Who is greater P4P Floyd Mayweather or Archie Moore?

Moore just makes it into mine, Floyd is not. I have him around 23-25ish.

 

Yeah.

But it’s not just the amount of fights that Archie had.

It’s who he fought.


Floyd was a genius.

But he never fought any truly great, prime fighters.


He didn’t fight guys like Burley and Charles.

He never saw an Ali or a Rocky.

And especially when he was old with a ton of mileage.


Floyd beat very good fighters with ease.

He did similar things to what Roy Jones did, but in a different way.

 

Why?

 

As Gazelle has said, the politics/circumstances of the day.

It took Marvin Hagler around 50 fights, and that was in the 70’s-80’s.

It was a different world back then.

A completely different landscape.

Compare it to today.

We have 18 weight classes and 4/5 organisations.

We now live in a world where non world level fighters can fight for titles.

 

Why Floyd though?

 

I and others have the fortune of hindsight. If I was a boxer I would do whatever I could to get a title shot as quick as possible because obviously that brings in the most money. In doing that I would only fight fights that I know I could win. I understand it's probably easier said than done especially 80 years ago, but that's the way I would approach it. In doing that I wouldn't be jumping weight classes unless it was absolutely necessary because that means I would probably start at the bottom again. Additionally, that "0" in the loss column is probably the most important stat in boxing. People now a days can get paid as much as 9 figures for 1 fight because of it.

In saying all that, Floyd never lost in 50 fights. In 35 fights Ezzard had lost 4 times. All of these losses he was either taller, had a longer reach or both. Floyd has beaten guys in their prime (near prime) that were slightly taller or had a larger reach like: Diego Corrales, ODLH, Canelo, etc.

Losses count. Obviously Ezzard has a lot of wins over HOFers, but he also has a lot of bad losses.

 

From a post six years ago...

ALL TIME BEST
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Harry Greb
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Roberto Duran
6. Hank Armstrong
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Willie Pep
9. Joe Louis
10. Ezzard Charles
11. Roy Jones Junior
12. Joe Gans
13. Sugar Ray Leonard
14. Floyd Mayweather
15. Manny Pacquaio
16. Archie Moore
17. Mickey Walker
18. Pernell Whittaker

 

We now live in a very different world to the one that Archie lived and fought in.

We live in a social media, TikTok era, where most fighters fight 2-3 times per year, where their zero is vitally important.

In Archie’s era, losses were commonplace due to the quality of the fighters and the hectic schedules that many of them had.


Yes, Archie did lose fights, but if you were to research his career, you’ll see that he was fighting competent fighters, either monthly, or twice per month, and even from the outset of his career.

Most of them were decision losses, and most of them were avenged.

Archie didn’t have many BAD losses.

His only really bad losses, were when he was DQ’d, or when he was humiliated like in the Morrow loss, as he completely underestimated his opponent. That was one of his worst losses. But it was avenged.

Most of the other losses came against great fighters, and most of whom were near their prime. Those weren’t bad losses. Not if you apply context. If you see who they were against, and you look where Archie was in his career for some of them. His age. His mileage etc.


Now Floyd never lost of course. And we have to respect that. But at the same time, he did not fight credible opposition for a prolonged period, where he fought every month, or twice per month.

He did not fight the same quality of opposition.

He didn’t fight any prime greats.


You need to look into the ‘Black Murderers Row’ guys, as well as the other guys who Archie fought.

You need to look at guys like Lloyd Marshall.

There’s posters here who have a lot more boxing knowledge than me, who truly believe that Marshall could have beaten guys like Roy Jones and James Toney.

Then there’s Charley Burley etc.


Floyd never fought those type of guys.

You have mentioned Corrales, Oscar and Canelo.

Floyd had a reach advantage over Corrales and Canelo.

Oscar was the only opponent that Floyd ever faced, where he was completely outsized in height, reach and weight.


Now although it’s extremely hard to do direct comparisons between fighters of different eras, we can certainly apply the same criteria.

You know what my criteria is.

My criteria is:

Overall ability
Resume
Wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

They’re the main ones.

Of course we also look at how ambitious they were, the amount of risks they were willing to take, as well as their schedules/timelines, and their losses.

We also obviously apply context to all of the above.


Ability:

Floyd was the better defensive fighter.

Archie was the better offensive fighter.

They both had elite level skills, and Moore was one of the pioneers of the defence/style that the Mayweather’s adopted.

Floyd was a genius. A chess master. He had great skills. But his overall skill set was not on another level.


Resume:

Archie unquestionably fought the superior opposition.

Unfortunately, Floyd never fought a prime ATG.

He never saw a Charles. A Burley. An Ali.


Wins:

Archie’s best wins were better than Floyd’s best wins.


Accomplishments:

People can make a case for Floyd based upon his great stats. But as great as they were, they were MODERN ERA stats. A world that had 4 organisations, 18 weight classes and lesser fighters and much lesser schedules.


In Archie’s era, there were no common JR divisions.

They weren’t 3/4 belts.

We can only speculate, but we can ask how many of Floyd’s champions likely would have been champions in Archie’s era?

Would many of Floyd’s opponents have been champions?

Guys like Hatton (may he RIP) would have been a career WW in shark infested waters.


Would guys like Baldomir, Zab and Guerrero have been champions?

Even the best guys that Floyd fought, such as Canelo, may not have been champions.


Remember, not only did the JR divisions not exist, they also had same day weigh-ins.

Which means that Canelo would have spent most of his time as a MW-LHW in Archie’s era.

There was no ‘Canelo-weight’


So: You could make a case for Floyd on official stats, but I think that what Archie did at such an advanced age was more impressive and the bigger achievement.


Longevity:

Archie wins hands down.


Archie also took far more risks, and he was far more ambitious.

Imagine a 45-50 year old Floyd Mayweather, having fought a young Roy Jones.

That’s the kind of thing that Archie did when he fought Ali, after having amassed over 200 fights.


Overall:

Archie has to rank higher.


Floyd’s zero and his MODERN DAY stats, are not enough to put him above Archie Moore.

Floyd could not physically have fought as many fights.

Floyd absolutely could not have retired undefeated, had he have fought so frequently, and if he’d have fought the same quality of opposition.


Try and ponder the equivalent of Archie having fought Burley and Ezzard Charles x 3 etc.

It would have been like Floyd having fought members of the ‘Fab Four’ etc.


The overall view:

Even with the losses, Archie had the better overall career, where he was far more proven.

 

I love Ray and Roy, but I don’t see how they can rank higher.

 

Archie Moore P4P better than Floyd Mayweather???? NBDS (Nostalgia Boxing Delusion Syndrome) strikes again. And so many??!! Archie wouldn’t even be top 25 probably not top 50. Floyd is probably top 5 maybe 3. Definitely top 10.

 

It’s not just the schedule.

It’s the quality of opposition.


Under similar conditions, his zero could never have existed.


Let’s be honest here:

Most people voting for Floyd, are doing so because of the zero.

 

Hopefully you’re trolling.


Floyd top 5?

Top 10?

Maybe top 3??


The guy never even fought a prime ATG in his life.


What criteria are you using?


Floyd didn’t have more overall ability.

He didn’t fight guys anywhere near as good as Archie’s opponents.

He doesn’t have a better group of wins.

He doesn’t have better longevity.

His zero and his stats, are from a modern, 4 org era, with 17 weight classes, where guys like Baldomir and Guerrero could obtain belts.


There is no objective criteria that puts Floyd ahead.


Who are the absolute best guys who Floyd ever fought?

A 36 year old Manny.

A 34 year old Oscar, who’d not fought in a year, and who’d only fought once in 3 years, and who retired the following year?

A young Canelo, who’d barely done anything, and who could barely beat Lara and Trout?


Archie fought prime versions of the ‘BMR’, Patterson, Charles, Marciano and Ali etc.

The comparisons are ridiculous.


If you think that Floyd is top 10, and that Archie isn’t a top 25 ATG, then it’s YOU who you should be looking at, not others.


If you’re not trolling, your boxing knowledge is ZERO.

YOU are the one who’s being biased, not the guys who’ve voted for Moore.


Go and educate yourself.