Than Moore? Sure was. But that's why losses like Charles and Burley aren't of interest in this context. Moore got knocked about by Shorty Hogue. His obsession with low-blows cost him multiple fights he could otherwise have won, weird for a fighter lauded for his IQ. He was brutally knocked out by Leonard Morrow. I know Moore well but i'm not even sure who Clinton Bacon was. I mean, his core run is as impressive or more impressive than that huge streak Floyd went unbeaten against ranked guys for, but these losses shouldn't be ignored. They are fighters who, if Floyd met an equivalent, it would be among his more minor wins. And Moore couldn't beat them. BMR guys did a bit of a number too, and they were something of a truth machine, these things shouldn't be set aside, the struggle Moore had with Williams, Booker and Burley, that is information too. He got three punts at Booker and could not get past him. He got better, but Floyd found away through his similar entanglement, for all that one of his fights with Castillo could have gone against him. If you made a list of the best fighters that Moore met pound-for-pound it is frankly pretty ugly reading.
Floyd Mayweather never fought fighters of the quality of Charles, Burley, Booker, Holman Williams, Harold Johnson. You can make a pretty good case that he didn't even fight fighters as good as Bobo Olson. Jimmy Bivins, LLoyd Marshall, even Shorty Hogue who was on a very solid run against top competition when he fought Moore. And Mayweather never fought competition like that on a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis; he fought 50 times in how many years? Moore fought that many times 4 times over. There is zero chance that Floyd mayweather could have done what Archie Moore did in his career.
Definitely Archie. When Archie fought the competition was very deep. Archie completely conquered the light heavyweight division for many years and almost conquered the heavyweight division when he was already around twenty years into his pro career. Floyd won titles in all of the divisions he fought in, but he had the option of picking what strapholder to fight and he was never undisputed. Archie didn’t have this luxury and really went through all of the competition in every division he was in. Another point against Floyd is he never moved up to a point where he was giving up serious size.. For Floyd to even be in the conversation with Archie he would’ve needed to move up and and have success at both 160 and 175 such as beating GGG at 160 no catch weight and fighting guys like Adonis Stevenson and Kovalev.
I will defend Archie here, he was still learning his craft during those losses. But against the upper echelon at his peak, Charles, Marciano and Patterson had his number Also Maidana 1 is a bigger shot against Floyd than Castillo 1. Floyd had a damaged rotator cuff in Castillo 1 but he clearly won 7 rounds even if Castillo won his rounds 'bigger'. That doesn't affect the scoring
You must rank Delahoya, Corrales, Alvarez, Pacquaio, Castillo, Cotto, Mosley really really low I mean Bobo Olsen and a caveman like Bivins above them FFS
He was but a better case for Maidana over Castillo. Castillo 1 became a propoganda case for Mayweather haters and people who didn't watch it or score it ate it up. Castillo gave away the first 4-5 rounds by doing nothing. Floyd only needs 2-3 after that point to win on the cards even if Castillo beat him up in some rounds.
He was better at setting up and landing the right hand and left hook, he blended offence and defence better, was more versatile offensively, had more tricks in his toolbox, and he layered his game better. Watch the Bivins and Maxim 1 fights. Floyd was better defensively, had the better jab and was probably the better ring general, and he's about Moore's equal on the inside. If Floyd's the better fighter, it's because his combination of skill and insane athleticism during his PBF days made for a slightly stronger overall package than what Moore had to provide in the available footage we have of him in the early 50s. But in terms of pure skill, Moore showed he could do more What's interesting is that there were glimpses (especially in Maxim 1) where Moore showed incredible explosiveness despite approaching 40, but they only appeared in stretches. And he appeared to be a very gifted athlete in the Ron Richards bout in 1940, but his skills were far less developed by then. There's a very real possibility that there's late 40s-early 50s version of Moore who had the best of both worlds, but we just don't have the film. We only have like 3 fights of Moore from 51-52.
This is not true. He had had over a hundred fights by the time he flipped out against Henry Hall. He did add little things here and there but claiming that losses should be excused or ruled out, or whatever it is you are saying here, after 100 fights, I can only disagree as forcefully as possible. I wont' try to persuade you, but you are essentially saying no modern pugilist will ever be ready for a fight ever again. And even if you were right (And I don't think you could be more wrong), those losses would still contain information.
None of that's true. Archie was nowhere near as good at setting up and landing the right compared to Floyd. Floyd's right was pure laser surgery and he hid it well Blended offense and defense better and more versatile offensively is subjective. But show me an Archie performance like Floyd v Gatti or Corrales, Archie wasn't in the same class. As for pure skill 'Archie could do more' is laughable, how was he doing more against Patterson, Charles and Marciano where he was a punchbag? As for the mythical version of Archie, it didn't exist, against the best he always lost. He managed to beat some very good fighters though so deserves credit for that. But the overrating is insane.