When did Archie Moore peak?

That's a good question. And a tough one to answer. Archie Moore was a genetic freak who took good care of himself. A Bernard Hopkins type, didn't age bad at all. A lot of people think that age is what slows down fighters but it's usually the blows/punishment. Archie was very deceptive and didn't take a lot of clean shots. That helped him out. I would say a peak more was later 40's. He think he was completely refined and built out a little post Charles fights. Say 49.

 

Moore was at his best in the early 1950's in my opinion, during his fights against Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim, Nino Valdez, Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Bert Lytell, Jimmy Bivins, Bobo Olson, Billy Smith... That's the best I've seen of him.

 

Not sure if thats true, he took some beatings in his time to Burley, Bivins, Charles and multiple KO losses. I think he learnt from these losses and having to compete with the murderers row makes you fight with a higher skill level

Moore new how to fight smart when his , had excellent technique, skill, timing and ring smarts when his speed/stamina declined. He also was dedicated in old age and still had the hunger for money as he didnt have a gift wrapped career and millions in the bank like young fighters today do

I also think Moore's competition wasn't as intense after his Murderer's Row days and this helped.

 

Moore fans will tell you his peak was at times when it simply suits them. I agree with PowerPuncher, good post.

 

Archie Moore is one of those guys with a good resume of wins, but whenever he fought some greats he always lost. He's 0-6 against Marciano, Patterson, Charles and Burley. The only ATG he got the better of was Harold Johnson, Bivins and Holman Williams.

 

Wether you call them greats or not though, he has a lot of good wins as well, like in the days of his tenure as californian middleweight champ (i think it was?), Jack Chase etc etc, i'm not attempting to beef up these wins, i just mean that he was always in contention against the top guys around. But i fully agree with you on the point that he always won and lost against the top opposition of his day, and the very highest regarded fighters are ones that beat him. I disagree we should be knocking him for losing to Marciano and Patterson though personally.

 

So he always lost to greats yet he beat Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins and Holman Williams? That doesn't really make any sense.

He got the better of Lloyd Marshall as well, who is pretty great in my view.

 

If Marshall isn't great then i'm not too sure what is. Marshall is another one of them fighters like Moore who lost to many greats, but beat them as well. In terms of wins resume his is outstanding, possibly better than Moore's in that sole aspect.

I'll give credit where it is due, SuzieQ49 pointed that out to me. (the wins resume of Marshall)

 

They arent as good as the guys he lost to.

 

I honestly don't know when his prime was.

Perhaps there was no such thing.

 

It's impossible to say when his actual peak was.

I say his prime was in the early 50's but perhaps the best performance I've seen of him was his 1959 masterclass against Yvon Durelle (the rematch, not the first fight) and he had to be in his mid 40's by then.

Here are some highlights of Archie Moore's career, from the 40's to the 50's and the 60's. :good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATaP2TyF9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvs0AvGK4Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZ_y9DqjuU

 

Many experts have claimed that Archie's peak performance, his Muhammad Ali-Cleveland Williams moment, when his speed and sharpness were at their most acute, was in the rematch with Yvon Durelle. Considering the career defining war he had with Durelle in their first meeting, it makes sense that he'd be particularly honed to a razor's edge in preparation for this return go.

I've watched the footage of Moore-Durelle II a number of times, and while Durelle is clearly diminished as Williams was against Ali, my primary focus has been on scrutinizing Archie, who does look very, very impressive in that third round knockout whitewashing.

 

Moore essentially had two careers, one as a middleweight and one as a light-heavy & heavy.

His peak as a MW was around '42 and '43, when he defeated Jack Chase to win the California MW title. His peak as a LHW was from about '47 to '51 IMO, the years just before he won the title.

Moore was possibly more talented and well-rounded as a MW, but he failed to live up to his full potential there for a number of reasons (ie: ulcers, injuries, titles frozen during the war, upset losses to Burley & Booker).

 

Umm NO, significantly past prime then