Cos they don't. Ray is arguably top 20 - had Roy taken on and beaten Lennox rather than Ruiz, he would break top 15, but he would likely need to retire after the first Tarver fight. I don't put too much on past prime losses but getting slumped in the manner that he started to definitely has detracted from the memory of how mercurial he looked in his pomp.
The ATG argument is silly because for whatever reason people can find themselves in eras without ATGs to fight. You don't get to just dismiss someone because their contemporaries didn't achieve greatness.
Ray has some great wins, but he doesn’t have a deep resume, and he didn’t have much longevity. He wasn’t that active either. Everyone who knows me knows that I love Roy. His past prime losses aren’t that notable. But IMHO, he doesn’t have the wins to be rated so highly.
How is it silly? Yes, the fighters absolutely need the OPPORTUNITY to fight prime greats. Yes, some fighters are fortunate that they can fight them, where some fighters are unfortunate. Two great modern day examples would be Oscar De La Hoya and Terence Crawford. Look at who Oscar was able to fight. Look at who Terence has fought. It’s just circumstances. However, fairly or unfairly, the majority of the time, a great fighter who fought and beat prime ATG’s, will rank higher than someone who hasn’t, whether or not they had the opportunity to do so. A fighter maybe fortunate or unfortunate, but we can use the same ranking criteria. Now we can say that apart from Manny Pac, and possibly Cotto, that Floyd never had the opportunity to fight a modern day great. He didn’t have the opportunity to fight prime versions of Canelo, Oscar and Shane etc. That wasn’t his fault. However, how can we rank him in the top 5-10 of all time, or recognise him as being THE GOAT, when he never fought a prime ATG, and where his best wins were over a young Canelo, and faded versions of Manny and Oscar. It can’t be fair to the guys like Archie, to rank Floyd higher, when he fought lesser competition, and he never proved that he could beat a prime ATG.
That is correct. Now maybe he could have beaten prime versions of everyone he fought. We don’t know. But we know that he didn’t. Therefore, it’s very hard to give him a top 10 of all time ranking.
I commend anyone who puts a very thoughtful list together. I respect them. I respect it. Of course it’s subjective. Ray is one my favourite ever fighters. I was an 80’s kid. However, under my criteria, Ray didn’t do enough. His resume isn’t deep enough, his best wins aren’t on another level, his overall ability wasn’t on another level, and he doesn’t have the longevity in order to put him ahead of Archie. He had less than 40 fights, and had huge periods of inactivity. I’m not sure what criteria would be used in order to rank him higher.
For a bit of fun, try and swap the fighters over, where they fought in each others era. Archie wouldn’t have fought at HW in the modern era. It’s highly unlikely. IMHO, he’d probably have started at JMW. With his great skills, given the right opportunities, fighting from 1996-2015, (Floyd’s era) Archie could have fought from JMW-LHW. Now look at his potential opposition. In a world with 4 belts. Now drop Floyd and his opponents into Archie’s world, with only 1-2 belts, and no Junior divisions and no day before weigh-ins. People laude over Floyd for having been a 5 weight champion, where he beat 23 world champions, and where he was unbeaten. However, how many divisions would he have fought in, back in Archie’s era? How many divisions would he have won belts in? It wouldn’t have been 5. He wouldn’t have been undefeated, had he have fought as frequently, or against the same level of opposition. He wouldn’t have beaten 23 world champions. Guys like Ortiz, Baldomir, Hatton and Guerrero, may never have seen belts. Canelo may never have seen a belt. The stats of both fighters would be completely different in every way. Archie would likely have been more accomplished, with more belts in more divisions, whereas Floyd would have been far less accomplished. Of course it’s subjective and we can only guess what may have happened, although I’d say that what I’ve said would have been more than likely. Floyd was a genius. But his zero and his stats that people love to push on you, are not as amazing as what most people think. Not when you apply context. Again, he would absolutely not have retired at 50-0, had he have fought under the same circumstances/conditions, back in the era that Archie fought in. If you’d have swapped their eras over, a lot of people would hold a very different viewpoint to the one that they currently have. 100%
Again, I commend anyone’s list. They’re very difficult and very subjective. However, I don’t agree that Floyd, Roy, Manny and Ray, rank higher than Archie. Pea is a huge surprise too. The guy was a genius. But does he have the resume, the wins and the accomplishments etc, in order to rate so highly? It would be very interesting to see what criteria has been used.
How many fighters could you put forth that match his top 4 of Duran, Benitez, Hagler and Duran? His top end is obscene.