Many people consider Sugar Ray Robinson the GOAT...

That's a given my good man.

 

He's a visionary. It just needs to be accepted.:good

 

Not on resume, but in terms of skill, style and ability, Calzaghe's an evolution.

If you want to get technical, no modern fighter will match the old greats with resume for the era/era comparison due to politics.

Jones could have added Eubank, Benn, McCllelan and Michalczewski in addition to his current resume and people would still deny him a top 10 spot, even though such would be absurd, because that resume would be unbelievable to go along with an amazing fighter.

 

look at the modern greats. would you say joe cal looks great to watch. no. bernard hopkins does not look great most of the time. winky wright is well. Cos a guy doesn't look great it doesn't meAN HE IS NOT GREAT

CARLOS MONZON NEVER HAD THE LOOK OF A GREAT FIGHTER
SAME WITH ROCKY MARCIANO

 

Yes. Believe it or not, most fighters must beat accomplished opponents to be considered great. Not everybody can be arbitrarily declared great like Calzaghe.

Honestly, though, what do you want? You don't back your generalizations up. If you did so, we could actually have a genuine discussion, but you're just "Revolvering" at the moment. Bring up your points--which have to be backed up by evidence--and the Classic section would be happy to address them.

 

I'll make it easy for you. Amsterdam, feel free to jump in.


Here's Pep fighting Saddler:

[YT]IpKHFZ6ixKs[/YT]




Here's Robinson fighting LaMotta:

[YT]KUYhjX64pDo[/YT]




Here's Mayweather fighting Baldomir:

[YT]hECeVAIXYBs[/YT]



Here's Calzaghe fighting Manfredo:

[YT]Kv1Et0W3xeI[/YT]






What SPECIFICALLY does the second group do that the first group cannot? And don't say something like "Oh, they are crisper and show better boxing knowledge" because that's a generalization that answers nothing.

 

This sounds familiar somehow...

Disagree.

* Hopkins is generally agreed in the Classic section to be on the same plane as Hagler and Monzon.

* Jones is rated in the top 10 lightheavyweights of all time, and relatively easily.

* Lewis and Tyson are rated in the top 10 heavyweights of all time by most here. The 90's are generally considered on par with 70's, which most call the greatest era of all time.

* Floyd Mayweather is ranked relatively well here, and "Floyd vs. ATG X" often are fairly close.

* Many here think that Nikolai Valuev beats Marciano.




I think you're perceiving a bias because you're weighted so far toward modern fighters. Not that that's a bad thing--your perspectives are interesting as a result.

 

Calzaghe is a good fighter, but, seriously, who has he fought? Personally I think he fights in a worthless weight division and that's a main reason why he is so dominent. The light light heavyweight division? That's what it really is. Stupid marketing tactics like adding "super" to the title shouldn't fake people out. If boxers like Calzaghe are so good, then fight for the 175 pound title. 168 versus 175? If that gap is so serious to span that you need two weight divisions then we ought to start examining the gap between 160 and 164 pounds. Let's create a light light light heavyweight division.

The existence of such a division shows you how much more integirty the sport had way back when. Top middleweights fought at 165+ pounds all the time. Dominant light heavyweights weighed under 170 pounds all the time. There's no need for an in between division. Like "super bantamweight" you can have a fighter look totally dominant - let's take Wilfredo Gomez - while beating up on, say, overweight bantams, but then look inferior against fighters in his true weight division, say, featherweight. How would Calzaghe do fighting the top people in his true weight division? Jones proved what he could do. Calzaghe's 20 title defenses (or however many he claims) means nothing. If we are honest, what is he the champion of?

Let's revise history. Harry Greb is the greatest super middleweight (I mean light light heavyweight) of all times!

 

I'm still waiting for China to respond to Cross Trainer, and give us his analysis of the footage shown above. Of course, the typical trend with this poster, is that anything that requires the disecting of solid material usually results in his disappearance.

 

Don't know why you would say the 40s was a weaker era. More people were into boxing during that time than there are now. I see your point about globalisation, which could be the case. However, I doubt Mayweather would have reached 150-1 back then. In Robinson's era there were less divisions and only the one belt in each division, which was equalivent to getting the undisputed title in 2 divisions in today terms. Mayweather has never been undisputed in one. Robinson was the champ at 147 and 160 and almost captured the lt heavy wt belt. This equates to undisputed in 6 divisions in today terms.

Many people say that technology is more advanced nowadays. Yeah, that's true but, do you not think that Robinson would not have enjoyed the same advancements had he fought today? So, I don't buy that. I guess to be fair you'll have to compare era for era and Robinson was was a lot more dominate in his era than anyone else has been. Furthermore, I can't see floyd beating Robinson head-to-head. Just compare the advantages/disavdantages of both fighters. The answer is obvious for me. As for Joe, yeah his is dominate but, only in the one division. Has he fought everybody? No. Robinson fought in 6 divisions (in today terms) and fought virtually everybody. Guess you are entitled to you own opinion.

 

The whole thing about fighters being better today than in the 1940s is bull****. Watch the films and you can see right away that Ray had more in his bag of tricks than any boxer fighting today.