Was Harold Johnson undeserving...

I would agree with your assesssment. Johnson deserved another shot, and was better than the men Moore did face. However Moore already racked up 4 wins against Johnson so he already staked a superiority to the fighter regardless how much Johnson may have improved and Moore had declined. That right there was enough alibi to avoid a 6th meeting.

 

Bunch of bull**** here.

 

Agree wholeheartedly, klompton.

To be honest I'm surprised to hear that there's any real opposition to the view that Moore was very happy to give Johnson a wide berth between 1954 and 1961 - I thought this was common knowledge? Moore was a notoriously tough negotiator (I believe he worked his way through nine managers during his professional career) and by the time he'd lifted the title at 175 I believe he felt he'd more than paid his dues, and therefore deserved some leeway in resting on his Light-Heavyweight laurels with impunity. This may be the reason why he flirted with the more lucrative Heavyweight title despite never officially declaring himself a Heavyweight.

I don't really have any sympathy with the argument that Moore's previous wins lessened Johnson's claims to another shot between 1954 and 1961. Had the series been one-way traffic, resulting in the outcome of any subsequent fight being a foregone conclusion, then it would be more plausible. But while Moore had the upper hand in their series, Johnson did beat him once and it took one of the great comeback efforts for Archie to get over the line against Harold in 1954; he was still behind in the fourteenth and was arguably saved by the bell in the tenth. Johnson defeating Moore after that point may have been an upset, but it wouldn't have been a huge shock.

Also, I believe that some of Archie's wins over Johnson were compiled before Johnson had hit his absolute peak. For me, Johnson was really hitting the groove around 1953, when he outclassed Charles despite giving away more than half a stone in weight. I appreciate this wasn't quite the Ezzard Charles of old, but he still was the clear bookies favourite and had some good performance and results as a Heavyweight ahead of him. I think seeing Johnson look so smooth and commanding against a guy who'd beaten him three times would have served Moore with notice that Johnson was a better fighter than he'd been when they first met in 1949 - a belief which can only have been bolstered by the titanic struggle and scare he gave Moore when they finally contested the Light-Heavy title in 1954. After that, I'm conviced that Moore had seen quite enough of Johnson.

 

Not true. The NBA did not mandate #1 challengers. They listed groupings of "logical contenders"

As pointed out to you via Sports Illustrated, the NBA mandated Johnson as the lone contender in 1960 and gave Moore 6 months notice which was deemed as an unprecedented move.

When Moore fought Pompey, Johnson was not listed as a logical contender by the NBA. When Moore fought Rinaldi at Light Heavyweight, he had already been stripped by the NBA.

Where was this heavy criticism? Any articles to justify that tag? Of his 4 NBA title defenses from 1956-1960, he fought the RING #1 twice(Pompey and Anthony), and the #3 twice(Durelle)*. And all four were NBA logical contenders.

*Johnson and Anthony were #1 and #2 respectfully when he fought Durelle.

The actual article. Not once is Johnson said to be unworthy. This is also a major publication contradicting your claim that Moore was heavily criticized.

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

You claimed Moore patently ducked all the top dogs and dangerous men from 56-60. But the best you can come up with is Johnson, one man, Moore already beat 4 times.

 

TBH.I thought it was pretty much an accepted fact that Archie ,as he aged didn't want any further part of Johnson.

 

But it is true. The NBA had 3 groupings: logical contenders, outstanding boxers, and honorable boxers. Outstanding and Honorable usually had numerical values, but they weren't #1 contenders as we understand the term at present.

Here's an example of their system from an article at the time:
[url]http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1951/12/26/page/33/article/nba-gives-louis-logical-title-contender-role[/url]

Here's another example: As you can see Pompey's #3 Oustanding is actually higher than Hecht's #1 Honorable in summer 1955 lol. I now believe Hecht was never rated above Pompey, you got their grouping system confused.

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

You are going to have to provide evidence he was the appointed logical contender from 56-59 to make that case, otherwise that #1 doesn't mean much. The NBA did not mandate #1 outstanding or #1 honorable. They rarely even mandated logical contender, but that would at least give your argument some weight.

That's being unreasonable. Moore easily beat Anthony. I can't see any intrigue in Moore vs Anthony II. Durelle was the next guy down and he was intriguing.

And it's a major article. And ONE more than you have provided.

By seeking out fresh match ups instead of rematching Harold Johnson over and over. And yeah, I see you are suggesting now he should have rematched Anthony, fighter he easily beat, instead of fighting Durelle.

 

I think Harold Johnson deserved another shot.
I also think the stoppage in the 1954 fight was surprising early, considering the standards of the era and that particular referee. But that might have been a good thing, for Johnson's sake.

Moore took an easier route with his 175 defenses from then on, it is true. But to be fair, he was campaigning pretty regularly as heavyweight at that time. His light-heavyweight crown seemed like something he wanted to keep to fall back on. It's unfair but I guess he thought he'd back his dues.

 

The issue is that Johnson had those loses and the time off, and didn't work his way back up to a top spot until 1958. At which point, Moore vs Durelle took priority. Which I think is understandable.

The only real argument is that Moore could have defended the light heavyweight title more but none of the Champions of this era were particularly busy. Annual defenses were acceptable, so it's not really fair to hold Moore to a different standard.

But who was the harder fights for him at 175? Which is something Klompton has failed to argue. Pompey and Anthony were recognized by RING as the top guys when he fought them. Durelle was a dangerous dude, and rated only below Anthony and Johnson.

 

Yes, it's reasonable to say Harold Johnson was the only light-heavyweight of the era who was more deserving.
Yolande Pompey and those others were all on the same level.
If I remember rightly Johnson did a lot of camaigning in heavyweights too.

 

Here is the contenders year by year according to Ring
1955
1--Floyd Patterson
2--Yolande Pompey
3--Gerhard Hecht

1956
1--Gerhard Hecht
2--Chuck Spieser

1957
1--Harold Johnson
2--Yolande Pompey
3--Yvon Durelle
4--Tony Anthony

1958
1--Tony Anthony
2--Harold Johnson
3--Yvon Durelle

1959
1--Harold Johnson
2--Erich Schoppner
3--Mike Holt

 

comments
the 1956 pair, Hecht and Spieser? Hecht was KO'd in '57 by Pompey. Spieser by Anthony. When Moore fought him, I think Pompey was the #1 contender.

I would point out that besides Johnson earlier, Moore beat Pompey, Anthony, and Durelle on this list. Moore victims Pompey beat Hecht, Anthony beat Spieser and Durelle, and Durelle beat Holt.

Johnson fought and defeated none of these contenders. I think he was a superior fighter and probably would have, but the fact is he was holding the top contender position w/o proving himself against other top contenders. Moore was actually doing a better job of proving himself during this time span.

I will concede out front that these contenders might well have avoided Johnson. Still, it is curious he didn't fight any of them. I think the best light-heavies he fought from 1956 to 1959 are the ordinary Clarence Hinnant and Sonny Ray.

Also, one factor that dropped Johnson a bit in the ratings in 1954 and 1955 was getting KO'd by Boardwalk Billy Smith in late 1954.

For me, I think there is a question if Johnson really forced the issue during these years.

 

Yep, good call. I think he tried to get a shot at Maricano and then Patterson.

 

Great post. Pompey was RING #1. And I'm skeptical of the NBA rating Hecht and Spieser higher as Klompton claimed. Pompey was NBA #3 alright, but on the outstanding contender list with #1 Patterson and #2 Johnson. Hecht and Spieser were #1 and #2 on their Honorable mentions, a tier below.

I think Klompton got confused on the NBA grouped system. Which would leave Pompey as not only the RING #1 but the best pick of the three Oustanding contenders, given Johnson had just been defeated and Moore/Patterson were set for a HW clash.

Anthony was also RING #1, when Moore met him. And yes, Johnson really doesn't seem to be in the mix like the other contenders, primarily fighting lesser heavyweights.