Archie Moore Number One p4p?

[RubenSonny]

No, I was just curious as to what his reasoning is. I have seen him call into question many people's list and why they have people ranked in a certain spot and I was just curious what it is that he personally knows of Robinson and Archie Moore to disregard it, other than general consensus. If somebody were to use their knowledge and reasoning and rank Moore #1 and could make a case, who is to disagree with it?

That was my only point.

Thats a fair point, many reduce opinions down to general consensus when they are ignorant to the details, I don't think thats the case with BigS though.

[The Surgeon]

Im just thinking here, is Archie Moore the most generally respected and well liked fighter there is? I mean guys like Tyson and Ali will always have more die hard fans but they also have haters, EVERYBODY likes Archie, havent heard a bad word spoken about him!

[CarlosG815]

It's a fair question, but it seems to me that the only reason he's up there is his absurd number of KO's. To be honest, I don't have a p4p list because my mind changes too often, but I can call foul where I see it. I guess I should work on establishing my list, though.

That is the thing about lists. They are 100% opinion based and there is no right or wrong but only what the person making the lists thinks of those fighters and where the accomplishments rank in the list makers mind. There are thousands upon thousands of fighters who were greater than we could have ever imagined yet we know nothing about them, not even their names.

If I were to rank Ted Kid Lewis as the p4p greatest fighter in the world, and I do believe that a strong case could be made, many people would just down my throat and scream "Robinson" simply because that is the accepted answer to "Who is the greatest p4p all time" without knowing anything of Ted Kid Lewis.

A great fighter is a great fighter and when talking about greats the only real way you can classify them and get a general consensus of those who agree would be to classify them as "Great" or "Not great." If I rank Mike Tyson over Joe Louis, that is my opinion and can't really be thrown out if I can make a case as to what signifies greatness. However, if somebody claims that Peter McNeely is greater than Mike Tyson, we can argue that, because McNeely does not rank with the greats.

That's just how I see it and it's one of the reason's I don't really make lists. What happens when you discover 10 fighters you never saw before and they blow you away? Now you have to rework the entire list. Another problem with lists is that it seems once a fighter gets on a list, he never comes off, and it's hard to find room for any new fighters, regardless of how great they are.

[BigStereotype]

That is the thing about lists. They are 100% opinion based and there is no right or wrong but only what the person making the lists thinks of those fighters and where the accomplishments rank in the list makers mind. There are thousands upon thousands of fighters who were greater than we could have ever imagined yet we know nothing about them, not even their names.

If I were to rank Ted Kid Lewis as the p4p greatest fighter in the world, and I do believe that a strong case could be made, many people would just down my throat and scream "Robinson" simply because that is the accepted answer to "Who is the greatest p4p all time" without knowing anything of Ted Kid Lewis.

A great fighter is a great fighter and when talking about greats the only real way you can classify them and get a general consensus of those who agree would be to classify them as "Great" or "Not great." If I rank Mike Tyson over Joe Louis, that is my opinion and can't really be thrown out if I can make a case as to what signifies greatness. However, if somebody claims that Peter McNeely is greater than Mike Tyson, we can argue that, because McNeely does not rank with the greats.

That's just how I see it and it's one of the reason's I don't really make lists. What happens when you discover 10 fighters you never saw before and they blow you away? Now you have to rework the entire list. Another problem with lists is that it seems once a fighter gets on a list, he never comes off, and it's hard to find room for any new fighters, regardless of how great they are.

The bolded is why I avoid making a list. I like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable, but I have only been following the sport for about a year and a half. I still have so many of the old-timers to learn about that I feel ****** putting one out there because I just haven't seen enough.

[Steak]

its quite arguable, when you add up all that Moore did. although he never had the upper hand on Charles, he beat a ton of good fighters, including the #1 contender at HW, Nino Valdez.

then you add in the fact that he was still KOing top fighters at 45 years old, despite having a full career and having fought about 1000+ rounds. Amazing fighter, really.

hilarious guy too. I always loved his running joke of how old he was.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

BoxRec's computerised ranking system has long been an Internet in-joke. Every man & his dog knows that ratings system, for both present & retired fighters, could be trumped by the Boxing knowledge of a 7-year-old. If you found Hamed above Sanchez all-time, for instance, I'm not surprised. That is par for the course.

[SCtrojansbaby]

They also have the Klitscko's at #3 and 4 p4p currently. And if they retired today, their points would have them at #6 and 7 all time, ahead of Holmes. So while you shouldn't be completely shocked that Moore would rank so high, I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in their point system based rankings.

The points change for all time rankings