What would a fighter in modern times have to do to topple SRR?

Clean out a division, defend the title enough to be dominant over time, have successes at the higher weights and defeat opponents that are all-time greats themselves.

If, say, Duran won all his fights, including the ones he fought at old age, he'd be up there.

While I think it is possible to dethrone Sugar Ray Robinson, I don't think it will ever happen. The fighter needs to be special, determined to take on the best, etc but the correct opponents also need to be around.

Muhammad Ali showed he could take Foreman in Zaire. It was quite a feat. But Foreman had to be around for Ali to prove what he could do -- if he was not, hardly anyone would have thought that he could do something similar at that stage of his career.

Don't think the stars will align like that. SRR will remain the consensus #1, with occassional challenges from Greb, Langford and Armstrong.

 

Boxing just isn't what it was back then and ain't ever going to be back strength and status.

I just can't see it happening in my opinion...of course when guys like pac take a risk and really chase a legacy, people are going to gush at the vag and in their eyes they might be convinced he and modern fighters like him have done enough. But I just cant see boxing ever reaching those lofty heights again and therefore I can't see the manufactured and planned records of today holding up against the true greats.

 

I don't think that the modern guys fight often enough, that said Duran is in the top ten and Pac is in the top 15\20 as long as he does not lose.

I could happen if there is one division where a lot of the current p4p boxers are and one of the guys cleans house , then moves up to beat other top p4p rated guys, maybe.

 

If you keep fighting, you lose. It didn't hurt any of the other guys we rate in that range, imo.

 

id say Mayweather could do it if he beat Pac, berto, Wiliams, Martnez, Strum...and then bounched up to super middle and beat the final winner of super six, bute.....also it would help if he beat for or 5 other guys while doing this to fill in the void.

oh if he then defeated a coming out of retirment joe calzaghe.....

 

It did hurt some , I was going by if he loses still in his prime, I think he will retire after a couple of fights.

 

Can't be done. Anyone who could accomplish 2/3 of what Robinson could -which may be what, a handful of guys per decade (if that?)- would be so well off financially that they'd almost certainly not have the urge or will to press themselves to surpass him. And that's assuming he got all the fights he needed to match up on the resume side before he became a superstar and only fought a couple of times per year.

They may as well create a new version of the P4P list for 60's fighters on, because the current fighters are a victim of their own environment to an extent. The monsters at the top- SRR, Greb, etc.- have such a spectacular depth of resume that contemporary fighters just can't compete with them.

 

What is important (more than scaling all the weight classes) is having the quality of opposition to prove yourself like Robinson did.

It's simply not around today.

I don't hear anyone (bar probably TBooze) making a big deal about Georges Carpentier going from welterweight to heavyweight winning Euro titles (which are about as meaningful as some of today's 'world' titles).

You have to beat super great fighters if you hope to do it. Problem is, there aren't many around right now....

Beating 20 Paul Williamses and Miguel Cottos (no matter how naturally bigger they are than you) isn't going to make you the next Sugar Ray, or the guy that surpasses him.....

 

Okay, which guys had established that high of a regard in the boxing world and lost it because of a loss in their prime, and which loss knocked them back, so I know who we're talking about.

 

Was Robinsons that great? I don't think it was

 

What would Leonard have done to topple SRR?

1. Win the first Duran fight
2. Add defenses against Cuevas, Palomino and a Hearns rematch
3. Not take an early retirement
4. Beat Hagler in 1985
5. Defense against unbeaten Curry, McCallum, Nunn, Kalambay, Graham Toney,
6. Beat Hill for his LHW strap at the 175lb limit instead of HEarns

Resume wise he'd be well ahead of Robinson and potentially he could well pull on those feats off

 

Yeah that would launch him right up there

 

My problem is greatness is always regarded in relative terms. Fighter A beat X Y and Z , fighter B beat X and Z. Fighter A had this many fight compared with fighter B who only won this many.
Some of the guys who are deserving ATGs because of what they accomplished in their time compared to their peers may not be so great in another era. These ATGs also loose to some other ATGs helping the latters resume.

Often when talking H2H about old vs new rather than taking them at face value people say under modern training , or with the HW division mystery weight must be added because of modern nutrition. This is because then this was not the done thing. The fighters H2H ability is determined on which other fighters they beat from their era who had the same training and dieting.

If we give these "oldies" the benefit of the doubt i think modern achievement must be made relative to modern times. It is no longer the done thing to have 150 fights . A fighter having over 60 in 10 years would be incredibly active compared to other fighters of this era.

There are now less people who get thought of as ATGs making it much harder for a fighter to have a claim to beating 5 ATGs as could be said in the past. This is because the whole standard for what is an ATG has rose. When we think of these fighetrs of yesteryear we think wow 100 fights , if they have been successful and beat some one else with a similar resume that sticks an ATG on their resume. Things just are not like that now.

If we give the old school fighters the benefit in H2H fights the same reasoning and logic should be used for determining modern fighters Greatness.

 

There needs to be a culture and structure within boxing that brings back the credibility of world championships, contenders fighting each other and not all this excessive fakery and contrivance.

It seems that any "star" fighter now can fight almost anyone and there' someone willing to sanction it as a world title fight in this division or that, It undermines the whole principle of having even a loose semblance of a merit-based hierarchy.

Obviously, boxing was never perfect and good fighters were shafted out of the big time back the too, but at least back in the day there was some sort of awareness of injustice and some sort of consensus over who was champion, who were contenders and in what weight divisions a fighter had proven himself qualified in.

I mean, for example, when SRR came back in the mid-50s he had to fight non-title fights then beat the recognized champion to be champion again. If Pacquiao or Maywether or Klitschko retired for 3 years right now they could walk back in to a title fight even if they are not going up against a "champion", a vacancy would be created for them, and in the case or Pac and Floyd it wouldn't even have to be in a division they've ever fought in.
The fighters themselves have become 100 times more important than the titles, so there's just no clear goals for fighters nowadays.
Back in the day it was all about getting THE TITLE, nowadays titles pop out of nowhere and fall on the fortunate. There's no legion of contenders all shooting for the same single prize, there's no single ladder that fighters have to climb.