pacquiao questions

Fair enough list....all opinions, (just like mine) but at least looks valid and balanced across respective eras.

 

.
Manny and Floyd share equally the fight not happening. Just because Manny is the more liked/loved fighter, does not give him a pass or make him exempt. I am not a fan of either, and both could have made this happen. They (THEY) chose not to

 

Honestly, half those names I wouldn’t have on that list. No knock on them but where are their vids, how do we put their wins into context? I mean John l Sullivan was whooping street fighters and a lot of people rate him, and a lot of the fighters you listed aren’t too far done from that era.

We rate Armstrong highly cos he ruled over 3 weights, Pac did it over 8-10, and 4-5 of them was original weights from Armstrong’s era.

Also how do you rate a win, I mean when somebody beats a champ from 1900 it’s considered a win, beat a champ today and it’s considered average win. Pac beat near 30 former or current champs.

I honestly find it hard to put any fighter before 1930 in a greatest list. Same with Langford, it was too early. Do you remember when Royce Gracie were beating up HWs? Well that’s what happens when the talent pool is much lower, a small man can come up and overcome huge size advantage.

However as everyone gets far more skilled as a whole, that becomes almost impossible. Only 20 years on into UFC and it’s impossible for a WW to compete at HW, yet Royce Gracie was doing this 20 years ago.

So I’d rate being able to go up in weight today as a much harder task than back in the days, because it’s much harder to make the differential in skills gap. At SHW for example, Jess Willard isn’t waiting for you, you got 6’9 guys who can move like LHWs.

Of that list I would probably remove 70% of them. I also see great bias there, like 80% on your list are from fighters are from before 1950, shows a bias towards the older fighters records. Different era, they fought more, so what, also meant less training.

I’d also argue against Ali being in the top 10. He’s the greatest as a character, but h2h record. He beat foreman, frazier, Liston, norton. But let’s put it into context, how good were these guys? Was foreman p4p top 5 at the time, Liston, norton, Frazier? Cos beating champs is all good, but how is Frazier any better than day Bradley h2h? Let’s stack their record against each other. Bradley has Pac, jmm, Alexander, Peterson, Vargas, provodnikov and a few more champs on his record.

Frazier has Ali, quarry, bugner? Chuvalo on his record.

Seems to me Bradley had a better resume, we just glorify Frazier more for obvious reasons.

 

He ducked Floyd. Afraid of needles, meanwhile, how did he get those tattoos.

 

That's pretty close to my own thinking. Anyway, that's why I left Fitzsimmons off, and nearly left Greb and Langford off too. There's a little footage of Langford and Gans that doesn't blow me away, but Langford is in because of his record and Greb is in because I've seen footage of the guys he beat. I love Ali, but he had size advantage in most of his fights, and the quality of his opponents wasn't as good as the very best have faced. Duran had to face Leonard, Hagler, and Hearns. Ali only had to face Frazier, Liston, and Foreman. Joe Louis and Ali are truly epically great but I can't have them in my top 10.

I feel like lots of guys who fought 200 times have more good wins than Pac and Floyd. Tommy Loughran, Holman Williams, Jimmy Bivins, Emile Griffith, etc. But then I use the eye test and think that Pac and May were just more skilled, more gifted athletically, more elite. Maxie Rosenbloom's record has more big name victories on it than Pac and May's put together, but he wasn't even considered a top ten p4per in his own era.

Philly's list makes sense though if you know a lot about the pre-footage fighters and think that their era was just as good as todays. I don't know as much about them, and like you I think that the first three decades of the gloved era were a time of improving skills, much like in mma. I can tell guys in the twenties have what it takes to compete today, but some of the footage before that looks questionable.

 

Honestly, using the eye test, I can only see SRR being able to compete with today’s WW and he looked damm good. He looked like a modern fighter in an old era.

I think people are being disingenuous when they see guys like jack Dempsey and think that could compete with today’s hw or even cw. You watch a highlight vid of Tyson or even Floyd Patterson, or Frazier and compare it to Dempsey. Joe Louis was cracking everyone because he’s another guy who looked like he had skills in an era where fighters fought with gloves on their chest and chin up.

https://goo.gl/images/3sbxh1

 

I don't understand the logic of people who rank Robert Duran over SRL

 

He beat SRL despite being the smaller guy. P4P means pound4pound, if thats not a demonstration of p4p I don't know what is.

 

Duran is 1-2 against SRL. He was also destroyed by Thomas Hearns. Lost a decision against Hagler and Wilfredo Benitez. Three individuals that were beaten by SRL. Except for the first SRL fight, Duran has loses against all the top 4 fighters from that era.

 

Yes a LW went H2H with one of the best WW's of all time, got wrecked by one of the best SMW's of all time, and gave a tough fight to one of the best MW's of all time.

I could see the argument for SRL but Duran had a longer career, and he was a natural LW fighting a natural WW and beat him in his prime. Everyone knows he was a fat ******* for his 2nd fight and 3rd, does that even count? They were old men.

If GGG goes up to HW, fighters Joshua and gives him hell, does that confirm that Joshua is the greater fighter?

 

You guys and your excuses. All those guys Duran lost to also went on to have success above their weight classes. SRL came out of retirement to beat arguably the greatest Middleweight in history. Because a fighter started at a particular weight class does not necessarily mean it's their natural weight class. Duran started his career around the age of 17. I mean, you don't expect a 17 year old with good nutrition to maintain the same size they were at the age of 17 to when they're in their late 20's early 30s. Our body changes as we age, that's what I'm trying to say.

I don't even know why you're bringing up GGG. That guy is the most overrated fighter of the last 10 years arguably. Spent his whole career claiming that everyone was docking him while knocking out scrubs on HBO boxing after dark. When he finally stepped up, he lost to a blown up Welterweight. What's his best win, Jacobs? I had him losing that fight too, but what do I know, the judges gave him W. His fans has used weight as excuses to justify his blatant docking. The smaller guy that he recently lost to in his fight is has now moved up 168. Which exposes how ridiculous the "small middle" weight label attached to him by his supporters were.

 

Jack Dempsey was a brawler who got by on having an all time great punch. He doesn't look as good on tape as technicians like Gene Tunney who would dominate today's light heavyweight scene. Go watch Gene Tunney vs Tommy Gibbons and you will see modern skills. Also, Benny Leonard vs Lew Tendler and Mickey Walker vs Tommy Loughran are going to show you some real skills on display from the 1920s. Joe Louis in the 30s was a great technician. Some of his opponents don't look spectacular because that's the heavyweight division. Mike Tyson used to destroy people and make them look like garbage the same way in the 80s/early 90s.

 

He beat SRL period. Hes the greatest fighter of the color TV era. I dont rate HWs with lower weights though its impossible.

 

Did I say he didn't beat Leonard? You can't be the greatest fighter of your era when you're 1-5 against 4 best fighters of your generation. We won't be having this conversation if Leonard wasn't dumb enough to fight his fight.

 

I dont care. He came up for Lightweight and beat Leonard.