The whole idea of a "Greatest Fighter of All Time" really irks me and I'll tell you why. It is grossly unfair to compare fighters of a particular era to fighters of another given era. Furthermore, the greater the differential in time, the more difficult it is to arrive at a logical deduction. Sugar Ray Robinson is widely regarded as the "GOAT" and perhaps deservedly so. However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to speculate as to how he would fare against Floyd Mayweather Jr. Just as it is IMPOSSIBLE to presume that Muhammad Ali would soundly defeat Lennox Lewis. Between SRRs first bout and PBFs last fight, 67 years had elapsed. From Cassius Clay's debut to Lennox Lewis' swansong 43 years passed. WE ARE A PRODUCT OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. The world around these fighters changed so drastically from one period to the next and that's the one indistinguishable variable. Did the tough times, depression and opression help or hurt the old school fighters? Did technological advancements strengthen or weaken today's fighters? Had Lennox been born 43 years earlier would he be a 6'6" 245 lb. fighter? Would Ali be 3 inches taller and 20 lbs more muscular if born in '65? How would PBF fare in 1950? How would SRR do today? It's IMPOSSIBLE to speculate. That's why I feel that when ranking fighters it is best to do so by era. Best of '20s, best of '30s, etc; I know I'm opining on a site where people love these fantasy matchups and dream scenarios and I apologize for ranting but I was wondering if anybody shares these same beliefs.
It's definitely worth speculating over if you love the sport. What harm is there in it? If you don't try to rank them, all you can say is that you have a list, in no particular order, of good fighters.
great post by the way:good personally I like to focus on my era 1990-present. I am aware of certain legends who transcended space and time (robinson, armstrong, louis) but I am not going to downplay the achievements of todays fighters to glorify fighters of old. matching hopkins, roy and floyd with the best fighters all-time is very reasonable.
Its always worth speculating about fighters....what else would there be to do if we couldnt imagine PBF vs SRR or many others. Its called fantasy...implying its not meant to be taken seriously
If people didn't take it so seriously it wouldn't bother me so much. I agree it can be fun to speculate but I don't think people realize just how ignorant and stupid they sound when they vehemently defend an "imaginary proposition".
It's not "impossible to speculate" about anything, from life on other planets to Liston's chances agains James Jeffries.
It is impossible to speculate fantasy matchups. It is not however impossible to speculate accomplishments and competition based on accomplishments. In this case, while subjective, it is not impossible to make a list of the greatest fighters ever. I am not fooled that some here are hinding behind this insightful post about H2H to pretend that their rating of only current fighters and their disrespect to ATG of the past do to lack of knowledge about older fighters is now somehow justified. It's not.
