What is a resume of a fighter you can never make your mind up on?

Not that I've ever considered either to have a weak resume, far from it, but I struggle ranking fighters like Archie Moore and Tony Canzoneri. i.e. fighters who have a depth of win resume that compares to almost any fighter in history aside from Harry Greb, but who also lost fairly frequently to less than great fighters during their own prime years. Very difficult to balance how good they actually were.

 

To be fair Greg, I'd apply the same line of thinking to fighters who dominated shite comp. Which makes most fighters hard to appraise, ha.

With the likes of Moore and Canzoneri and most other fighters who fought so often, you'd have to logically think that factors such as not seeing prior footage of an opponent, motivation dwindling against lesser opponents, having an off night or trying to preserve/pace yourself throughout a packed schedule is going to cause a few ignominious defeats unless you're a Robinsonesque prodigy.

As for the opening question, I've long felt uncertainty in terms of how I see the records of Barrera, Morales and Marquez outside of them fighting Pac and each other.

 

All fair points TR.

Even relative to peers who shared similar eras and issues to those you've alluded to, the disparity between the outstanding, deep win resumes of Moore and Canzoneri vs the quantity and quality of fighters to beat them, at relatively frequent intervals throughout their prime years, is stark, imo.

I agree ranking fighters who dominated supposedly weak eras, e.g. Pascusl Perez at Fly, Carlos Zarate at BW and Bob Foster at LHW, is also really difficult. I suspect each of those 3 was close to being as good as any fighter in the history of their respective weight divisions, relative to the evolution of the eras in which they competed, but none have even close to the best and deepest win resumes. Consequently, as you say, they are also challenging to rank.

 

I always thought Moore's record was very consistent post 1948 up to retiring mate, once he settled on the track and built up a head of steam. His record was something like 90 odd wins with about six or seven defeats and the odd draw mixed in, and the losses were to the likes Johnson, Patterson, Marciano, Ali etc. He's the definitive example of success and a trademark style being built on constant learning, evolution, growing and sheer cumulative experience, moreso than any other fighter I can think of. I tend to think that a part of his success came as he outlasted all of his highly skilled contemporaries from his younger days who could match his technical nous, and came up against bigger, slower and less cerebral guys while maintaining his power and timing as he got older and heavier. I don't find it too hard personally to get a feel for where he sits.

Canzoneri was just wildly inconsistent and mercurial from a both a mental and technical point of view imo. The type of fighter who could go from looking a million quid to awkward and sloppy in the same round multiple times. Very instinctive and wizardy but with the odd hole here and there prone to being stylistically exploitable more than lacking pure ability. I do get what you're driving at though with him a bit more than Moore. I don't think as critically as you about rankings though, so maybe there's that too.

 

Absolutely agree on Moore. His 1949-1955 run was 2-3 blemishes away from becoming the Boxing equivalent of the coming of Alexander the Great. Man was a conqueror king.

 

Riddick Bowe. Maybe in his brief prime he could have beaten anyone? Or....Maybe he just had Holyfields number?

 

Michael Moorer. Is he a hall of famer or isn’t he ?

 

John Stracey is always perplexing for me. At first glance he beat Jose Napoles, Hedgemon Lewis, Ernie Lopez, Roger Menetrey and Jack Tillman. Man, that was outstanding. But then at second glance, it was the final fight of all 5, which takes considerable luster off those wins.

 

Ray Leonard for me. He just didnt have enough fights as he played the in and out of retirement game for WAY to long while Duran, Hagler , and Hearns kept fighting. He just wouldn't have sustained the same amount of success with 70 plus fights as the others did, he wasn't made for that. Yet, when his candle burned bright he was one of the best ever in the history of the sport. He beat them all. But again lost to Duran, and Hearns in the rematch... Some of his cherry picked fights payed off , some didnt. He beat all styles and was able to go to the body and so much more just as good if not better than any top ATG ever. Some days he is a top 20 ATG , most days he is just out of that for me.

 

Benny Leonard

 

Archie Moore is very difficult to rate. I remember when a Cleveland Williams VS Archie Moore thread was made, and people were scoffing at Williams chances. He certainly wouldn't be the worst fighter to pick up a win over Moore during his so called prime.

 

What can't you decide about that great resume?

 

Rocky Kansas, Johnny Kilbane, Jack Britton, Lew Tendler and a few others.... these guys don't make no one´s top 50 or something, not even most top 100 if people make such a list... these names wont show up, and they all beat him too also...

 

You do realise you’ve just sent an alert to Klompton which might solicit a reply from him?

Saying Cleveland Williams to Klomp is like saying Cleaning Woman to Steve Martin.

PS - Rachel Ward was one hot lady back in the day.

This content is protected