Who is greater P4P Floyd Mayweather or Archie Moore?

Confused by the Floyd hate. You got to witness greatness live. What he did I truly don’t think will be accomplished again. I don’t mean the undefeated thing I mean his boxing ability. It will be a long time before you see someone that good again. His ability to dominate great fighters was a joy to watch once you get past the fact you know it won’t be a thriller

 

I agree.

You can argue that his top wins are better than almost everyone else’s.

But for me, Archie has a better group of overall wins.

It’s a bigger list.

He has a deeper overall resume/list of wins.

He fought many, many more fights.

He was still beating competent fighters into his 40’s, even after he’d had around 200 fights.

Ray was great. But he didn’t have many fights. He didn’t have great longevity.

He was exceptionally skilled, in a completely different way, but not more skilled than Archie, as in - if you were to look at footage of them, there isn’t a noticeable gap in ability. Not in my opinion. They were greatly skilled, with different styles. Obviously Ray was much faster.

Under my specific criteria, I can’t rank Ray ahead.

Obviously other people may have different ranking criteria.

If someone said that when they were both at their best, Ray was equal, or even slightly better, I would never argue against that.

But under the traditional criteria that I use, Archie had the better overall career where he accomplished more.

 

I don’t think there’s any hate.

Floyd was a great fighter.

But there’s been other great fighters too.

Also, Floyd wasn’t a good advocate for the sport in the latter stages of his career.

 

This must be a candidate for ‘worst post of the year’ so far

Cringeworthy.

 

I think your grossly overrating somebody and its not Moore or Floyd it’s yourself and your knowledge. So let me educate you ya see Moore actually lost badly to a smallish heavyweight also named Floyd just by coincidence. That Floyd not only iced with him with one punch 5th round but he totally outclassed him for the whole fight. Mayweather who I think you may know beat the record of another guy who knocked out Moore R Marciano. 50 and 0 fighting the best fighters of his era in multiple weight classes.
Moore was a very good LH despite not getting a shot till he was very old. When he won the title he said he didn’t make a big celebration because he should have gotten the chance to win it 14 years earlier. Before end of WW 2 black fighters were often passed over for title shots and opportunities to work with top management. Had he got that shot 14 years earlier who knows maybe he would have developed into the fighter you envision him as.

 

You’re going to educate me?

You??


The guy who think’s that Floyd’s a top 10 ATG?

Get real.


You have zero knowledge of Moore.

Zero knowledge of Floyd.

You cannot apply context to anything.

You’re just a casual fan who tries to debate on statistics.


Archie Moore was a great fighter.

It doesn’t matter if he lost to Floyd Patterson and Rocky Marciano.


Do you know why?

Because at the time, he was literally in his 40’s, with a 180 fights on his resume, whereas they were in their primes, as well as being awful stylistic match ups for him.

Context.


He had those losses. Along with others. But it’s okay. Because that’s what happens when you put it all on the line.

He also had great wins too.

Better wins than what Floyd had.


Now let’s look at your guy:

When Archie was fighting guys like Marciano, Floyd was having exhibitions against tiny Japanese kick-boxers.

Floyd never fought a prime ATG in his entire career.

He took various vacations.

He would never have fought the calibre of guys who Archie fought.

He had less than a quarter of the fights that Archie had.

Whilst Archie fought the ‘BMR’ guys, as well as Floyd, Rocky and Ali etc, the best guys that Floyd ever fought, were: A 36 year old Manny, a 34 year old, end of career Oscar, who’d only fought once in 3 years, and a young Canelo who could barely beat Lara and Trout.


Archie Moore was a legend. A great fighter. He lost, simply because he fought legendary prime fighters, and he often fought twice in the same month.

He didn’t fight in a 4 belt, 18 class modern era, against LESSER fighters, where he was a cautious businessman.


Now give us a laugh, and tell me why we should rank Floyd in the top 10, when he has ZERO wins over any prime greats, and he could barely beat Oscar, Castillo and Maidana.

I can’t wait for your breakdown.


Also, if Floyd could barely beat Castillo in his 20’s, and he struggled with Maidana in his 30’s, it should be obvious to anyone that he’d have had no chance with a fighter like Rocky Marciano, and especially into his 40’s.

Floyd never proved that he could beat the guys who Archie beat.

We don’t know if he could have beaten a Marshall or a Burley. And again, there’s also a huge question of whether he’d even have signed the contracts to have fought guys of that calibre.


What we do know for certain, is this:

Floyd could never have retired undefeated fighting under the same conditions that Archie did.

 

Hi Loudon.
Your repost was a tour de force of precise and excellent knowledge of both the combatants, particularly in the case of Moore, who Steve called " a good LHW " doh !! as for him educating you, that was both condescending and inaccurate, I have no dog in this fight, but for me you and your expert analysis of who was greater carries the day, bravo.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

Thanks my good man.

 

I agree Moore is probably ahead of Ray, not by a long way however. I was commenting on the point you don't believe Ray has the fights to be arguably top 20. He does in my book.

To each their own of course.

 

Btw, those who want to discredit Moore due to his losses vs his best opponents really need to reassess where they rank someone like Duran if they have him in their top 10, or thereabouts.

Moore got shut-out by Burley ? Well, Duran got shut-out by Benitez.

Lost the trilogy to Charles ? Duran performed the worst quit job in history vs Leonard and got smashed in 2 by Hearns.

Overwhelmed by Marciano ? Duran got overwhelmed by Hagler, who wasn't the P4P brute Marciano was.

Moore lost to lesser guys like Morrow and Hall ? Duran lost to guys like Laing and Sims.

Moore lost to Patterson at 40 ? Duran lost to Pat Lawlor at 40.

If you're hesitant on where you rank Moore, but easily brush aside Duran's losses to have him in the top 10 without much thought other than "he wasn't at his best in those fights for XYZ reason, and his losses aren't enough to diminish the rest of his achievements", then you're doing something very, very wrong.

 

That sounds about right to me. I have both Moore and SRL in the 20, with Moore ahead by a few notches.


EDIT: I Posted too soon - On checking again, I notice Ray currently sits just outside my 20.

 

I think there's a seriously good argument Ray should be in the top 30. Just inside or outside the 20 seems a ok to me.

 

Moore didn’t get a chance at the championship till he was 40. He was a good LH in a weak division and couldn’t beat the good heavyweights like Paterson Marciano Charles and wouldn’t have beaten Walcott.
Anyone who doesn’t know Mayweather is had a alltime great career and is one of the best P4P shouldn’t be bragging about how knowledgeable he is. You obviously know very little or you liked Moore growing up and something bothers you about Mayweather that makes you dislike him that clouds your judgement. You need to free your mind or stay in your delusion.

 

It's funny, it'd be about 20 years ago when i proclaimed Benitez beat Duran 13 rounds to 2. I got some opposition, quite a few had far more generous cards and wouldn't remotely entertain 2 rounds. The official cards were a disgrace, way worse than the Hagler ones. Benitez winning by 1, 3 and 4 points was disgraceful. The AP had it 147-138, the UPI 148-139. Those cards were way more on the money.

I'm in your corner and right behind your cause but this one doesn't really fit IMO. Maybe it's a typo. Even with reasonable cards Duran's effort against Hagler was commendable and he actually broke Hagler's 8 fight KO streak including his title win. It's a notable career plus.

 

Oh yeah, people would think Duran had some Canelo esque connections if he fought today and had cards like these

I like Duran's effort vs Hagler myself, even if I scored it 11-4 and could see it no closer than 9-6 (by being incredibly generous to Duran). If there's a loss that doesn't hurt him in the slightest, it's that one. Usually with losses, I'm of the mentality that they don't diminish your wins and your career achievements (unless they're really bad and/or plentiful), but that they merely hold you back from further greatness. Hagler is one of those rare ones where I think it's appropriate to give the loser some extra points.

You can't really say that with Moore vs Marciano, but I firmly believe that an 160 lbs Marciano wouldn't care about a smaller, older Duran's smarts and just pound him like he did Archie and inevitably stop him. Hence the comparison (plus there's no way you can compare any of the fab 4 other than Hagler to Marciano). I more-so wanted to note how it doesn't hurt Moore, it simply stops him from being a top 6 lock all time.

On a side note, Duran is ****ing delusional for thinking the judges jobbed him vs Hagler