In order for someone like pac to ever compete with srr or Henry Armstrong as a goat

You must be high. SRR has all the speed and technique of Pac and Floyd but the size and power of Golovkin. He would murder them.

 

Pac only won 2 of his previous 5 before facing Floyd, once by brutal ko. 6 fights before Floyd he was arguably beaten on points.

Sometimes greats go on losing streaks when they fight at a higher level.

Have you seen these losses of Gavilan and Basilio? Did they look bad, did they get the short shrift on the cards? Was there any injuries? You have to consider a lot of factors when being a boxrec warrior.

 

If I recall correctly Basilio took a lot of losses early in his career, kind of like Salido. Gavilan has a pretty good record but like twenty losses almost in a row at the end of his career before he hung them up. Doesn't necessarily mean anything. You have to watch them fight and see who they fought to really get a gauge for how good they were.

 

I have watched plenty of footage of SRR and what you are saying is absurd. He is not faster than Pacquiao and definitely not got the technique of Floyd. You must be high power of Golovkin pmsl

Fighters back in the day do not have the advantages fighters of today have and even if you are an ATG back then you were fighting other fighters that did not have 3 month training camps, dieticians and so many more benefits that they have today. Keep dreaming chump

 

How do you think Pac or Floyd would do vs prime Duran or Tommy Hearns?

 

Pretty sure either guy would knock out Pac and Floyd. Pac and Floyd are slightly better boxers than Hearns but his height, reach, and power would just be too much for them at welterweight. Duran was a monster and you can see what that reach and power did to him. Maybe, Leonard, Robinson, and Walker should be placed ahead of Hearns H2H at welterweight but other than that it's so hard to think of anybody at welterweight beating him. Mayweather's tricks work great for people shorter than him with less reach, but his style just wouldn't work for Hearns who could punch him from across the ring. Floyd could lean back and still get punched in the face. He'd just have to run away the whole fight. Pac is an all different story. He'd come right in guns blazing and have his lights shut out like what happened to Duran. As for what Duran would do with them, he'd just outwork them and make them look bad kind of like what he did with Ken Buchanan or Carlos Palomino.

 

Good post but I'm not sure I agree with Pac and Floyd being better boxers than Hearns. Hearns was out boxing Leonard ffs. Hearns was a fantastic boxer.

 

For Pac to be an arguable GOAT like Armstrong, he'd need to beat Canelo-Khan winner for the lineal middleweight title, and would have to defend his title against a good middleweight beltholder (not necessarily Golovkin, beating Golovkin would make him GOAT undoubtedly lol).

 

Yup. There's no boxer in history that is better at point-scoring than Tommy Hearns. Also, he had monstrous power. He is Top 5 of all time in terms of head-to-head ability.

 

Spot on.

It's rossco btw. My rossco666 account was perma-banned by some butt hurt mod.

 

Good fighters were defeated often back then. Because they fought so many fights.

Could you imagine if I proclaimed somebody to be greatest fighter today who'd got 19 losses on his resume?

People would want me sectioned.

Ray Robinson lost 19 times. It seems an awful lot. But it's not really such a bad thing when you consider the circumstances such as: How many fights he had, his age during most of his losses etc.

Being defeated back then was no big deal. Most guys fought every month.

Even modern greats like Floyd Mayweather could NEVER have gone undefeated with the schedule they had back then, and that's even if he'd have fought low ranked guys.

People like you see an old fighters record and just assume that because they lost a good number of times, they couldn't have been good fighters. Again, that's not the case.