The Top fighter of the Century

Their job title and name in the boxing world doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with their knowledge of the history of boxing, the different eras and weight classes.

Let's take Teddy Atlas for example. A former trainer who's area of expertise lies in the analysis of styles and a fighter's strong and weak points. Based on that, he should be at least an adequate fight caller. Instead, he's one of the biggest jokes in the business in that regard.

It's even worse when you ask men of a similar mold (like Duva and Dundee) about the different eras and weight classes of the sport when that clearly isn't their focal point of area of concern in boxing. They got where they were because of a specific quality as trainers, handlers, managers, etc. Not because they all passed some Boxing Knowledge IQ Test.

I'm sorry, but I could not give a **** less about their supposed credentials (none of which has anything to do with their knowledge of the history of the sport) when their lists point to contrary in regards to their knowledge. One of them even declined a vote for the Flyweights for Christs's sake.And you're telling us we have no right to criticize them? Sorry, but **** that. Their lists ****ing sucked and I'll continue to stand by that.

 

I did? I think they're respectable people in boxing and don't think we should just throw their opinions out as worthless. That's all I was saying. I wouldn't say don't criticize them.

 

They can be the greatest trainer in the history of boxing
but if they don't have Whitaker in a top 5 lightweight list,
Spinks in top 5 Light-Heavyweight list , and have ****ing Dempsey
in top 10 P4P, then yeah their opinion is garbage and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Oh and I was laughing cause I remember we had the exact
same discussion when we on FNR4.

 

When your right, your right.
I wonder why he is so horrible though.:think

 

Picking every fight wrong takes as much talent as picking every fight right in my opinion.

 

As much as you guys slay Atlas he is a smart and sharp guy, especially as a trainer. He doesn't always get it right but if anyone remembers the Moorer vs Foreman fight they remember him telling Moorer how Foreman was trying to con him and lull him inside. He said he's setting you up with that left to the body to move you to the right. About 10 seconds before the knockdown he yelled "Don't stand in front of him Michael!."

I'm not going to say he doesn't get it wrong often though. He seems to analyze and criticize out of emotion a bit much. And I think he overstates the psychological nature of fighters.

I like him as a commentator though for Friday Night Fights...

Maybe, but I think that's oversimplifying things. It certainly can vary based on criteria. You can find tons of different looking lists for many different reasons. And Spinks is definitely not a lock as a top 5 LHW. In fact, the forum had him at #5 which goes to show he can definitely be outside that spot. I can't personally defend a top 10 listing but I don't know the criteria nor their reasons. I respect their outlook and perspective, at the very least

Having Dempsey P4P in your top 10 for them could be based on the single best, most motivated Dempsey. Again, if you take a sort of limited criteria, I don't find that to be all that ridiculous. If it's not based on achievement or legacy, in a case like that. Maybe that's why the P4P list is different than the top 10 list (Notice Rocky ahead of Dempsey).

 

Pacheco walked away before that , he sent typed analysis reports of Ali's deterioration to Herbert Muhammad,Angelo Dundee and Ali himself ,and did not get a response from any of them so he quit.

 

You weren't offering respective, you were pretending asif their opinions are true and written in stone just because they trained boxers, which is a completely different thing to do.

Refer to Sweet Pea's post, what he said is exactly what i was thinking.


The list makes the man, not the other way around.

 

No I wasn't, don't act like you know what I was thinking.

 

I don't act like i know what you're thinking. I do know what you wrote, though:

...From which it's quite clear you put their opinions on a pedestal, or imply that in your opinion, they should be.

 

I can accept Ali at no2 being too high in some peoples opinions, tho Id have him there personally, amazing ability & brilliant resume..... but to say Pep is too high at no5 is way off, he had as much pure boxing ability as anyone who ever boxed, probably more & is widely regarded as the best ever FWT, a weight class that has produced many brilliant boxers, he`s likely the best defensive fighter ever too.

Probably the only thing against him was that he never won titles in different weights but he was certainly a master of his own natural weight class, of that there is 0 doubt.

 

Me "All these people worked in boxing, probably studied boxing and impact boxing. Love how thereopinions are worthless and much more insignificant than ESB's."


No... you really need to improve your reading comprehension if that's what you're getting. I'm not even going to further explain if you actually decipher that as me putting their opinions on a pedestal. That is definitely not implied.

 

I fail to see how Gomez ever proved himself to be a better Featherweight than Marco Antonio Barrera. :verysad

 

But there are other fighters who also mastered their own weight class, but also had more success at other weights and/or better resumes to go along with it. Look at Greb, Benny Leonard, Ezzard Charles, or Duran, to name a few. I don't see how Pep warrants being rated over those guys. As your post acknowledges, Pep gets an extra boost based on his form and ability over fighters that actually accomplished more.

Also, Pep's claim to being the #1 all time best in his weight class is probably the shakiest of all the fighters I mentioned, given that he lost 3 out of 4 to another fighter who is also a candidate for that top spot, even if he did have valid excuses for the losses. There's always been a heated debate over whether Pep or Saddler deserves to be rated as #1.