Top 10 ATG List and Why Pac is #2

There's a lot of people in denial in here, seeing the old times with rose-tinted glasses. You have people who are in disbelief to have Pac and Floyd mentioned in the Top 10, let alone in the top 5, their generic response is "somewhere in the top 20" without actually dissecting why.

Here's why, and you may argue against it and that's fair, but to say there is no argument is simply bias and quite frankly, ridiculous.

First of all, I'd like to preface this with the fact that it's very difficulty to compare old-old time fighters with modern fighters. So here are some of my counterarguments to people overrating the older fighters:

1. Guys like Sam Langford went from LW to HW already.
He was fighting in a primitive sport, look at the tapes and look at their primitive styles. And some will argue that was effective, sure, it's still damm primitive.

UFC is the best example of this, Royce Gracie was a middleweight-sized man yet he was the champion of ALL weight classes. As the class of opponents go up, the weight becomes a bigger issue. Sam Langford beating primitive HWs is not much different to Floyd beating up on Logan Paul, I'd argue that Logan would probably have some success in 1900 looking at the way Jess Willard fought but hey, just my opinion.

2. Boxing was more popular back then and therefore more competitive.
Pre 1940's, boxing was more of an American sport, in fact, the NBA which preceded the WBA didn't form until the 1920s(?) and people can claim that there were more boxers then than now - no proof. Boxrec data is incomplete. It also doesn't account for all the amateur boxers today, there were far more pros back then and far less amateurs. These days, only the amateurs with potential decide to go pro for the most part. Considering the amateur boxing programmes all over the world, take Russia, China and Cuba alone and there is far more competition today.

3. The older fighters fought so many HOFers.
It's also the case that as history progresses, fighters of today are competing with all of their peers today AND the past 100 years for that ATG status, so attaining that ATG status becomes harder than say, in 1920, when Harry Greb was beating HOF'ers but those HOF'ers was in context to only 10-20 years of boxing history at that point.

So when you beat someone who is an ATG at WW today, you're beating someone who is an ATG WW over the span of 120 years, across the world. In 1920s, beating an ATG WW meant you beat someone who is one of the best WWs in America of the past 20 or so years.

4. The older fighters fought more often and on shorter notice.
Yes, they did, so did their opponents. Boxing just became a more high-stakes game today. Instead of fighting every other Sunday and fighting the local shopkeeper to fill the time, now, it has become a lot more elite.

Boxers would train 8-12 weeks at a time, preparing, studying their opponents. In many ways, this is more difficult to deal with. SRR fought every other Sunday, his opponents were not fresh from a 12-week camp dissecting his style, preparing with tailor sparring partners to beat him.

In places like Mexico and Panama, there are plenty of fighters with similar records, Jorge Castro of Argentina for example had 130 wins with 11 losses and 90KOs. Their culture of boxing is very similar to that of the US in the 20s, fight every other Sunday against anyone.

So here is the list:

1. Ray Robinson
He was a pioneer in many ways, the first "modern" looking fighter of the old era. It's difficult to get perspective on just how good his HOF opponents were, but there were just far too many of them and he was probably the greatest boxer through the 40s to 50s. Being the greatest WW ever and one of the greatest MW ever and nearly beating a top LHW is very difficult to accomplish.

Head to head, perhaps the most complete boxer ever, at least for his time. Find me someone with that level of skills, speed, power, chin, stamina and aggression - I can't think of anyone. Mike Tyson/SRL maybe?

I think the only way to top this guy today is if someone came along and fought 5 times a year beating nobody but champions over a period of 20 years across multiple weight classes.

Top Wins that could compete in any era? LaMotta, Basilio, Armstrong, Fullmer, Graziano, Armstrong, Gavilan, Basilio, Zivic, Angott.

2. Manny Pacquiao
I said it. Champion over 4 decades. 8 weight classes across 10 weight divisions with 5 of them lineal. Oldest WW champion in history. He's so far ahead of the competition that he was already an ATG before Thurman even turned pro. Fighters that were considered the new generation of WWs after him are already retired. Fought over 20 world champions and 10+ HOFers. People tend to rate the old timers due to the frequency with which they fought, but 26 out of the last 28 of Pac's opponents has been world champions.

This guy has repeatedly done the impossible. From being a malnourished Filipino teenager to ktfo the lineal FlyW champ. Then to do what he did to Ledwaba was shocking by all accounts. What he did to MAB was shocking. What he did to ODLH, Hatton, Cotto was shocking. Coming back to beat Thurman like that was shocking.

What makes him that special is he is basically a LW competing at WW. Every WW is bigger than him on fight night, every JWW is bigger than him (how many think Taylor weigh less than him on fight night?), even the LWs outweigh him. The LW's he fought in Rios, Horn, both massively outweighed him on fight night. He was supposed to have been too small for 130lb. Someone is going to have to find me a lineal champ at any weight only to go up 9 weight divisions and still be an ATG at their 9th weight class over the past 70 years.

Another reason as to why his accomplishments are special: he is breaking records that spans over 120 years. When Langford was breaking records, he was doing so over a modern boxing history that span over 20 years.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Sasakul, MAB(x2), Morales(x2), JMM(x2), Ledwaba, Hatton, Cotto, Mosley, Bradley(x2), Thurman.

3. Henry Armstrong
For the simple fact that he held the titles at FW, LW, WW at the same time and was that close to getting the MW too. Some would say this is telling of the competition level, as you can't be this far ahead when everyone else is that good. But he came from a time period when boxing was somewhat modern and a competitive era too.

The reason why I have him above Ali is due to the fact that he has to be the best over 3 weight divisions. Ultimately, I'm guessing, 3x the talent pool vs that of a single weight division in HW. So it's naturally 3x harder to do. He wasn't picking and choosing either, he was THE champion across all those weight class, at the same time.

I could rank him lower due to the fact that he had such a short career. About 8 years. When we're talking greatness, you got to factor in longevity surely, they do so in other Sports. Why else is Tom Brady so highly regarded?

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Ross, Zivic, Ambers.

4. Muhammad Ali
I'm not sure where to place Ali. I think his legacy was helped a lot due to him being exiled from the sport. It allowed Frazier to establish himself as a champion. Had that not happen, perhaps Frazier would have just been another challenger notch on his record.

Nonetheless, you take who he beat and where they rank all time. Liston, Frazier, Foreman are all ATG HWs. I think all 3 get smoked today but they were all still ATGs. He also did this after being out of the ring for 4-5 years. His fights were legendary. He had longevity despite the boxing exile and was the first 3 time HW champion I believe.

You could argue for Ali being lower, but he had longevity and inspirational bouts.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Frazier, Liston, Foreman, Norton.

5. Sugar Ray Leonard
It's arguable that SRL ranks above Ali. His win over Hagler for example could rate higher than Ali's win over Foreman. He beat, arguably the greatest MW of all time whilst coming up in weight. However, the size difference between SRL and Hagler is probably similar to that of Ali and Foreman. He also didn't beat him as emphatically.

He could be higher but he had a relatively short career in terms of the number of bouts. Great few wins but the overall body of work is lacking compared to other ATGs.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez.

 

6. Floyd Mayweather
It stands to reason that statistically, arguably the top fighter of the last 2 decades would be in the top 10, given that there have only been about 12 decades of properly recorded boxing.

I rate him above Roberto Duran, simply because he has a better body of work. You look at his last 20 opponents and there is no streak in Duran's record with 20 opponents of similar class, all world champions.

In terms of single greatest wins, he has Pac, Canelo, ODLH, Cotto, Hatton, Castillo, Corrales, Hernandez. That is as good as any, considering Canelo may end up being the fighter of the decade and Manny is arguably the fighter of the decade over the last 2 decades. To top it all of, he's undefeated. He has a very strong case for being above Pac.

He is also a 5 weight division champion, he is smaller than most WWs. You could say that H2H, he is the best FW of all time, best LW of all time, best JWW of all time and one of the best WW of all time. Gun to my head and I wouldn't strongly favour anyone over him from 130-140, and I would only favour SRL and Hearns over him at WW. Although there are plenty I would consider as 50/50; healthy prime Pac, Duran, prime ODLH etc.

I rate him lower because he has never fought outside of the US, mostly Vegas. He has never had to worry about putting on a performance, stepping outside of his comfort zone, to prove to the judges and emphatically win. If he was travelling abroad and fought Maidana in Argentina, he would have a loss on his record, Pac in the Philippines, another loss, Castillo in Mexico, another loss, ODLH could have swung another way another night with different judges.

He has also never fought anyone with a longer reach than him, he is always the longer man. Fighters who are used to longer reach are usually exposed when they face someone who is equally talented but longer - Lewis/Vitaly, Wlad/Fury, heck he looked weird fighting Mcgregor due to the reach.

I care less about his undefeated record, but more about his overall body of work, which is undeniable. He might be the only one with a case for ranking above SRR - he fought everyone, beat them all. Before you all get crazy, it's all just perspective, Floyd was dominating on his 5th weight class, far ahead of his competition, SRR lost to Maxim at LHW. Forget the raw numbers and just look at how many champions they beat, I believe Floyd has SRR beat. (More champions today though but I believe the competition is stiffer due to it being a global sport, bite me).

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Pac, Canelo, ODLH, Cotto, Hatton, Castillo, Corrales, Hernandez.

7. Roberto Duran
I could rate Duran above SRL. He has a much longer body of work, he also beat SRL despite being at the size disadvantage and gave a very good account of himself vs Hagler.

However, as long as his record is, he wasn't exactly fighting one world champion after another. He lacks marquee wins over top fighters. Possibly only SRL and Buchanan would hold their own all-time at their respective weight classes.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Buchanan, Barkley, Moore, Cuevas, Jesus, SRL

8. Harry Greb
Harry Greb was a WW who beat the guy that beat Jack Dempsey. This is somewhat indicative of the general lack of quality, as this becomes much harder to do as the competition increases overall. It's also no coincidence that guys like Greb and Langford are from 1910-1920 and they were LW/WW fighting at HW, it can't be done today. Refer to the Logan Paul explanation above.

However, he's arguably the greatest MW of all time and he has 15 HOFers on his list and he still beat an ATG LHW in Tunney.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Gibbons, Loughran, Blackburn, Norfolk.

9. Sam Langford
I compare Sam to someone like Royce Gracie. He was the best in a primitive era where the gap in skill can be far larger. He was a LW that beat top HWs, he did to Jack Johnson what Duran did to Hagler.

His wins are the who's who of what someone like Bert Sugar would have on their ATG list. He has a very deep resume, over 200 bouts and his weight jumping is unbelievable, which must mean that he was head and shoulders above the rest of his competition at the time. I take it for what it is, you can't take away from his greatness, but I have to acknowledge it was 1910... the quality was still lacking.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Flowers, Gans, Ketchel, Jeanette, Wills, O'Brien.

10. Roy Jones Junior
RJJ is criminally underrated. The first MW to become a HW champ in a century? He was practically unbeatable, was the undefeated before Floyd made everyone obssess about being undefeated.

His single dominating wins over fellow ATGs Hopkins and Toney, and consistency for a decade get him into the top 10. He is arguably the best fighter of the 90s. His lack of quality opponents overall is what prevents him from ranking higher, however, a couple more signature wins and he would be right up there with SRL.

Top Wins that could compete in any era: Hopkins, Toney, Tarver.

 

Greb has ridiculous achievements but he fought in the 1920s and I explained my reasons above as to why I minus points for that.