Where do you rank em...

See dangerousity's posts, where do you think people rated Leonard as he was fighting Hearns/Hagler?

I mean, c'mon now.. beating Floyd is an ATG-worthy achievement in itself.

 

now that's a safe answer right there..

 

If that's the case you should be rating floyd much higher, if the victory would be so momentous.

 

So you hear dramatized stories about a guy and see 1 footage and form the opinon that he is a top 10 ATG and one of the best fighters that ever lived

BRB, watching 1 fight of Andre Ward and claiming he is the best of all time.

The film doesnt impress me, Floyd for example looks a lot more impressive, and Im as analytical as they come when it comes to breaking down fights and fighters.

 

Hagler is rated about top 30sh, Im sure if Duran didnt beat SRL and beat Hagler instead, that single greatest win of his would have proppelled him to top 10 ATG where is now on most peoples lists.

 

Athletes in every sport where it's possible to actually compare to athletes from previous generations are superior almost across the board. Every single world record in men's track and field, for example, was set within the last 20 years. Every single world record in men's swimming was set within the last 10 years - 90% of them are less than 3 years old.

To say that boxers of today are quantifiably worse than those of previous generations is simply ignorant. It's more logical to say that Pacquiao and Mayweather are the 2 greatest boxers of all-time than to have them outside of the top 40, as some people here seem to.

 

Floyd isnt just a name, he's on top of his game (p4p #1-2), a true atg and has never lost. (it's the mix of him being an all time great on top of his game)

A win for Pacquiao is more than adding Floyds name.

 

Is this a serious comment?

 

Answer these questions for me:

1. Do you think that athletes in sports with world records are the only ones who are getting faster and stronger?
2. Does being faster and stronger give you an advantage as a boxer?

 

Kind of a pointless question mainly because Pac and Floyd's respective fans will always have them as greatest of all time despite how ridiculous it sounds.

Size should not be an excuse for the fight. If Pac loses I don't want to hear about how Floyd was "supposed" to win due to size disparity. If Pac has been slaughtering guys at 147 then he's considered a qualified member of that league. Lebron and Kobe never made excuses about their lack of [college] experience and neither should Pac if he loses.

People who are using the size issue as a safety net are just giving Floyd a good reason to not take the fight. Why should he do so if you aren't willing to give him as much credit as Pac if Floyd wins? Money isn't that big of a factor seeing that he made $40 mil against Mosley - a smaller star than Pacquiao. Granted Pac has more stars on his resume than Floyd does but if Floyd beats him it suggests those stars that Manny defeated were made to order for him. A weathered, weight-drained Morales isn't any more difficult to defeat than a prime Castillo.

If either guy wins he makes top 10-15 in my book. And being deemed as greatest of all time would NOT be outlandish. At this point Pac has the better resume but the margin is small, not blown way out of proportion like some people make it out be.