Is Archie Moore overrated?

Archie Moore. In my ever changing lists he has, once or twice, featured in my top ten and is at least a top five light heavyweight in most lists. He was nearly 40 when he won the light heavyweight title for the first time with a win over Joey Maxim, and only relinquished it nine years later! This was through vacating the title, he was never defeated for it. During this time he also beat Nino Valdes (who was far bigger than Archie) twice at heavyweight for the Nevada heavyweight title. He beat Maxim again, he beat Harold Johnson, Bobo Olson and Yvon Durelle twice among many other top contenders. Moore was actually more consistent when he was old than he was earlier on in his career.

His losses were in heavyweight title tilts against Floyd Patterson (who was young enough to be his son) and an incredibly brave effort against Marciano. He dropped Rocky early but in typical style Marciano came roaring back and dropped Archie several times. Archie didn't just get back up every time, but dug his heels and slugged back for as long as he could before eventually being stopped.

Archie Moore is the king of the over 40's.

I don't think anybody since has really come close to having such a long, succesful run at that age, but was Archie actually better during this period than at the age most fighters hit their "prime"? Most would say he hit his prime just after 1950 by which time he was in his late thirties. It was after this time that he put together his impressive run as a long reigning light heavyweight champion that earns him such high recognition today. But what of the fighters who put losses all over his record earlier in his career?

Ezzard Charles (3-0 against Moore) had moved up to heavyweigh where his decline began and won and lost the heavyweight title by the time Moore had become light heavyweight champ.

Charley Burley (1-0 against Moore) had given Moore a terrific beating in their only fight. He'd grown sick of not getting from boxin what he was putting into it and hung up his gloves in 1950 with plenty left in the tank.

Eddie Booker (1-0-2 against Moore) along with Burley is the man Moore calls the best he ever fought. In their last meeting Moore was decked five times, had his ribs broke andgot stopped in 8. Booker retired soon after.

These are arguably the three best fighters Moore faced and he managed a win against none of them. He became light heavyweight champion once they'd moved out of the way. He existed in the talent laiden golden period in the forties but only became top dog during the fifties and shared most sagas against top contenders like Bivins and Williams with some less than glorious KO losses along the way.

So, although Archie scores plenty of points based on longevity, are his actual abilities as a fighter overrated? I am a fan of his and he is no doubt an all time great. Tough, smart, powerful with great heart and stamina - but similar to Juan Manuel Marquez today he only really took over once his best foes had aged. Like Marquez had Barrera and Morales ruining each other before he started getting recognition, did Archie only become the best once the better fighters had moved out of the way?

I don't mean to disrespect a legend of the sport, simply put his record under closer speculation and give some recognition to the chaps who beat him, yet aren't as well known.

In answer, no. He was a legend. Fought often and fought everyone.

Kinda like saying Ali was overated because he lost to Frazier, Norton and Spinks

Or Louis was overated because he lost to Schmeling, Marciano and Charles

The volume of the victories far outweights the losses

'Ageless' Archie was a legend

Charles had his number the same way Norton you could argue had Ali's...

Think anybody who stayed at the top as long as this guy desrves all that comes to him..

The fight with Durelle (not the Brando one) showed all you need to know about this guy......and his heart..

As for heavy exploits..Foster got slapped at that division too and he's arguably 2nd in the stakes at 175..

Spinks gets battered by a young Holmes...no doubts..Spinks success lies in the timing and the handpicked opponents..

Great fighter..great 175 man..

I suppose it depends on the context of what is overrated. If hes considered a top ten then you could make a fair argument against him but I think he belongs in the 10-20 bracket. In general I dont believe he is overrated and deseves his lofty position.

I think its slightly unjust to select the fighters you have chosen there as the three best he faced without considering the likes of Marshall, Bivins, Chase, Lytell, Harold Johnson and all of these immensely talented fighters in what was probably the most competitive era in the sports history in the middleweight to light heavyweight division. Other than Charles, nobody else had a better consistent record against this kind of talent or came close to his kind of longetivity. He came out ahead against these fighters in their series and fights. Certainly he didnt share series with Bivins and holds an extensive winning series over him. I would say that from the general competition of that era Charles came out first with Moore a clear second.

Given the level of competition he faced over such a long period and fighting as often as he did I think its entirely understandable that he will have accumulated losses but its not a case of coming up short against the best. Only Charles really can trump him from that period and Charles is an automatic top ten fighter as far as I am concerned.

He wasnt given the opportunities to fight for titles until well into his career but I would agree that he only really took over when the standard of competition had slipped in terms of dominating a title. But such was the tlent around then I really cant think of any light heavywieght or Middleweight that could rule the division. Even Charles was bound to pick up a loss somewhere. Few of the Murderers Row fighters were given title opportunities so I think we can only judge them against the competition in the context of non title affairs and in the regard Moore comes a solid second in what was probably the most competitive era in the sport in the 160 - 175 bracket so I think that speaks volumes.

Over rated is subjective term as it very much depends where you rate him, however for me whenever I think of Moore I don't think his losses are indicative of anhy particular weakness on Moore's part but are more a reflection of how truly strong an era it was and how good the Black Murderers Row were, and whilst Charles and to a lesser extent Burley had the wood on him he held his own against the likes of Marshall, Hogue Chase and Bivins, all exceptional fighters.

Also worth remembering but for longevity and an unwillingness to retire at a sensible age we would probaly count Moore as a fully paid up member of that club. Terrific fighter and a guy I have no problem occupying a top 20 slot and being certain he deserves it

Kind of new Rowley would be on here as soon as I saw Burley's name...

I'm rating him at 175.....and have him number 1....or 2 above or behind Foster depending how I feel..

Won't rate a guy top who hasn't worn the belt.

"Kinda like saying Ali was overated because he lost to Frazier, Norton and Spinks"
Kinda, but not much. I'm challenging the percieved abilities of Archie at his physical peak against his best foes, whereas Ali was past his peak for those. He also had winning records against the two greats you mentioned and was shot against Spinks.

"Or Louis was overated because he lost to Schmeling, Marciano and Charles"
In Louis' best years he was a model of consistency. He has only three losses on his record. Never beaten at his best. Not relevant to me.

"The volume of the victories far outweights the losses"
No argument he has quantity, it's his performence against the cream of quality I'm talking about.

"Charles had his number the same way Norton you could argue had Ali's..."
Charles won a clear UD, an MD that judging from what was written should've been unanimous and a KO.
Norton and Ali had one UD and that is the most disputed of them all. Norton and Ali were evenly matched. Charles clearly beat Archie three times. It's not the same.

"The fight with Durelle (not the Brando one) showed all you need to know about this guy......and his heart.."
I never questioned his heart. I'm not talking about his performences against the Durelle's of his career and I already mentioned that. I'm talking about his performences against the best fighters he faced which Durelle wasn't. Brando?

"As for heavy exploits..Foster got slapped at that division too and he's arguably 2nd in the stakes at 175..

Spinks gets battered by a young Holmes...no doubts..Spinks success lies in the timing and the handpicked opponents.."
Erm, I didn't criticise his performences at heavy, I paid tribute to them. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this but I'm challenging his abilities against the top light heavies and middles he faced during the forties. You're the only one to mention hand picked opponents.

Colonial Lion wrote:I suppose it depends on the context of what is overrated. If hes considered a top ten then you could make a fair argument against him but I think he belongs in the 10-20 bracket. In general I dont believe he is overrated and deseves his lofty position.

I think its slightly unjust to select the fighters you have chosen there as the three best he faced without considering the likes of Marshall, Bivins, Chase, Lytell, Harold Johnson and all of these immensely talented fighters in what was probably the most competitive era in the sports history in the middleweight to light heavyweight division. Other than Charles, nobody else had a better consistent record against this kind of talent or came close to his kind of longetivity. He came out ahead against these fighters in their series and fights. Certainly he didnt share series with Bivins and holds an extensive winning series over him. I would say that from the general competition of that era Charles came out first with Moore a clear second.

Given the level of competition he faced over such a long period and fighting as often as he did I think its entirely understandable that he will have accumulated losses but its not a case of coming up short against the best. Only Charles really can trump him from that period and Charles is an automatic top ten fighter as far as I am concerned.

He wasnt given the opportunities to fight for titles until well into his career but I would agree that he only really took over when the standard of competition had slipped in terms of dominating a title. But such was the tlent around then I really cant think of any light heavywieght or Middleweight that could rule the division. Even Charles was bound to pick up a loss somewhere. Few of the Murderers Row fighters were given title opportunities so I think we can only judge them against the competition in the context of non title affairs and in the regard Moore comes a solid second in what was probably the most competitive era in the sport in the 160 - 175 bracket so I think that speaks volumes.

Fair enough, it is a critique I've given him so it may cast an unfair light. He definitely deserves props for outlasting his best foes. The fighters you mentioned that I held outside his three best do as you say show what a talent rich era it was and Charles is the only one to have any real claim to ruling it at any time. I should say I do rate Archie very high, he just seems to get automatic placings over many guys who beat him seemingly based on longevity alone. It makes me question his head to head ability against the true elite.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Won't rate a guy top who hasn't worn the belt.

Nathan Cleverly WBO light heavyweight champion.

Hell no..... just goggle his name in boxrec and you will see why??or not??

"I'm challenging his abilities against the top light heavies and middles he faced during the forties."

Its a strange challenge I must say. We can agree that Charles had the beating of him and was also the man that came out top in that period of outstanding quality. But outside of that everything else points to Moore as considerable second place. I dont think Eddie Booker was considerably better than Chase or Williams and probably not as good as Bivins or Johnson for instance although the margins between the top guys back then was often very fine and theres plenty of overlap in their careers.

I think its precisely because of his record and consistency against the quality of that period thats sees him place highly. Would say again that in that incredible period of quality in the 40s of all the many fine fighters in there Moores record is really only second to Charles so surely that should dispel any doubts about his actual ability? Then what he went on to acheive in the 1950s against whats a less talented bunch but by no means weak (Olson, Maxim, Johnson in particular) I think his placings are justified and his talents hard to doubt.

I agree with you on the point that he didnt dominate the 1940s in any way but such was the amount of fights they had back then and the sheer quality around that I would say it would be very difficult for any fighter to dominate especially when you look at the regularity Moore was facing top level opponents. I dont think any fighter manages to dominate that kind of opposition if you give them Moores schedule from the 1940s of fighting up to 15 times a year with up to 6 of those bouts against absolute quality fighters like Charles, Bivins, Marshall, Burley, Williams, Chase, Lytell etc

I know it seems left field Colonial, but it seems people put forward their best arguments when confronted with an opinion considered strange, and to challenge the abilities of a guy with a lofty status like Archie's fits the bill of strange around here. (...yet I'm never challenged on the whole "bald" thing?)

I agree with everything you've said to be honest and I've always ranked him as a great fighter, but to me he lacks the invincibility others around his level often acquire. However I feel it is Joshsmith's argument that really takes the cake. Josh, i have no rebuttle. You've bested me and I should call you sir.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I know it seems left field Colonial, but it seems people put forward their best arguments when confronted with an opinion considered strange, and to challenge the abilities of a guy with a lofty status like Archie's fits the bill of strange around here. (...yet I'm never challenged on the whole "bald" thing?)

I agree with everything you've said to be honest and I've always ranked him as a great fighter, but to me he lacks the invincibility others around his level often acquire. However I feel it is Joshsmith's argument that really takes the cake. Josh, i have no rebuttle. You've bested me and I should call you sir.

I think much depends on the definition of overated. I think when you are dealing the top fighters of all time the margins are very fine so your argument raises valid issues that may make the difference in whether he ranks a couple of places higher or lower on educated lists. But I would find it very hard to place Moore outside the top 20 spots all things considered and I dont believe its overrating to have him in the 10-20 bracket but as I said above some of points raised may decide where abouts in that bracket he places.

Its a very unique period in boxing history so trying to compare all these top guys with very few opportunities who faced each other on such a reguar basis to later eras is exceptionally difficult. Moore has losses on his record and didnt dominate that decade but his win column is matched by only a handful of fighters and he remains probably the number 1 of all time in terms of longetivity at the top.

The light heavyweight title didn't mean a great deal in the era Moore and Charles fought in because of the men who didn't get the opportunity to fight for it, can't honestly say someone like Maxim was the man at the weight when he lost so decisively to Moore and Charles.

Good article with some interesting aspects, and I think you do have a case JBW, even if I don't agree all that much. Most lists I've seen have the 'Old Mongoose' as the number two or three all-time 175 lb man, and usually somewhere around the fifteen to twenty mark pound for pound which seems absolutely spot on to me; obviously, you're going to get the odd person who ranks him higher than that, but on the whole I don't think that 'overrated' is a tag we can direct at Moore.

Given how few have managed to campaign as incredibly well in their forties as Moore did in his, I'd say that he really deserves all the praise he gets. The fact that Charles had by now moved up to Heavyweight doesn't detract from what a truly fabulous reign Moore had as 175 lb champion, much in the same way that Hopkins' Middleweight reign shouldn't be degraded simply because Jones was no longer at 160 lb. I agree that Moore's paltry record against Charles, Burley and Booker mean that I can't go along with the very few who grant him top ten status, but a top twenty without his name would look very, very odd to me.

John posted this thread on the old 606 which compares Moore's record to members of the Black Murderers Row, thought it dovetailed pretty well with your article and served to illustrate my point that Moore's record against them serves to illustrate just how good those guys were.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A79504860

I don't think it's unfair to ask the question, because I think that even the legends should have the spotlight shone on their achievements from time to time.

In this case, I think we can safely pronounce that Moore was not "overrated". His great victories outweigh his losses, in my view, and there is no shame whatever in his failure to beat Charles, the greatest light-heavy of all time by some distance (despite the fact that Truss would presumably rate Freddie Mills and Joey Maxim ahead of him because they got to wear a belt), and a certainty for the all-time top ten.

I actually think that Archie is one of the easier fighters to pin down in a pound for pound sense. Not only his head to head record against Charles, but also their respective records as heavyweights, means that Moore must be a good few steps below Ezz. If, as I do, you rate Charles somewhere around number six in the all-time lists, it seems that a place around number 20 for Moore would be fair and accurate. Pretty good going overall, and, I would suggest, roughly where most boxing aficionados would tend to place him. In Archie's case, I think that his reputation largely stands where it should.

Thanks for the responses folks, I wouldn't call top twenty as overrating him and seems a fair placing. Infact I wish I could find a better word than "overrated." Along with "prime" (which I also often use) it gets thrown around quite lazily these days.

Looking at rowley's 606V1 article it does seem to magnify the Black Murderer's Row's strengths more than Moore's weaknesses. I too rank Charles in the top 6 (#5 to be precise) so not being on his level is nothing to ashamed of, nobody of the era was other than Robinson. I won't get into the whole "but Robinson wouldn't fight Burley..." thing.

John Bloody Wayne wrote: I won't get into the whole "but Robinson wouldn't fight Burley..." thing.

Do it John, you know you want to

"I'm too pretty to fight Charley Burley!"
Case closed.

Total legend and if anything underated by younger boxing fans.