Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Balder, Jun 17, 2021.
Not sure this really deserves a serious response.
The biggest problem for modern fighters is they can never accomplish what those fighters did because it’s not safe. No ones going to have 300 fights in 13 years anymore. So resume wise past fighters will have an edge. I put Mayweather in the top five for one reason. Dominance. There has never been a fighter who struggled so little in their whole career. Sure he got hurt by the rarw punch but what fighter hasn’t? He so rarely took any punishment against the best fighters of his era. In the sport of boxing I can’t think of any fighter to accomplish what he has been able to accomplish against the HOF fighters he did it against. Alvarez and Pac will go down as very well ranked when it’s all said and done. Mayweather easily beat both (non prime version of Pac but let’s face it he wasn’t prime either). I’ve never seen a fighter be so dominant and I don’t think I ever will. Compubox numbers have him far and away the best fighter since they’ve been keeping track and I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I don’t have a problem with you or anyone not picking him. It’s an opinion that can be based on many factors. And the top 25 fighters or so one can make an argument for although I think it’s a little harsh to say 30-40
Not sure anything coming from this poster does!
I am pretty new to classic boxing forum, was Gene Tunney not that great? Nobody mentioned him here.
Not necessarily in that order.
When you have the Like of Greb, SRR, Armstong, Duran and Pep as well as many others , he just cannot compare. The amount of fights some of these fighters participated in is really unmatched in the modern era.
He was very good, but I don't think there's a good case for rating him top 5 P4P all time.
He has a pretty thin resume. His best wins in Greb, Gibbons and Dempsey were all significantly past their best
He is a pound for pound great, but we are talking the best resumes and fighters of all time , Top 5. He also lost to Greb, one of many posters top 5 fighters. Not sure where I rank him, perhaps top 25.
He was. But the sheer depth in the history of Boxing is so large with so many outstanding fighters, that he just did not do enough to be in the top 5, or even the top 20 really.
I really doubt that, unless people will simply forget about the first 80 years of boxing history. Floyd is an amazing fighter, but he'll never reach top 10.
Tunney is perfect on film but this is it right here, he could have ranked higher if stayed in the lightheavy a bit and beat up jack delaney slattery in addition to loughran (who he barely beat) and if he fought after heeney and beat schmeling and sharkey, Tunney beat as many hall of famers as ali but they were not at their natural weights and not in their prime.
Packey Mcfarland struggled less than Floyd did and actually fought guys who were in their peak, Floyd in 21 years fought 50 times and doesnt hold any wins over a historical all time great in their prime! Dominance would be cleaning out divisions and unifiying belts(in this era) floyd let guys slow down then put up offensively anemic performances against them, Not exactly all time anything to me .
Fair enough , I am very critical of May resume wise as I feel he just didnt want to take on a lot of risk. I think he is a beast at 130 -135 H2H historically , as well as compete at 140 well against anyone .. And if H2H was as important to me as resume , he would be higher on my list no doubt ...... Problem is with these lists , there is no blue print and we all look at things a bit differently
how does floyds resume rank against say against Fritzie zivics who I am sure isnt ranked in your top 20 all time, Fritzie beat Jake Lamotta , Charley Burley ,Henry Armstrong , Eddie Booker, lew Jenkins ,sammy angott.....all of those guys he beat hall of famers ,you find me 6 hall of famers on floyds resume on par with fritzies ?