That has nothing to do with a H2H fight though. Then look at the number of fights he had. The mileage. Who he fought and when.
Sure he was a great light heavyweight but he never had the same success at heavyweight. Its the equivalent of having Beterbiev fight Usyk, even Beterbiev thinks that would be too much for him.
Usyk wide points this era,back in Moores era a lot closer fight and may even squeak a win over Usyk .
How many titles did Ezzard Charles win at LHW? Yet who’s the consensus GOAT at LHW? Knowledgeable posters don’t just debate on statistics.
My overall point is that he hasn't shown the H2H capability at heavyweight to beat someone like Usyk.
Assume Moores skillset is better than Usyk's, which I'm not saying it is. Moores is not as naturally athletic as Usyk, nor has he demonstrated a chin at Usyk's level. I just don't see any Moore win against an incredibly gifted southpaw footwork master who is also higher volume like Usyk when Moore is also giving up size, reach and weight. As @Rumsfeld would say, what do I know? I ain't exactly Quasimodo over here.
That’s fine. That’s your opinion. I was just asking you to apply context with the wins and losses. Usyk has only fought 23 times. Would he have beaten Rocky and Ali etc, at Archie’s age, after having had the same amount of fights, with huge mileage?
Usyk isnt exactly a spring chicken at thirty eight but I hear you. Moore, like Hopkins competed at the elite level ridiculously long.
Is Archie Moore a hero of yours, Loudon? Moore was a great fighter and had an amazing career, but I don't think he'd defeat Usyk. He was stopped by Rocky Marciano who was smaller and slower than Usyk, and appeared to be smaller than Moore in their fight.