Top Five Greatest Fighters Ever

True. The level of comp is the only thing that proves greatness. Merely good fighters who are continually motivated and fit can keep beating dross. That does not prove greatness.

 

Bogus criteria IMO. Hypothetically, a guy that unifies a ****-weak division could potentially be ranked higher than a guy with a much better resume because the second guy's division was stacked as hell so never achieved unification? Nah, you have to look beyond the surface accomplishments and judge the fighters on how they performed vs the level of comp they faced, to do otherwise is reductive and unfair.

 

Well, right now my list is...Sugar Ray Robinson and four others...can't yet decide, lol..

 

Again, I do rate fighters using the resume criteria most of the time, obviously...
But.....When the guy didn´t avoid anyone and dominated the era...it is also unfair to say that he is not great simply because he didn´t beat an ATG, what he could do ? There wasn´t an ATG like Joe Frazier in his time.....you know what I mean ?

I´ll use a logic that may be silly, but try to think about this, someone already said that sometime ago.....Frazier beats Ali, Foreman beats Frazier and then Ali beats Foreman, all these three are ATGs and praised because they beat each other........but if Ali had beat them easily, we wouldn´t say they were that great and then blame Ali too...."Oh, they weren´t that great".....


Don´t get me wrong Kit ... Ali, Frazier and Foreman are all Great, of course, just used as an example to show how this can be a bit deceptive sometimes...

 

If he didn't prove it, he didn't prove it. Otherwise we're just guessing. I have to rate someone on what they DID do, not what they might have been capable of. If a guy never got the fights with the A-level comp, I can't guess that he was good enough and rank him as if he had, have to deal in reality. JMHO. :good

 

.....i guess there were...oh...25 or so guys who thought, "i'm not impressed by this guy joe louis's resume" after he landed his left jab in their face.

probably the most common reaction, wouldn't you say?

 

Well it depends how highly you value unification doesn't it.

What you call reductive and unfair is just in reality another perspective. If you really wanted you could argue lewis has a stronger resume than louis but i'd never rank him above because his achievements don't merit it.

 

"Teaching it 4a living" is not "doing it" , especially not in schools below university level .
Research is "doing it" however .

I did and do not bother either , but taking those 2 courses and missing on d rest that i mentioned is like 4 a fighter 2 have a mediocre uppercut and not knowing how 2 throw any other punch , if even this .
maybe i should have used bolo punch 4 comparison ? a mediocre bolo punch and nothing else at all .

Did u take those elementary courses that i mentioned b4 ?

i know in most universities in d world , B.Sc. in any subject is wasting time , studying mainly subjects of no relation 2d official subject of choice and only a few selected , usually of least importance "advanced" courses in order 2b able 2 tell that u did them :yep . like Roid Jones having Vinny Pazienza and Mike McCallum as "scalps" in his resume .

Passing courses , sometimes even with good grades , does not always equate understanding of them , d final exams / tests have their own nature , sometimes barely rel8ed 2 what was "taught" in d course , and ppl prepare 4 them simply by memorizing "solutions" 2 previous exams of their exam's author . I know how it is .

 

ofcourse I did, I just mentioned ring's and tensors as they never get mentioned below graduate level. I did everything from stats to calculus to algebra even as low as markhov chains. I completed 18 modules altogether.

Teaching is not learning the advanced any more. but it's about understanding the basics more than ever to allow competent dealings with misconceptions from 1 being a prime number to 7d = w being an accurate representation of the formula for days in a week.

 

From what I remember you rank it so high you favoured Floyd to fight Senchenko just because he had the WBA!!! Forgive me if I'm wrong....but that's bad mate

 

I do stand by that comment. I think any champ should aim to unify all title claims.

All a belt is, is a way for a boxer to say to the world "I'm the best". all these guys should be fighting each other to settle it.

Saying that, Armstrong never unified the world and coloured titles but I still rank him above Curry who unified them all.

Holmes never unified but I rank him above Wald who has. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, I'm saying I value achievements just as much as I value resume and my ranking of a fighter falls between my two valuations.

 

So if Floyd fought Paulie next you'd have little problem with it?

Me too, pretty much.

 

if Floyd said before retiring he wanted to unify the division and he fought paulie, bailey, bradley and senchenko then I'd have no problem with that strategy whatsoever.

Now I'd prefer he fights Pacman as he's the man I consider the best active WW (floyd hasn't fought in the division for a long time and I had pac beating timbo).

But yeah, unification fights rock for me :good

 

That's fair, your last point is where I stand: champ' should face highest ranked/best/most interesting challenger regardless of whethe he holds a trinket or not.

Was Senchenko even top ten? Even in this era I'd say no.

 

yeah the highest ranking guys are definitely more preferable to me. Unification is just like the icing on the cake.

erm probably as deserving of a spot as say kell brook or mike jones was.