Better resume/greater fighter: Floyd Mayweather or Barney Ross

I really don't care to get praise America anymore, it's been spelled out to you why it's clear the globalisation of boxing is not a modern thing. It probably is more global today than in yesteryears, but that a) isn't necessarily a good thing and b) isn't at its peak in terms of producing top fighters. The addition of Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan is whatever. I'd get rid of all of them if meant restoring South American (Cuba, Panama, PR, Columbia, Argentina, etc) boxing to what it was.

Boxing history has completely ignored the amateurs, so I don't know what . Especially the ones who didn't turn pro. Everyone remembers Ray Robinson, nobody cares about Lazlo Papp.

Yeah, that's exactly what I did lmao. Amateurs achievements and status are irrelevant in comparison to pro boxing. That doesn't mean their amateur systems didn't exist lmao. A country with century old, successful amateur systems should be held to a higher standard than a country with zero successful amateur systems. This isn't some gotcha moment for you. All you did is undermine your own argument and say I'm moving goalposts when I called you out on it.

You've never watched a Marcel fight in your life, have you?

Inoue, Nakatani, Kenshiro, and Ioka are the only ones worth noting of that list. The rest are either average contenders or bull**** alphabet champs. Hardly compares to the sort of mid 60s & 70s: Guts Ishimatsu, Kuniaki Shibata, Shoji Oguma, Koichi Wajima, Masao Ohba, Jiro Watanabe, Royal Kobayashi, Susumu Hanagata, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Yoshiaki Numata, and Shozo Saijo. It's night and day; although I'd lessen my stance a little and say that Japan is absolutely a combat sports powerhouse, and so modern boxing has gotten a fair share from them. The point remains however, Japan is not a new boxing country.

You have to realise that the Philippines being in boxing for nearly 100 years in no way helps your point, right?

You're done, man.

 

I dont like Monty Python but fair play,that was funny and appropriate for this thread

 

That's funny, I've never really been a Monty Python man myself for whatever reason but I've always liked thew argument skit.

 

You’re confusing emotion with analysis. You admit boxing is more global today, but then say you’d toss out Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia just to “restore” the 70s Latin American lineup. That’s not analysis, that’s nostalgia dressed up as gatekeeping. The post-Soviet bloc has produced elite, generational fighters. Usyk became undisputed at cruiserweight and unified heavyweight — something no Latin American fighter has ever done. Lomachenko is the greatest amateur of all time and won titles in three divisions faster than anyone in history. Bivol outboxed and beat a prime Canelo Alvarez, the face of modern Mexican boxing, and has built a case as an all-time great at light heavyweight. These aren’t “whatever” fighters, they’re legitimate talents with strong historical resumes. The only reason you’re dismissing them is because they’re not from the countries you want your legends to come from.

You talk up Japan’s 60s–70s run, and yes, it was strong, but Japan today has Naoya Inoue, the most dominant lower-weight fighter since Ricardo López. Junto Nakatani is 26, already a two-weight champion, and tearing through world-class opposition. Saying guys like Guts Ishimatsu or Shozo Saijo came from a “better” era doesn’t erase what modern Japan is doing. Today’s Japanese champions are just as good, and in some cases, clearly better, than the country’s past greats.

I’m not denying that Cuba, Panama, and Colombia have declined. But boxing’s center of gravity didn’t collapse, it shifted. Countries don't product the same volume of fighters anymore because of larger structural reasons, but they still produce plenty of talent. Canelo Alvarez is arguably the greatest Mexican fighter since Chávez. Puerto Rico produced modern greats like Trinidad and Cotto, and now has real prospects like Xander Zayas. Ukraine gave us the Klitschkos, Usyk, and Lomachenko. The map changed but the quality didn’t vanish.

You keep contradicting yourself on the amateur front. You say amateurs are irrelevant, then argue countries with strong amateur systems should be held to higher pro standards. If amateur systems matter, then the Soviet bloc clearly excelled, Usyk, Lomachenko, and Beterbiev all came through that pipeline. The reason they didn’t flood the pro scene sooner wasn’t lack of talent it was the collapse of the USSR, no pro infrastructure, economic instability, and fighters having to relocate just to get signed.

And fragmentation makes elite talent harder to see. There are four belts per division, five major promoters, exclusive streaming deals, and shrinking TV exposure. Fighters like Srisaket Sor Rungvisai or Kenshiro Teraji were elite for years but casual fans barely knew they existed. The problem isn’t the fighters it’s the structure of the sport.

And no I’m not saying we have as many great fighters today as we did in boxing’s cultural peak. I’m saying the top-end quality is still just as high. Fighters like Usyk, Inoue, Bivol, Canelo, and Crawford can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best from any era. The difference is that today’s fighters don’t get the same chances to prove it. Boxing isn’t as centralized, it’s not as culturally dominant, and the biggest fights are harder to make. So no we don’t get five all-time greats per division anymore. But the ones we do get are every bit as good as the best of the past.

And yeah, I’ve watched Marcel. Great fighter, great win over Arguello but let’s not pretend it was some mythical upset. Arguello was still green, not yet world class. Marcel had talent, but he retired early and didn’t show the sustained greatness that fighters like Usyk or Bivol have already demonstrated against elite, proven opponents.

Globalization today doesn’t mean we get 100 all-time greats per decade. It means that the ones who do rise like Inoue, Canelo, Usyk, Bivol, and Crawford are doing it under far more fragmented and politicized conditions than the stars of the 60s–70s ever faced. The sport may have shrunk in reach, but peak quality? It never left.

 

You keep throwing out lists like they’re an argument. Yes, the 1920s–40s had a ton of names. But quantity isn’t the same as quality and it’s not even the same as depth. Those names came from a time when boxing was one of the only ways out of poverty for working-class Americans, when fighters competed every other week, and when there were no football, no basketball, no UFC, no global competition. You didn’t need to be an all-time great to rack up 120 fights you just needed to stay active in a system with no alternatives.

You can list 70 names, but you never zoom out and ask: why were those fighters great in that era and how much of it was opportunity, infrastructure, or timing versus raw ability? I keep giving you the why, the structure behind the talent, and every time I do, you ignore it so you can list more names. That’s not insight that’s just trivia

And yes, many of them were great but a big part of that greatness came from the era they lived in. They could fight constantly, rack up experience, and face elite opponents repeatedly because the system made that possible. In today’s fragmented promotional landscape, with long layoffs, multi-network politics, and four titles per division, that kind of résumé-building just isn’t realistic.

But let’s be clear: being active isn’t the same as being more skilled. When it comes to pure technique, footwork, timing, and especially athleticism, it’s not obvious that past fighters were better — in fact, in most cases, they weren’t. The sport has evolved. Outside a few outliers, the average skill floor and athletic baseline are clearly higher today. There may have been more fighters back then, but that doesn’t automatically make them better. In terms of what fighters can physically and technically do in the ring, today’s elite would hold their own in any era — and in many cases, surpass them.

You say “the golden age of American boxing craps all over everything else,” but the truth is, it didn’t have to share the stage with anyone. Sure, there were a handful of standout foreign fighters, guys like Pancho Villa, Kid Chocolate, Jimmy McLarnin, but they were exceptions, and nearly all of them had to move to the U.S. to get fights, visibility, and titles. The vast majority of the globe, the Eastern bloc, Cuba post-revolution, most of Asia, even large parts of Latin America, didn’t have the infrastructure, economic freedom, or access to participate in the pro game on level terms. So yes, America dominated but it did so at a time when it had almost no competition with the tools to challenge it. That’s not a product of inherent superiority it’s a product of isolation and systemic advantage.

And let’s talk about the amateur contradiction. You say amateurs don’t matter, and then try to hold Soviet fighters to a higher standard because of their amateur systems. If the amateur background doesn’t count, stop bringing it up when it’s convenient for you. If it does count, then let’s talk about what the Soviet system actually produced once they were allowed into the pros: Usyk, Lomachenko, Beterbiev, the Klitschkos, GGG, Bivol. That’s elite-level production in barely 30 years of a professional system despite all the hurdles those fighters had to go through just to become a pro.

The idea that Japan and Ukraine are “apples to apples” is historical fiction. Japan had access to the U.S. boxing scene via postwar military occupation and regional ties. They didn’t have to defect, escape, or move to Germany to get fights. Ukraine’s boxing talent went from being locked behind the Iron Curtain to having to rebuild under a shattered economic system. Usyk and Lomachenko didn’t grow up in Tokyo gyms, they trained in Soviet military basements and had to fight internationally to get noticed. They didn’t inherit opportunity they clawed their way into it.

You dismiss Usyk, Bivol, and Loma by saying today’s fighters only look great because the era is weak. But that’s just goalpost-shifting. You said they weren’t ATGs, now they might be, but only because no one else is around? Come on. You think if Usyk had cleaned out the heavyweight division in the 1970s, you wouldn’t be calling him a top-5 all-timer? If Inoue had done what he’s done in 1974, you’d have his face tattooed on your chest.

And yes, I did say today’s boxing has fewer great fighters than before. That was never the argument. I’ve said from the beginning: the top-end quality is still there. But fighters today don’t have the same visibility, the same number of fights, or the same cultural attention. Four belts, five promoters, streaming deals, and politics mean most fans don’t even see the best matchups unless everything lines up perfectly. That doesn’t mean today’s fighters aren’t great, it means the sport has gotten worse at showcasing them, and the system no longer lets them build the same résumés. In fact, given the broader athletic evolution across all sports, there’s a strong case that the physical and technical level of today’s best is as high if not higher than any previous era.

You keep propping up Gonzalez as some kind of mid-division bar for greatness. Yes he was a skilled, tough fighter with quality wins. But let’s not pretend that beating Oguma and Espadas places him on another plane with someone like Usyk. Resume quality depends on who’s available to fight and how often the system lets the best meet. Gonzalez had a strong flyweight scene to work through. Usyk had to claw through fractured divisions, frozen negotiations, and risk-averse promoters just to get fights that mattered. There’s no “clean sweep” for the past just selective reverence. When you zoom out and factor in context, the gap in actual talent isn’t nearly as clear as you want it to be.

And finally, your whole argument keeps circling back to one emotional anchor: “When America was at its best, boxing was at its best.” Maybe. But that wasn’t because of some inherent superiority it was because no one else had the chance. What you call boxing’s “peak” was just America being the only one on stage and everyone else struggling to catch up.

When the rest of the world caught up, suddenly it's not so one-sided anymore. And that’s the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t want parity you want the golden age back. That’s fine but nostalgia isn’t an argument.

 

Most people would favor the best American boxers of the 1980s over their 1930s counterparts despite boxing being more popular in the 1930s at least in the divisions above lightweight. It seems like popularity doesn't necessarily equate to h2h ability

 

Not sure about that pal.. the 30s was the decade where Henry Armstrong was doing his thing... many people consider him to be one of the GOATs of boxing & rightly so. In fact I'd hazard a guess that most of these 80s boxers you speak of would agree too.. Then you have Joe Louis who many have as the HW GOAT. The 30s had incredible depth .. Canzoneri, Ross, Conn, Young Corbett III.. hugely influential decade.. for example Cus D'amato was inspired by Maxie Rosenblooms uncanny ability to slip punchers.. it helped him shape Tyson's style .. 80s was a great era but i don't see it as superior. Young Corbett III is one of boxings greatest southpaws .. & an ATG counterpuncher .. a prime WW who would would move up to beat Conn, Lesnevich & Apostoli.. HOFer Conn & Lesnevich are two of the greatest LHWs of all time.. & Apostoli was the #1 rated MW, he too is a HOFer.. that's an incredible feat for a 5'7 inch WW.. which 80s WW beat a LHW who was the calibre of Billy Conn? None of them did. Don't be so dismissive in future..

 

Realistically, Floyd Mayweather ranks higher all-time than Barney Ross, both in terms of résumé and overall greatness as a fighter.

Ross was undeniably a brilliant fighter for his era—winning titles at lightweight, light welterweight, and welterweight in the 1930s, and he fought top competition like Tony Canzoneri and Jimmy McLarnin. His toughness, ring IQ, and achievements, especially during the Great Depression era, were exceptional. But boxing evolved significantly in the decades that followed.

Mayweather fought in a much deeper, more global talent pool, stayed undefeated across five weight divisions, and beat a long list of elite opponents including Manny Pacquiao, Oscar De La Hoya, Canelo Álvarez, and Juan Manuel Márquez. His defensive skillset, longevity, and ability to adapt fight by fight make him one of the most effective fighters ever, even if not the most entertaining to watch.

Ross deserves credit historically, but in terms of overall career depth, consistency, and proven ability across eras and styles, Mayweather has the stronger case.

 

Context would help ..

ODH was 34 & hadn't fought for a year .. in fact he had just one win in nearly 3 years since getting stopped by Hopkins at that point.. Beating that Oscar ain't anything special... Sturm did it.. & Floyd barely won too let's be honest.. are we meant to be impressed cos he beat Mayorga LMAO.. Oscar never put in a decent performance again..

JMM? FFS.. it's cringe this ****.. JMM had never fought above the 135lb limit & hes going straight in with a WW Floyd.. the divisions best fighter.. . are we meant to be impressed again? What fighters have ever gone from 135 to 147 & been successful right off the bat against its best fighter? Its an exclusive club .. the odds are small.. so Floyd was hardly up against it was he .. despite his lay off .. yes he was Pacs kryptonite but no one rates that fkin win as anything great.. it wss embarrassing, Marquez was wearing padded clothing to try & look bigger

See what Floyd does? There's always something with Mayweather... looks good on paper but when u delve more.. was all about timing .. that's what he was a master of.. marketing & timing.. i mean you clearly bought it..

I fkin hate Floyd fan boys man , they're the worst.. read the thread through, all your points have been addressed many times over. Marquez .. took him years to juice up to WW

 

Oscar was still a dangerous, experienced fighter at 154, bigger, stronger, and coming off a solid KO win. Floyd moved up in weight for the first time and still controlled the fight. It was competitive early, maybe 3–2 after five, but never close. Floyd adjusted, took over, and shut Oscar down. That’s not cherry-picking, that’s elite skill.

Marquez was an elite technician, one of the best counterpunchers ever. Yeah, he moved up, but Floyd had been out for nearly two years and still dominated him, won every round, barely got touched. Funny how you bring up size like it mattered yet are silent about the fact Floyd was a small welterweight his whole career, routinely giving up size to guys like Oscar, Canelo, and even Maidana. Marquez was elite, and Floyd coming off a long layoff still pitched a shutout. If size alone beat Marquez, Pac wouldn’t have gone life and death with him four times. Floyd made it look effortless.

 

LOL at bringing up age 34 while ignoring Floyd’s age when he was 34 or older.

Floyd fought Hatton, Cotto, Canelo, Gatti, Corrales, Castillo, Mosley, reigning champion Oscar De La Hoya, and others at a weight disadvantage.

He fought Pacquiao, Canelo, Maidana, Guerrero, and Cotto at an age disadvantage.

Oh, and Marquez ko’d the pfp number 1 while past prime at the same weightclass he was supposedly too small for when Floyd skunked him.

 

At heavyweight you had Tyson and Holmes
Cruiserweight Holyfield
Light heavyweight Spinks
Middleweight Hagler and Nunn
Welterweight Leonard, Hearns, Curry

That seems like a difficult group to beat in a best vs best scenario.

 

The opposition argument falls apart because a fighter can be so dominant they make great opponents look poor. If you always win you prevent others fighters from establishing themselves as great. So you are penalizing guys for being dominant

This is a problem with Roy Jones whose opponents are underrated because they lost so badly