What are your controversial boxing opinions?

Thanks i couldnt have said it better

 

Does it not take more than a " good fighter " to be your 98th best fighter of all time ?
Also, i remember you saying the Lacy performance was excepttional

 

paul williams will be top 3 p4p next year

 

Historical fighters are not automatically better than their modern equivalents

Multiple weight divisions are good and better than traditional 8 which only benefit the biggest fighters in each

More than one belt per division is good as it means unifications and more superfights

European boxers need to fight in America to prove themselves (think how us Euros view football played outside of Europe)

 

floyds the best welter weight ever

 

tyson prime would beat ali prime

 

If Pele had played in Europe he might be known as the best player ever...

 

:hand

 

Riddick Bowe was better than Lennox Lewis in his prime.

Ricardo Lopez is more overrated than underrated. Jung-Koo Chang and maybe Yoko Gushiken would've beaten him under Flyweight. Possibly Hilario Zapata as well.

Floyd Mayweather is not one of the elite fighters of all time, not from an accomplishments point of view or just considering pure ability. I've seen plenty better. He's second tier in the grand scheme of things.

A few for now.

 

I have always said that only the top 50 fighters of all-time deserve the title of ATGs. I do not think, ability-wise, that Joe Calzaghe was a great boxer. I do think the Lacy performance was exceptional, but I think Amir Khan looked exceptional beating Graham Earl. Only against Kessler did Calzaghe prove he could turn it on against top level opposition, and one half of one fight is nothing in an entire career. I'm not on this thread to have this argument again stoney, the TS asked for our controversial opinions, so I gave mine, simple as that.

 

LMAO!

floyd also beats pernell

 

Sober up!