Archie Moore vs RJJ

First topic message reminder :

Simple question.

Who wins when both fighters were at their peaks (whenever Moore's peak was).

I'd go for RJJ via close but decisive UD. His footwork would do it.

Moore doesn't get much credit for his power despite his incredible KO record, Roy would be elusive for the first few rounds but wouldn't take long for the old mongoose to catch up.

Archie Moore KO 10.

I think Jones Jnr would give any fighter historically at 175 problems, but lets be honest Roy's reluctance or picking the wrong matches raised more questions than answers with his reign at 175 in facing Moore he was ultimately in with someone who could punch & had great timing (the remedy for speed), and wouldn't stop, I'm pretty sure Jones Jnr would win plenty of rounds, I'd envisage Jones would go to the ropes like he always does, but then find a guy unlike he ever encountered in his career: someone who doesn't get intimidated or discouraged and keeps punching, finding holes, finding a way. Taking him out in a similar fashion Glencoffe Johnson did, maybes the last third of the fight.

Cheers

Rodders

The Galveston Giant wrote:Moore doesn't get much credit for his power despite his incredible KO record, Roy would be elusive for the first few rounds but wouldn't take long for the old mongoose to catch up.

Archie Moore KO 10.

His KO ratio against his upper tier opposition isnt quite as impressive. Jones at his peak was also an extremelly elusive and difficult opponent to catch.

The phrase "catching up" with someone suggests to me either someone has stamina isues and will struggle later on or else we have a kind of relentless pressure fighter like Marciano whos tactics are to wear his opponents down and get to them late through constant pressure.

In this fight I dont really see that being applicable. Jones has good stamina and Moore is not really a relentless pressure fighter. By all means Moore might get to grips with Jones or impose his stlye on the fight through his ringcraft but I wouldnt say its a case of catching up with Jones.

I see the fight being akin to Hopkins v Jones in terms of its dynamics. I think Moore is more likely to just focus on taking the plays away from Jones and combating what advantages Jones has in speed and athleticism. Given Jones at his best was so quick, hard to read and elusive I would be quite surprised if the knock out was the more likley outcome to a points victory if Moore is to win.

manos de piedra wrote:The phrase "catching up" with someone suggests to me either someone has stamina isues and will struggle later on or else we have a kind of relentless pressure fighter like Marciano whos tactics are to wear his opponents down and get to them late through constant pressure.

In this fight I dont really see that being applicable. Jones has good stamina and Moore is not really a relentless pressure fighter. By all means Moore might get to grips with Jones or impose his stlye on the fight through his ringcraft but I wouldnt say its a case of catching up with Jones.

Can't speak for everyone Manos, but I'd imagine that a few who have mentioned Moore "catching up" with Jones are referring more to his ability to gradually, often over a number of rounds, work an opponent out and formulate a plan of action to take them out, rather than simply chase him all night until Jones begins to tire. Perhaps not the best way to word it, as you allude to. But very apt all the same. Not many can boast to be as clever and wily a fighter as Moore, and that's exactly how I see the fight going as I said earlier. Jones to have the better start and to bank the majority of the early rounds, before Moore figures out the gaps in Jones' defence (and they were there) and ends the show.

I maintain that once Moore lands significantly on Jones, it's his fight to lose. You mention that his KO ratio isn't quite as impressive against the elite, but by God, once he had a man in trouble he didn't half finish the job with clinical efficiency and precision. A truly ruthless finisher, and while Jones' chin (in my eyes) isn't made of the glass some seem to think it is, it certainly isn't granite either. Once Moore engages him, Jones is a goner, for me.

Joe Louis wasn't a pressure fighter by type, but he applied absolutely relentless pressure in his own way. Moore was the same.

As to Moore's kayo ratio diminishing according to the quality of his opposition, that is pretty normal. I don't believe that Jones' chin matched his other magnificent qualities, either, and given his habit of fighting off the ropes, ( suicidal against Moore, ) the aforementioned questions concerning his chin, Archie's proven power and his ability to create his own openings, I still believe that a Moore kayo is the money call.

Not quite sure what you're getting at there Manos but i expect Roy to be elusive early on before Moore works him out and Roy slows, if you think Roy wouldn't slow down over 15 rounds you must be crazy.

Put it this way Manos any Light heavyweight who can knock Marciano off his feet must have some serious power, he was skilled enough to not rely on his power but in do or die situations he could take anyone out.

I wouldnt expect a peak Jones to slow significantly over 15 rounds. He was a great athlete. Obviously he will not be as fresh as when he started, but the same would apply Moore.

Ive noticed its kind of a theme with Jones in these kind of mythical match ups that he starts of great before inneviteably his rival "catches up" with him later on and knocks him out, or catches his glass chin and its over.

The conclusion seems to be he almost never loses on points but he nearly always gets knocked out.

I can see why people favour this but I deviate from it a bit. Part of the problem is that there is no real blueprint on how to beat Jones when he was at his best. He won most of fights at a canter so its difficult to say what is really effective against him.

I dont really favour the idea that he gets caught up with or figured out because his stamina is good, hes very quick and elusive and hes highly unorthodox. Theres no real pattern to his work that would lead me to believe he just gets figured out over the course of a fight. Hes just too haphazard for that.

He makes mistakes which can be punished, he keeps his hands low which can be exploited. But these are isolated things rather than a pattern.

I think Moores best chance to win is by imposing a style on the fight that negates Jones. Make it scrappy, try to control the pace, break down the rythm, apply pressure and so on. I think hes capable of all things. I dont really see it being a case of just figuring out Jones style or codebreaking in the way a counter puncher would to a pressure fighter for instance. Theres too much of a danger of never getting a handle on Jones stlye or never finding the big punch for my liking.

Naturally I wouldnt rule out Moore stopping Jones, or Jones making a mistake or taking a risk etc whereby Moore takes full advantage. I just dont see it being the norm or that after 10 rounds Moore suddenly cracks Jones code.

Equally, I think you also have to consider the dangers presented to Moore early on. Hes probably been floored about 20 times in his career between the early and mid rounds so with Jones being notoriously unorthodox and difficult to get to grips with there is also a danger that Moore struggles massively early on.

With regards to the power, yes I believe Moore has enough to stop Jones certainly. I think Jones has the power to stop Moore. Im just saying that Moores KO ratio at the highest level isnt massive and Jones would be in that bracket, not to mention extraordinarily difficult to catch flush.

Was Charles any better than RJJ ?????

Think it's a pertinent question...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Was Charles any better than RJJ ?????

Think it's a pertinent question...

By considerable daylight Truss, Charles is a top 5 all time great IMO.

Jones Jnr wasted a whole third of his career IMO, which unfortunately asks more questions rather than giving us answers.

Cheers

Rodders

I was speaking more talent wise than achievement/opponents beaten wise....Rod

Just if Charles had his number just wondered if the hugely talented RJJ would also be a bridge too far..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I was speaking more talent wise than achievement/opponents beaten wise....Rod

Just if Charles had his number just wondered if the hugely talented RJJ would also be a bridge too far..

Ah ok Truss, the waters are extremely muddy IMO when you begin judging fighters by raw talent IMO, talent can be so varied its difficult to pinpoint, no doubt Jones had amazing talent but wasted alot of IMO just by some awful match-ups he chose.

Wouldn't say its a cakewalk for Moore in the slightest, as I mentioned Jones Jnr could give any 175 lber throughout history a difficult night, just feel Moore would be a bridge too far.

Cheers

Rodders

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I was speaking more talent wise than achievement/opponents beaten wise....Rod

Just if Charles had his number just wondered if the hugely talented RJJ would also be a bridge too far..

I believe it will be. Moore was good at cutting the ring. RJJ was superb at not being pinned down to a place he didn't want to be. Who has the better skill would be the winner. In this instance it will be RJJ and he would win via a UD as I dont think he would take the chances needed to score the KO.

RJJ's blurring handspeed and rapid combination punches from all angles known to maths would befuddle Moore and leave him guessing where the next punch would come from as opposed to keeping to his own game plan.

azania wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I was speaking more talent wise than achievement/opponents beaten wise....Rod

Just if Charles had his number just wondered if the hugely talented RJJ would also be a bridge too far..

I believe it will be. Moore was good at cutting the ring. RJJ was superb at not being pinned down to a place he didn't want to be. Who has the better skill would be the winner. In this instance it will be RJJ and he would win via a UD as I dont think he would take the chances needed to score the KO.

RJJ's blurring handspeed and rapid combination punches from all angles known to maths would befuddle Moore and leave him guessing where the next punch would come from as opposed to keeping to his own game plan.

Az, I'm not sure where you get this idea that RJJ somehow made up all these angles. Where did he punch from that it was previously absolutely impossible and inconceivable to punch from?

One of the best ring generals boxing has ever seen gets confused by punches coming from weird angles, Charles who was a far more rounded fighter than Jones was on the verge of getting stopped before he fought fire with fire to knock Moore out. I've seen nothing from Jones to suggest he would be able to do the same and skill by itself invariably never wins a fight by itself.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I was speaking more talent wise than achievement/opponents beaten wise....Rod

Just if Charles had his number just wondered if the hugely talented RJJ would also be a bridge too far..

I believe it will be. Moore was good at cutting the ring. RJJ was superb at not being pinned down to a place he didn't want to be. Who has the better skill would be the winner. In this instance it will be RJJ and he would win via a UD as I dont think he would take the chances needed to score the KO.

RJJ's blurring handspeed and rapid combination punches from all angles known to maths would befuddle Moore and leave him guessing where the next punch would come from as opposed to keeping to his own game plan.

Az, I'm not sure where you get this idea that RJJ somehow made up all these angles. Where did he punch from that it was previously absolutely impossible and inconceivable to punch from?

Good grief balti. People always claim that a certain small, crude and plodding HW champ who I will not reveal hit like a wrecking ball. That is impossible. But it gives an indication that that crude, plodding and totally useless HW champ had a fair dig on him. The same analogy applies to RJJ and all the angles he punches from.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:One of the best ring generals boxing has ever seen gets confused by punches coming from weird angles, Charles who was a far more rounded fighter than Jones was on the verge of getting stopped before he fought fire with fire to knock Moore out. I've seen nothing from Jones to suggest he would be able to do the same and skill by itself invariably never wins a fight by itself.

You said yourself you are not sold on RJJ. So your opinions regarding this matter has to be taken with a huge handful of salt as it is coming from a bias perspective.

I'm not sold on Jones because I don't rate him as highly as others, there's no ounce of bias in my perspective at all, it's also quite a ridiculous statement coming from you of all people.

Hamed punched from stupid angles, didn't stop Barrera beating him did it, against lesser fighters you get away with but against the best making fundamental errors will get punished.

Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

I'll go against the majority and pick Roy Jones Junior to win on points. Truly magnificent fighter in his prime and he had every attribute.
Roy's speed and reflexes were his main keys to victory. Very hard to hit flush and he had the power to make opponents pay.

Roy is easily one of the greatest fighters to lace on the gloves.

azania wrote:You said yourself you are not sold on RJJ. So your opinions regarding this matter has to be taken with a huge handful of salt as it is coming from a bias perspective.

That's rich, coming from you.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm not sold on Jones because I don't rate him as highly as others, there's no ounce of bias in my perspective at all, it's also quite a ridiculous statement coming from you of all people.

Hamed punched from stupid angles, didn't stop Barrera beating him did it, against lesser fighters you get away with but against the best making fundamental errors will get punished.

Others such as who? Roy was one of the very best ever to wear gloves. To deny that and claim to have boxing knowledge is simply laughable.

Hamed was schooled because he under-estimated MAB and went into a fight unprepared. That's not to say if he had been prepared MAB would not have beaten him as I reckon he would. But Naz was no RJJ. Different league altogether.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You said yourself you are not sold on RJJ. So your opinions regarding this matter has to be taken with a huge handful of salt as it is coming from a bias perspective.

That's rich, coming from you.

Difference is that I admit my bias.

rowley wrote:Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

Nugatory?

WelshDevilRob wrote:I'll go against the majority and pick Roy Jones Junior to win on points. Truly magnificent fighter in his prime and he had every attribute.
Roy's speed and reflexes were his main keys to victory. Very hard to hit flush and he had the power to make opponents pay.

Roy is easily one of the greatest fighters to lace on the gloves.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

Nugatory?

It's not bad that one is it, the things they teach you in Rotherham schools should never be underestimated

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

Nugatory?

It's not bad that one is it, the things they teach you in Rotherham schools should never be underestimated

Show off.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

Nugatory?

It's not bad that one is it, the things they teach you in Rotherham schools should never be underestimated

Show off.

As thought it was a nutritional supplement, jeff. A mixture of nougat and creatine.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Jones fought in colour Moore fought in black and white, therefore Jones wins, to debate the point any further is largely nugatory.

Nugatory?

It's not bad that one is it, the things they teach you in Rotherham schools should never be underestimated

Show off.

As thought it was a nutritional supplement, jeff. A mixture of nougat and creatine.

I thought he was cursing or swearing. I was about to delete the post and ban the dude.

You have to prove yourself to be the best and on the whole he failed to do that, has a win over Hill at Light heavyweight but not a lot else whereas Moore proved himself without doubt, aged far better and had one of the most under rated defences in boxing. To claim it's laughable not rating Jones as one of the best is a very narrow minded view especially when considering someone who is a point of contention.

Lets do a direct breakdown between the pair and we'll see who has the better record of the pair.

Jones: Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Ruiz at Heavyweight
Moore: Chase, Marshall, Cocoa Kid, Williams, Smith, Bivins, Johnson, Maxim, Olson, Pompey, Durelle and Valdez at heavyweight

I can predict your response that the opponents that Moore beat were no good and they were this and they were that but he was effectively an unofficial member of the black murderers row and were it not for the fact he eventually got a title shot he'd most probably be remembered as one. As you liked to point out in the past he was a black fighter who was given no breaks in his career at all, holds world class wins at both middleweight and light heavyweight throughout his career but had to wait til his late 30's before he got a shot against Maxim which he won and then remarkably held onto the title til he was at least 45.

Now please explain how Jones compares to that?

I agree Ghosty, can you only imagine how good someone would have to beat Moore if they were more naturally a middle weight. For me that fighter would probably have to be considered the best ever.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You have to prove yourself to be the best and on the whole he failed to do that, has a win over Hill at Light heavyweight but not a lot else whereas Moore proved himself without doubt, aged far better and had one of the most under rated defences in boxing. To claim it's laughable not rating Jones as one of the best is a very narrow minded view especially when considering someone who is a point of contention.

Lets do a direct breakdown between the pair and we'll see who has the better record of the pair.

Jones: Hopkins, Toney, Hill and Ruiz at Heavyweight
Moore: Chase, Marshall, Cocoa Kid, Williams, Smith, Bivins, Johnson, Maxim, Olson, Pompey, Durelle and Valdez at heavyweight

I can predict your response that the opponents that Moore beat were no good and they were this and they were that but he was effectively an unofficial member of the black murderers row and were it not for the fact he eventually got a title shot he'd most probably be remembered as one. As you liked to point out in the past he was a black fighter who was given no breaks in his career at all, holds world class wins at both middleweight and light heavyweight throughout his career but had to wait til his late 30's before he got a shot against Maxim which he won and then remarkably held onto the title til he was at least 45.

Now please explain how Jones compares to that?

His record doesn't compare, but that's not the point. If this thread was about who has the best record, then Moore wins hands down. But it isn't.

Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

BALTIMORA wrote:Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

I dont think I insinuated that he was.

Just highlighting why I don't rate Jones as highly as say you, Moore is for me around the 19 mark overall possibly lower depending on my mood and considering the gulf between the two Jones is getting no where near that high.

The point is your basing your opinion on Jones being a modern fighting punching from weird angles, works against lesser fighters but not against the best, he fought far more conventionally when beating Toney and Hopkins.

rowley wrote:I agree Ghosty, can you only imagine how good someone would have to beat Moore if they were more naturally a middle weight. For me that fighter would probably have to be considered the best ever.

Haha !

All you need now, jeff, is something like :

And Futch said that this middleweight was the greatest fighter of all time ; Futch was a huge influence on Freddie Roach, and Roach trained............................

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

I dont think I insinuated that he was.

Not literally no, but a couple of times you've mentioned 'all angles known to math' and 'angles Moore wouldn't have even known existed' (or something similar), and it just struck me as being a tad hyperbolic.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just highlighting why I don't rate Jones as highly as say you, Moore is for me around the 19 mark overall possibly lower depending on my mood and considering the gulf between the two Jones is getting no where near that high.

The point is your basing your opinion on Jones being a modern fighting punching from weird angles, works against lesser fighters but not against the best, he fought far more conventionally when beating Toney and Hopkins.

If a boxer utterly thrashes the best of his era, is it his fault that he was that good? (Rocky comparison here) Lets not forget he thoroughly schooled Hop and Toney, both of whom would have held their own in any era.

I am basing my point not on any modern stuff. I'm basing it on the fact that RJJ was a tremendous fighter who would have beaten most boxers below 175lbs. He would have beaten any version of Hopkins and imo even with all the savvy in the world, all the wily skills and ring craft, RJJ would have beaten Moore because he was that damned good.

HumanWindmill wrote:

rowley wrote:I agree Ghosty, can you only imagine how good someone would have to beat Moore if they were more naturally a middle weight. For me that fighter would probably have to be considered the best ever.

Haha !

All you need now, jeff, is something like :

And Futch said that this middleweight was the greatest fighter of all time ; Futch was a huge influence on Freddie Roach, and Roach trained............................

Just illustrates how easy it is to slip of the path of righteousness into full on D4 mode. Will have to tread carefully

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

I dont think I insinuated that he was.

Not literally no, but a couple of times you've mentioned 'all angles known to math' and 'angles Moore wouldn't have even known existed' (or something similar), and it just struck me as being a tad hyperbolic.

Boxing is full of hyperbole.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

I dont think I insinuated that he was.

Not literally no, but a couple of times you've mentioned 'all angles known to math' and 'angles Moore wouldn't have even known existed' (or something similar), and it just struck me as being a tad hyperbolic.

Boxing is full of hyperbole.

So are car salesmen, but that doesn't mean it's A) good B) true or C) required here.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just highlighting why I don't rate Jones as highly as say you, Moore is for me around the 19 mark overall possibly lower depending on my mood and considering the gulf between the two Jones is getting no where near that high.

The point is your basing your opinion on Jones being a modern fighting punching from weird angles, works against lesser fighters but not against the best, he fought far more conventionally when beating Toney and Hopkins.

Infairness to Roy he adapted his style to beat Toney and Hopkins, which for me is the mark of a Great fighter. They use the skills they have to beat the opponent infront of them.
I believe he would have fought the way that delivered the best results against Moore. Whether that is good enough is open to debate but Roy was special like a Leonard or Robinson - he was cut from the same cloth.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Az my point regarding angles was that while Jones was unorthodox and numerous other superlatives, he wasn't superman.

I dont think I insinuated that he was.

Not literally no, but a couple of times you've mentioned 'all angles known to math' and 'angles Moore wouldn't have even known existed' (or something similar), and it just struck me as being a tad hyperbolic.

Boxing is full of hyperbole.

So are car salesmen, but that doesn't mean it's A) good B) true or C) required here.

Wuld you buy a used car from me?

I have a bridge to sell also. You're not American perchance?

WelshDevilRob wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just highlighting why I don't rate Jones as highly as say you, Moore is for me around the 19 mark overall possibly lower depending on my mood and considering the gulf between the two Jones is getting no where near that high.

The point is your basing your opinion on Jones being a modern fighting punching from weird angles, works against lesser fighters but not against the best, he fought far more conventionally when beating Toney and Hopkins.

Infairness to Roy he adapted his style to beat Toney and Hopkins, which for me is the mark of a Great fighter. They use the skills they have to beat the opponent infront of them.
I believe he would have fought the way that delivered the best results against Moore. Whether that is good enough is open to debate but Roy was special like a Leonard or Robinson - he was cut from the same cloth.

That's the thing. When faced with someone who he respected, he adapted and was more cautious. Similar to his fight with McCallum. I see him being very cautious against Moore and using his footwork to stay within range and moving away when Moore tries to unload.

But if Moore catches up with him, its over. I doubt if Moore would.

From the perspective of being a Light Heayweight who did he defend his title against that you could call very good?

I tend to think he fought Hopkins at the perfect time and were they to have rematched any time around 98-onwards the result would have been reversed. Against Moore he'd be facing someone well versed in dealing with speedy fighters and with the notable exception of Charles almost always did enough to win. In Jones we have someone with speed, reflexes and decent power at the weight, Moore knew more than Jones did, always knew what to do and at which exact point, that knowledge and the ability to apply it is a far greater skill than anything else.

As for your point about Toney holding is own in any era, not a chance, didn't hold his own in his own era let alone more talent stacked ones

Az-good god no, I'm not American. There are some things even I won't stoop to.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:From the perspective of being a Light Heayweight who did he defend his title against that you could call very good?

I tend to think he fought Hopkins at the perfect time and were they to have rematched any time around 98-onwards the result would have been reversed. Against Moore he'd be facing someone well versed in dealing with speedy fighters and with the notable exception of Charles almost always did enough to win. In Jones we have someone with speed, reflexes and decent power at the weight, Moore knew more than Jones did, always knew what to do and at which exact point, that knowledge and the ability to apply it is a far greater skill than anything else.

As for your point about Toney holding is own in any era, not a chance, didn't hold his own in his own era let alone more talent stacked ones

As far as I can recall, there was a clamour for RJJ and Hop to square up. If he had fought the very best of Hop in whatever incarnation, the result would not have changed.

You are still banging on about who he fought . The point is he was head and shoulders above everyone from 175 down.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:From the perspective of being a Light Heayweight who did he defend his title against that you could call very good?

I tend to think he fought Hopkins at the perfect time and were they to have rematched any time around 98-onwards the result would have been reversed. Against Moore he'd be facing someone well versed in dealing with speedy fighters and with the notable exception of Charles almost always did enough to win. In Jones we have someone with speed, reflexes and decent power at the weight, Moore knew more than Jones did, always knew what to do and at which exact point, that knowledge and the ability to apply it is a far greater skill than anything else.

As for your point about Toney holding is own in any era, not a chance, didn't hold his own in his own era let alone more talent stacked ones

Roy answers your question about his opposition in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIqZKhNY90

That's your opinion that he would beat Hopkins again and it would be a close fight that the superior boxer in Hopkins would win

I bang on about his opposition because there's no precedent for him beating a great fighter at Light Heavyweight and Moore proved on many occassions he could deal with skill whereas did Jones ever prove he could deal with a hard punching, thinking fighter at the peak of his powers?

Rob, I hate to be a spoilsport, mate, but we aren't allowed to embed video or pictures. Could you edit your post to just include the link, please ?

Thanks.