Prime Archie Moore vs Prime Oleksandr Usyk

Archie Moore was a great, great fighter.

Usyk has never fought anyone as great as a prime Archie Moore.

He had incredible technical skills.

Usyk has only had 24 fights.

He’s not some unbeatable god.

He could barely beat Breidis at CW.

 

What are the specifics of the amateur fights though mate?

Who did he fight?

What level were they all at?

How old were both guys?

What level of intensity were they fought at?

They are simply incomparable to having fought over 200 pro fights, and especially in Moore’s era, under those rules, with those gloves and the number of rounds etc.

Usyk is currently 38. He’s only had 24 pro fights.

It’s anyone’s guess what shape he’d be in now, had he have been in his 40‘s with a 200 fight pro resume.

He might not have been able to have physically fought Marciano.

Rocky wasn’t slow either.

 

Couple things...
I agree that 1 pro fight >>1 am fight but there is some equation that can reasonably compare the two; but I don't have that equation. I'm only saying the am fights DO mean SOMETHING. And come on, in Moores day there were many boxers who wouldn't be competitive now. Everyone boxed. Including some with poor abilities. Moore definitely fought many great boxers but certainly there were a whole lot of local yokels on his resume, whereas nearly every one of Usyks opponents were top teir guys.

There is no way that modern boxers will end up with 100 fights. There simply aren't that many boxers out there. If we rely on that metric we'll never rank anyone who fought in the 21st century as a top 20 or higher boxer. And we will be totally eliminating boxers from the former SovietUnion from consideration as top 20+ boxers.

No, Rocky wasn't slow....but compared to Usyk he's a lawnmower to Usyks space ship....and I love Rocky. Just calling it as I see it.

 

Yes, the amateurs mean something. It’s wear and tear. Training and fighting. But again, it can’t be compared to pro fights, even if the opponent is of a really low calibre.

You’re talking about 3 round fights with head gear, with many being when he was a young kid/teen, to a professional fight against a man, in scheduled 10-15 round fights.

Yes, some of Moore’s opponents were low level. But they were also very capable guys too, who never got fame and reached the top. Fighting and sparring every month at pro level would definitely accumulate more wear and tear than a young man fighting a 3 round amateur fight. That much of I’m certain of.

Yes, we’ll never see the likes of Archie Moore again, fighting so often. But I don’t use it against modern fighters that they don’t fight so often.

My criteria is always the same.

The five most important factors are:

Ability
Overall resume
Best wins
Accomplishments
Longevity

I love Usyk. And Rocky. And Archie.

And it’s all subjective.

Could Rocky have beaten a prime Moore?

How would Rocky have looked/fared, if he’d have fought 220 times instead of 49?

How would Usyk have looked?

Could a 220 pro fight Usyk have beaten Rocky?

There’s endless questions to ponder.

Nobody knows the answers to them.

But I always like to be fair and apply context.

 

I've been thinking of making a spreadsheet that uses several metrics by which I could make a ranked list of boxers. In my job with an oil company I routinely made such sheets using scientific parameters to judge the risk/rewards of drilling an exploratory well. Ultimately it became a subjective exercise despite using objective data. Bit hey...we had to do something to relax risk averse management.

I was thinking about these parameters:

Physical strength
Mental strength
Opponents records
Titles (attempts and results)
Fights vs BHOF opponents

The first two are totally subjective.
Records can be obtained; fir example if boxer A's opponents had a won/loss record of 55% vs boxer B and his opponents w/l record of 45%

Number of titles (your accomplishments) however would be totally leaning towards modern boxing with the plethora of belts. Is an Aztec belt an accomplishment? Interim North American Intercontinental belt?

Anyway...I'll probably never do it. Too lazy I guess.

 

That’s very interesting regarding your job mate.

That would be a good idea regarding the fighters.

It’s hard.

It’s hard to find true, fair criteria.

I always question statistics.

I always have.

I respect them, but they don’t always allow for context.

It’s like where people are ranked.

And the number of title defences they have etc.

I always have people trying to convince me that Floyd is the GOAT, based upon his number of world champions fought.

 

Henry Armstrong winning belts at wide divisions poops on Floyd HOWEVER we have to give props to Manny who went way low to way high. With some chemistry involved but still...