Who cares? That's all you pac is Goat fanbois have to say. That doesn't make him the best where is a win over a top 25 atg on his resume let alone top 50 atg I'll wait.
You said it yourself that other boxers have done more... Yet when asked to answer the question... you cant. You alleged it, thus you have the burden of proving it. So who has achieved more than an 8 division world champ and 5 division lineal champ? WHO HAS DONE MORE, AS YOU SUGGESTED?
Srl did more in 40 fights than pac did in 70 refute that or **** off. Does pac have wins the equivalent of Duran hearns Hagler and benitez??? **** no he doesn't. Quit with this nonsense pac **** you don't know **** about boxing dumbass casual only what you read on pac land. Srl>pac
How do you know if any fighters today are good or not? Do we judge any fighter today on a small clip, when past their best, with a low frame rate? Shall we judge Floyd's whole skill set on a few seconds of his fight against Paul, or McGregor? Of course not, because that would be stupid.
A single win or even a couple of them doesn’t push you to the top, it’s about overall resume. Duran has 1 ATG win. Buchanan is a great win but how great was he really? Is he even a top 100 fighter. Marcel was good too and so was Barkley. Durans 100+ fights and a few very good wins and 1 of the best wins ever gets him into the top 10. However, Pac literally went through one champion after another on his 9th weight class. He is above Duran and in 10 years time, there will be no doubt about it. Floyd’s wins over Pac and Canelo puts him above Duran.
I didn’t say that was the case for everyone. However, the 1910-1920 and specially before 1900, there was no emphasis on having an amateur career. Over the years there was maybe 300 boxers that came to the gym, many trained for a year or so but never fought. Probably only 30 of them fought amateur and maybe a couple turn pro. I’d venture to guess, given the economical climate back in the 20’s that a much higher portion than 2/300 boxers on the gym turned pro back then. There is simply no incentive to turn pro today, but it doesn’t mean there are less boxers, they just have a better filtering system for turning pro. I know a guy who was national amateur champ, dedicates his life to boxing, I mean literally dedicated his life to boxing for 20 years. He’s an ok pro you would have never heard of. Fker would probably have been a champ back in the 20s. The competition is generally much tougher today, although of course, you still have bums. But even the guys who look average are still very, very good.
I find the classic forum fans much like Bruce Lee fans. Bruce Lee fans would argue to hell and back that he would beat someone like Khabib today. I love Bruce Lee as much as any other, he was a pioneer for mix martial arts but he would get his ass kicked today. Sports advance. Just as Royce Gracie would get his ass kicked today. Classic fans vote based on emotion and not data and facts. It’s obvious as hell watching any fights pre 1930s that they’re absolute garbage, anyone who denies that has never boxed or doing some mental gymnastics to somehow justify that it’s ok to have your hands on your stomach, chin up and backing in and out in straight lines. It’s also damn obvious that a globalised sport is more competitive than a national sport.
Great observation, but Floyd at no 6 looks suspect to me. I would have him placed between top 18 - 20 and that is being generous. Needless to say that Floyd used banned IV Fluid that masked PED, his performance against Pacquiao was not impressive and his win was not that convincing. Floyd was clearly the bigger man but he willfully did excessive running and clinching. If this was the way he fought in Pacquiao's backyard he won't get the win. His win against De la Hoya was also not that convincing the result could have gone either way. His win against Castillo and Maidana is also questionable. He would have lost to 1st Catillo fight if the fight was stage in Mexico and to 1st Maidana fight if the fight was staged in Argentina.
Great wins on paper, but Pac was injured, Canelo was drained and pre-prime, ODLH was well past his prime. Castillo most thought Floyd lost the first one and got a gift. Cotto was past his prime. Corrales and Hernandez were great wins, Hatton was a good win but Hatton was never the fighter at WW that he was at JWW. Remember before he fought Mayweather many thought Hatton got a gift decision vs Collazo in Boston. Mayweather has a great resume and being undefeated matters, but when you really put a microscope over many of his best wins, there's a lot of problems with these wins.
I somewhat agree with this. But perhaps not to this extent. Floyd beat everyone he should have done, just not at the time he should have beaten them. He's certified top 20 ATG though, I think he's 17 on my list.
The problem is, this sort of critique applies to ANY resume. So it’s very open to bias. We can either heavily criticise everyone’s resume in which case everyone sucks or we understand that, yes, there are holes but let’s look at the overall body of work. That’s why I said I don’t put much stock on undefeated records, it’s pretty arbitrary, more down to luck than pure skill. You have 3 fights that could have gone either way with different judges, how does that change your quality and rating as a fighter just because 3 random old men swayed one way another night? Even Durans win over SRL and vice versa is questionable. SRL fought the wrong fight first time and showed he was much better second time. Or you could say that SRL beat a fat untrained Duran who had stomach pains the 2nd fight, robbed Hagler and his only undeniable win is Hearns. In football/soccer, it’s not about who you beat and undefeated records. Nobody cares if Southampton beat Manchester Utd X times, teams win some and lose some despite being better or worse. People rank teams for their overall achievements. That’s it.
We need to go back to grade school... How do we define quality? It can be defined as the degree, amount or level of excellence of something. Defeated 5 lineal champ across 10 divisions is not just some kind of a number but more so of an excellence or greatness. The same applies to being an 8 division champion, 4 decade champion and the like...
Of course it does, but we're talking top 10 all time, you have to start plotting hairs somehow and quality of each victory is a way to do that. As for Duran vs SRL, he had a full camp, was in the prime of his life, was unbeaten, was the bigger man and had 16 rounds to adjust at any time. Fighting the wrong fight isn't a valid excuse, the fight happened at the right time and the result is what the result is. It's hugely different to fighting the right guy at the wrong time, which Floyd did a lot above 135.
Boxing had global participation in the early 1900s. People seem to think that just because the sport wasn't as recognizably diverse as it is today that there weren't a wide range of groups participating. The Germans, French, English, Irish, Scottish, Italians, Russians, Jews, etc., all competed to a significant degree back then. You also had American blacks fighting in large numbers, a sizable representation of Filipinos and Mexicans, and a smattering of Spaniards (Uzcudun), Argentinians (Firpo), Chileans (Loayza), Cubans (Bill), Panamanians (Brown), Brazilians (LaHood), Native Americans, etc. I do think that boxing is more global today, but I don't think that it necessarily makes it more competitive. I saw you say that there isn't conclusive data about participation levels between then and now, but I think we can make an educated inference that the domestic scene in America was far more vibrant than it is today. I have an article that gives a summary on the state of affairs in Pennsylvania alone. In 1926, PA had an estimated 2,000 professional boxers. As of today, the USA has a mere 2,866. Added to that, PA hosted 390 shows in 1926, with roughly 500,000 attending, and held 58 registered boxing clubs. On top of that, Pennsylvania had two World Champions, five top-10 fighters, and three other top-15 guys. Hell, in the late twenties you had two of the greatest flyweights ever vie for a state title (Wolgast vs. Davies). As as anecdotal note, John Scully has been talking for years about the diminishing local scenes. There are a few other things that I would stress, too. Fighters are generally softer nowadays. They don't have to fight for gate receipts like the old-timers used to. Getting punched in the head for a living isn't high on the priority list anymore, even in emerging economies. Secondly, the proliferation of titles and classes means that divisions are thinner and without one champion per, obligations to take on the best are minimized.
You’ve put a lot of effort into this, but don’t spoil it by being ignorant. Not every poster on the Classic section is biased due to nostalgia. I’ve been here almost 10 years. As a whole, the guys who frequent the Classic are more knowledgeable than the guys who frequent the General. Regarding sports advance, fights will always be determined upon how guys match up stylistically. Not all modern fighters are superior. Regarding the sport, it’s a 2 way street. Yes, it’s more globalised today, but then it’s not nearly as popular as it once was. Regarding ranking fighters, everyone has different criteria. Yes, data is important, but there’s many other factors to consider. My main criteria for ranking guys is: How skilful were they, and who did they beat and at what point. Longevity and number of titles won or divisions fought in etc, all come afterwards. That’s just my personal preference. I’m with Pimp on this one. Although Manny has a much, much deeper resume than a guy like Leonard, where he’s also had better longevity and has achieved a lot more, I personally could never rank Manny higher. When they were both at their best, IMHO, Ray Leonard was just a better fighter than Manny. He was more skilful and his best wins trump any that Manny has. Therefore, he has to rank higher. I really would like you to post this on the Classic. I think you’ll get some great replies.