Better resume/greater fighter: Floyd Mayweather or Barney Ross

It's definitely a lot easier and more mindful to separate em that way, it accounts for changes in the training and the sport that comparisons like these can't. But then again, we're boxing fans, we gotta compare.

 

This times 10, Gatti and Guerrero would be club fighters in Ross's time.

 

Floyd for me, but it's really close.

Benny Leonard and Joe Gans are clearly ahead of Floyd for me.

 

You are aware that Baby Gans lost two straight before losing to Ross, then beat two cans before losing to Hostack and fading into obscurity, right?

 

Ross fought the historically greater opposition, with 6 fights (4 wins and 2 losses) versus prime versions of top 50 p4p all time fighters vs Mayweather's 1 vs a past prime Pacquiao (Mayweather was passed his best too).

Greatest is very close imo, I rank Ross at #15 and Mayweather at #18, p4p, all time. I can see reasonable arguments for either.

 

I think comparing fighters from vastly different eras in terms of "greatness" is fine. You judge based on what they each achieved within their own era and factor in how strong you believe their respective eras were, relative to the evolution (or devolution, if thats your viewpoint) of boxing.

Fantasy H2H match ups involving fighters from vastly different eras, with different conditions, rules, PEDs use, weigh in regulations, access to sports science, etc. is where things can become highly speculative at best, and frankly silly at worse.

 

Maybe idk how good those guys actually are but I think generally more good/great wins>better but less wins especially since Floyd beat guys who had a decent size advantage over him but that's just my opinion

 

Ross is arguably one of the top 10 greatest fighters ever

 

Ol Barney by the eyes and most history guys who know more then me > Floyd P4P so yeah.

 

He didn't tho .. Greb, Langford, Mickey Walker etc faced fighter's with huge size disparities... draining Canelo to 152lbs isn't impressive when u stack him up with what those fighters used to do.. if you want to talk size advantage ... Mickey Walker was a 5'7 WW/MW.. yet he beat 210 lbs Bearcat Wright and fought future Heavyweight champion & ATG Jack Sharkey to a draw.. Sharkey had 30lbs on him.. he KOd 209 lb Jack Gagnon & beat men like 195 lb King Levinsky, 197 lbs Paulino Uzcudun, 205 lb Ruggirello & 223 lb De Kuh ... you see how Mayweathers nit picking looks pitiful when u stack him up with legit past greats.. Walker was slaying giants.. i gotta credit Tzortzakis with the weight checks here that's his work.

 

My man Barney Ross having more votes than Fairweather has restored my faith on Classic Forum.

 

We can watch every second of Mayweather’s career in crisp video so his skills are documented fact, while almost everything on Greb, Langford and Walker is grainy clips or newspaper reports. Modern fighters train with sports science, strict nutrition and a deep global talent pool unknown a century ago. Walker did give up huge weight but Canelo is a modern four-division champion and pound-for-pound star whose skill set and résumé eclipse any heavyweight Walker ever beat. End of the day, Floyd beat better-trained elite athletes in a tougher, fully documented era while giving up decent size disadvantages in most of his fighter, so his résumé still outweighs nostalgic stories of historic giant-killers.

 

Talents and sport science never changed,it just adapts to the era's scoring,drag Floyd to the 50's and see how much he can take those rabbit punches from Randy Turpin,same for Turpin getting DQ'ed had the first Robinson fight took in a more modern era as for now.

Talents always existed,Benny Leonard had a good technique, McLarnin was super slick and Armstrong was...strong.

There's nothing new in boxing, techniques might slightly improve at times but at the same time,how much fo a difference would it make?