rights). Pastrano's right, which had been somewhat silent, in the early going, suddenly joined his left and the combination baffled a slowing Archie in the eighth. Willies left jab scored heavily to win him the ninth and set up a terrific final round. Pastrano spit out his mouthpiece and gave it all he had in the 10th and that sports perhaps saved him a draw. Both fighters claimed victory in the dressing room but they had praise for each other."

I don't base it off a photo, I base it off the film. A knockdown is a knockdown.

If that's what you call a clown who has never read a first hand report of the fight or seen it arguing with someone who can boast of both then like your ascertion that Guilio Rinaldi was LHW champion, or that Moore getting dropped 4 times in a fight and having to stage an epic comeback isn't struggling we can agree to disagree.

 

Its unprecedented to demand that you fight the man whose been your #1 contender for most of the past 5 years? LOL. So you really don't care about sportsmanship or good governance of boxing you are essentially just watching it for the personalities I get it now. You are a WWE fan.

 

We have the official reasoning by the NBA, and it wasn't because "Moore ducked his #1 for 5 years."

I'm afraid you are wrong. It was very rare the NBA mandated single challengers. That's why you can't find any evidence to damn Moore until 1960 when NBA pulled an unprecedented move.

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

Hecht was more experienced maybe but more proven or better....well, that's a different argument. It seems Hecht might have only been rated #1 on the NBA's honorable boxer list as well, while Pompey was rated with Johnson and Patterson on the Outstanding boxer list.

Can you provide a list that actually shows Hecht over Pompey? The NBA had three different groupings, so just a numerical listing at face value can lead to a misunderstanding.

Produce evidence that Johnson was mandated before 1960. You can't, because he wasn't.

That's a bit different than being mandated.

That doesn't appear to be true. Where is the source on this.

Bull****, if you can post still shots, you can post the whole thing. If you are sitting on a hidden gem like this, upload the fight.

 

I will admit this article is more favorable to Pastrano than others, it doesn't really offer an opinion on who won and is missing your claims:

"His win over Pastrano may have been a gift and even then he needed a flash KD to eek out a draw."

"he 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."

Whoa, wait a minute. So only one reporter mentions this, states it wasn't counted officially, and just says it is a turning point. At no way does this translate into:

"he needed a flash KD to eek out a draw."

Yeah.....sure.

Good ****ing grief. Once more, another reporter saying Pastrano...NOT MOORE. was the one that had to pull it out to get a draw.

Well, I must give credit. You posted these articles even if they expose you as a storyteller filled with so much **** it's coming out of your eyes.

Once more, I owned my mistake, which in no way validates your falsehoods.

I never said Moore didn't struggle in the first Durelle fight, you created that strawman.

 

This is yet another excellent post from you. No surprise there.

 

Actually it was. You can read so you can find the specific reasoning.

Wrong, go back and refer to my post on the Poll regarding Johnson. You will see specific examples from the NBAs own releases that illustrate exactly who was the #1 and examples of the fact that they were dictating who the champions mandatory was. My examples date from 1953 well through 1960.

I stand by that. Hopkins was actively seeking the best guys to fight. Moore was absolutely avoiding the top guys. Period. Its why he was continually forced to face them and eventually strippd when the NBA tired of his game.

Incorrect based on your misunderstanding of the NBA's ratings. And no, its not even arguable that when Moore defended against Pompey Hecht was the more proven fighter. Period.

The NBA ranked their fighters from 1 to 10. Go look at my examples.

Johnson was Moores number challenger from September 1957 until the day Moore was stripped in October 1960. Go look at my examples.

Both Johnson and Anthony were mandated and as a result of his shameless ducking Moore had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the ring with them in two title defenses and stripped eventually for his continued refusal when Johnson stayed atop the rankings for over three years only to be ignored by Moore.

Uhh the fact that he was stripped...

I dont have to post ****. When you want to pay for it you can watch it. Stills are all you get:

[url]https://flic.kr/p/Ypqn2G[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YpqmXd[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDAQZ[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDAJr[/url]

This is the KD sequence:
Moore has just landed a short left hook inside on Pastranos jaw (the papers said it was a punch to the body):
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDAEP[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDABc[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDAxz[/url]
[url]https://flic.kr/p/YtDAwc[/url]

Ive always wondered how crow tastes and since your an expert on eating it the last couple of days you can give me some idea I reckon

 

Says "6 months"

It was very rare the NBA mandated single challengers as I said. Maricano was only mandated to face Charles II and Moore for instance. Moore I believe was only mandated to face Johnson twice, his first defense against him and the **** storm in 1960.

Posting a bunch of quarterly ratings doesn't change that.

Yes..yes...yes...Johnson, whom he already faced 5 times. Who are these top guys outside of Johnson? Page after page, all these long winded posts..because you can't name them.

No misunderstanding: What I wrote is absolutely correct.

[url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19550707&id=1_NXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=933,1580544&hl=en[/url]

And how did that turn out? Shameless Ducker Moore knocked them out. Sounds like you just have it out for Moore for whatever reason. And even knocking them out proves nothing to you. You sound like Dino Velvet with his Klitschko nonsense.

"Yeah, he knocked out Pulev..but but he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the ring with him! High Five Haters!"

For a specific violation. Not what your crazed rants.

No, I would eat crow if you posted this rare fight you claim to have the film of, and proved me wrong. I already said stills like that mean nothing, they are not evidence of having possession of the film. You are full of ****.