when comparing boxers from the present to boxers of the past.... there can be no comparison made if the boxer from the past has no footage or less then 1 hour of footage that can easily be documented for. i hate hearing guys from 1893 rated in top 10 p4p's and stuff....
Ha ha lolol.....it makes a bit of sense so if congress passes it I'll abide by the laws of the machine.
Paper records don't mean ****. Even in this day and age think about all the times that a score, decision, stoppage, point deduction, disqualification, or ANYTHING that happens during a fight - doesn't seem to reflect what actually happened in the ring. Or what you read about the fight doesn't seem to have anything to do with what happened in the fight itself when you look at the tape or think back to the fight. The latter especially is VERY true. Every different journalist tends to have a completely different take on a fight. I mean, imagine if all you have to tell you about Chavez-Taylor 1 is "Chavez TKO12 Taylor THAT is how much we miss when we read about Old Timers. If there isn't video, how can we possibly say how good some of these guys are? And in MANY cases, the video quality is so unbelievably shitty that theres no WAY you can tell anything from watching them. And if you claim you can, then you are lying and just trying to make yourself seem 'deep' (in the boxing way) as a boxing fan. This is how those guys Top ATG P4P ist oes: 1. Sugar Ray Robinson 2. Henry Armstrong 3. - 7. The old timers that are the most obscure and hopefully people will think I'm some kind of really big boxing fan and historian 8. Ray Leonard 9. Aaron Pryor 10. Floyd Mayweather Jr. If you really love the old timers thats cool. I like reading stories about them, newspaper reports, anecdotes from guys like Bert Sugar. But its impossible to say they are better or worse than anyone today. So pointless. I'm so sick of that ****.
So what you're saying is that it's just as valid to write off their old school achievements as it is to overrate them? This is illogical Jim!