Better resume/greater fighter: Floyd Mayweather or Barney Ross

It does kind of feel like you vs everyone else......

 

I literally destroyed you in every debates we had (most of which you started btw) so hard you started crying about how I picked on you and ignored me. Then made some stuff about me making an alt to get me banned (despite 0 evidence besides agreeing with me) and are still crying about it all the while running whenever I call you out and liking any post that is critical of my takes while being too scared to actually try and challenge me (because you know you would get wrecked). Maybe if you have an issue with me actually engage instead of being a whiny passive aggressive coward, makes you look like a little girl.

 

Yeah which speaks volumes to it being a "him" problem rather than a "we" problem.

Because @George Crowcroft @Greg Price99 @JohnThomas1 @Pugguy @loakeim Tzortzakis are some of the most knowledgeable posters on this forum and are very fair.

I wouldn't put myself on that level even though I'm quite knowledgeable on the sport my knowledgeable on pre 1960s boxers is quite limited and the posters above excell way above me in that regard.

But all in all the posters above including myself are friendly I don't go looking for arguments I even gave "themaster" a chance by telling him he needs to change his ways because he's constantly clashing with everyone in which he agreed with me funnily enough.

But in the end I got tired of it I put him on ignore and I made it clear I had no intention of interacting with someone who wants to "bait long winded conversations to try and win a game of winning debates" which is his sole purpose.

The person then makes an ALT account to follow me around in threads and bait me into arguments in which he got banned for.

As you've seen in this thread the person boasts about making posters run away and winning debates. When I thought this is a boxing forum just to discuss a sport that we are passionate about instead of it being a game of "winning and losing".

So yes most definitely it's a "him" issue.

 

To be honest this conversation in particular feels like people ganging up on him because they don't agree with his more pro modern boxing lean in the context of this discussion and it got a little personal as well. I don't really know the back story about what went on in other threads and discussions which you allude to as I am quite a new poster on this forum.

 

No, you misunderstood my point. I'm actually engaging with his arguments, is it too much to ask that both of you actually engage with mine?
Nobody is disputing that America was the center of pro boxing for most of the 20th century. The real issue is whether American fighters were inherently superior by nature, or simply the result of better infrastructure, opportunity, and being the first major nation to develop professional boxing deeply. If you're now agreeing it was about opportunity, money, and access, then you're conceding the core point I made: success follows conditions, not nationality. That's exactly what I argued from the start.

You can casually wave amateurs aside if you want, but boxing history doesn’t. Olympic and World Championship records show exactly where the deepest talent pools have always been. Amateur dominance matters especially when entire nations were locked out of the professional system for political reasons. And let's be real: most of the greatest professional boxers in history started by making their names in the amateurs. Pretending that amateur success is meaningless ignores how boxing development has actually worked for over a century.

You’re trying to have it both ways. When I point to Soviet amateur dominance, you say amateur boxing doesn’t matter. But then when you want to criticize post-Soviet pros, you argue their amateur infrastructure should have guaranteed pro dominance. You can't dismiss amateur boxing when it hurts your argument and then suddenly treat it as decisive when it helps you. Pick a standard and stick to it.

Calling Ernesto Marcel "arguably the best featherweight ever" is a huge stretch. His résumé boils down to a few good wins: Antonio Gómez and a still-developing Alexis Argüello, before retiring young, before anyone could expose his ceiling.

Saying Marcel ranks higher than guys like Usyk (undisputed at cruiserweight, unified at heavyweight) or Wladimir Klitschko (a dominant top-10 all-time heavyweight) isn't just wrong it's absurd. I’d even argue Lomachenko has achieved more at a higher level with his success in multiple weight classes, though I’m sure you’ll disagree.

Nobody said Marcel was bad. But inflating him into an all-time great just to defend an era weakens your argument, not strengthens it.

Both of you keep saying Japan is in a lull, but I really don't see it if anything, Japan looks like it’s entering a new peak right now.

You have Naoya Inoue, arguably the greatest Japanese fighter ever (at worst second after Harada). Then you have Junto Nakatani, Kenshiro Teraji, Kazuto Ioka, Takuma Inoue, Yoshiki Takei, Kosei Tanaka, Ginjiro Shigeoka, Seigo Yuri Akui, and Katsunari Takayama all current or former world champions.
That's 10+ high-level fighters active right now covering multiple weight classes. Calling that a "lull" compared to the 60s-80s isn’t just wrong it's ignoring the reality that Japan today is producing more consistently high-end talent across multiple divisions than it ever did back then outside of a few isolated names like Harada or Gushiken. You can even make the argument that this current era is the greatest era in Japanese boxing history but I guess to you guys this is a lull somehow......

That's a pivot. The original comparison was between 1970s–80s boxing and today not the 1920s–40s. And you actually just proved my point: Philippine boxing declined after the early-mid 20th century, but was revived in the modern era with fighters like Manny Pacquiao and Nonito Donaire. Pacquiao isn't just the greatest Filipino fighter ever he's arguably the greatest fighter ever produced by any Asian country, period. So if anything, modern Philippine boxing produced a higher peak than any previous era exactly what I said from the start.

 

The projection is real

 

Being in your 20s just means you have a lot to learn.

 

You’re walking back your original framing. You originally implied that American fighters were simply superior, full stop , not just that America had more opportunity or infrastructure. Now you’re admitting the rest of the world had to catch up once globalization expanded, which was exactly my point: success followed opportunity, not nationality. The fact that it took 20+ other countries organizing professional systems to compete doesn’t prove innate superiority, it proves structural and cultural dominance that others needed time to build.

You keep dismissing amateur boxing by calling it "basically a different sport," but that ignores basic history. Most of boxing’s greatest professionals, Ali, Foreman, Leonard, Ward, Lomachenko, Usyk, Beterbiev, built their reputations and skills through the amateur system first. Amateur dominance shows where deep talent pools exist, especially when entire nations were locked out of the professional system for political reasons.

No one said Japan didn't have a golden era in the 60s-70s. The point is, comparing Japan's pro success after 60 years of experience to Ukraine’s first 30 years of a professional scene is apples to oranges. Ukraine produced Usyk, Lomachenko, the Klitschkos, Postol, Gvozdyk, international, world-traveling champions, within three decades of having a pro system at all. Japan's 60s champs mostly fought regionally. Different stages of development require different context.

You're massively overstating these careers. Marcel had 2–3 standout wins and retired early, he wasn't tested over a long championship run. Betulio Gonzalez was talented but inconsistent and lost key fights; Miguel Lora was good, not an all-time great. Meanwhile, Usyk became undisputed at cruiser and unified heavyweight, Lomachenko won titles faster than anyone in history, Golovkin tied Hopkins’ middleweight defense record. You can cherry-pick nostalgia, but resume for resume, the modern top Soviets are superior.

Japan was not way better in the past as I have already shown in previous reply they have a number of great fighters rn arguably better then the fighters they had in the 60s-80s even if there aren't as many.

Mexico’s 60s-80s depth was legendary, no question but that doesn’t erase the fact that Canelo Alvarez is arguably Mexico’s greatest modern champion and probably the best one Mexico has produced since Chavez, and fighters like Estrada, Navarrete, and Rey Vargas show Mexico is still producing elite talent today even if its not as many.

Japan today has less depth but higher quality: Naoya Inoue is already ahead of almost every Japanese fighter not named Harada. The Philippines produced Pacquiao, arguably the greatest Asian fighter ever.

In short: globalization didn’t end boxing greatness it shifted it. Expecting modern fighters to match the quantity of boxing’s peak participation era (when boxing was one of the top two global sports) is nostalgia, not serious analysis.

 

Take your own advice.

 

Ganging up? Or maybe most just don't agree with his viewpoint & Floyd has kinda failed the test against these past greats.. no one asked him to respond to the thread.. he chose to. It's fine to have a pro modern lean but he's dismissing fighters & times he clearly has no real knowledge on in a discussion with individuals who are almost encyclopedic on the subject.. if you're gunna debate, at least know your subject.. all i can guage from him really is that he's a Mayweather fan boy who came here to blow smoke up floyd & then played victim & dismissed it as an old timers club when it backfired on him.. What did he expect? I post in here because i like to pick these fellas brains & gauge people's opinions on my views because it's a wealth of information... if he sees fit to critique the 'old timers' then those that disagree are free to critique his arguments. That's the whole point. It's not ganging up, he just lost an argument in a forum he clearly underestimated. Be better next time that's all I'd recommend now.

 

I'm a Usyk fan boy get your facts right sir!

 

Sure there is going to be disagreement and the debate I actually enjoyed reading the points. I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking old fighters were better than Mayweather and I don't really know enough yet to disprove it or prove it.

It just felt to me like hostility based on past discussions and clashes were rubbing off here and it went beyond the actual debate itself.

 

When all is said & done you can't escape the fact that Ross has a better set of wins than Floyd.. he won his rivalries with PRIME McLarnin & Canzoneri.. both of whom are probably in most peoples top 20 fighters of all time & who between them have something like 23 wins over HOF fighters. Floyd is a great fighter but he was very selective.. i mean Manny was years past his best & Alvarez had to weigh in at 152lbs.. neither were peak imo.. Alvarez was more effective at 160 & hadn't fully grown into the best version of himself.

 

Ross beat a fighter .. a great one too.. with one hand.. Ceferino Garcia.. using his right as a decoy.. he worked his jab for 15 rounds occasionally fienting with a right hand.. Ray Arcel said it was one of the greatest displays of boxing he ever saw.. Garcia wins were a great set of wins too .. he would go on to be MW champion & defeat the likes of Lloyd Marshall (a member of the so called murderers row) & HOF MW great Fred Apostoli.. between them they beat the likes of Lamotta, Burley, Maxim, Freddie Mills, Holman Williams, Ezzard Charles , Lou Brouillard, Marcel Thil, Young Corbett III...