Why does everyone say SRR was the best of all time

Hopkins is a ATG imo, and Roy did it one handed as his right hand was broken before the fight but he took it anyways and practically beat B-Hop with one hand. So if he had both available I wonder how it would've went.

And against Griffin he was timid and Griffin was a good fighter dude.

 

Supplements ???

Like the ones we've heard about in reference to Barry Bonds, and Flo Jo and James Toney and more then a few other boxers?

The old-timers did not have access to 'supplements'.

 

My nod goes to henry armstrong..no fighter in histroy has dominated three divisions simultaneously. the closest have been:

1. ray robinson--lost to maxim 175
2. Sugar Ray leonard-beat hagler 160 then went on to beat lalonde at 168,175
3. Floyd Mayweather Jr--beat baldomir 147, and oscar 154

 

If you have to ask why is SRR conisdered the best of all time, it must be because you don't know any better and haven't been following boxing long !

 

The effects are going to detrimental if anything past a certain point.

 

So 100+ fights gives him and others no real advantage over the modern elite.

 

resume wise and what he did in his prime no doubt SRR is no.1, no doubt. what he accomplished and who he fought in WW is legendary not to mention his career in MW was very solid as well and could easily be counted among the top 5 MW's ever. but i agree with what china_hand_joe etc. are saying that if you took the guy we see in those films from the 40's and put him in the ring with more modern fighters, he would be competitive, but would also be beaten by some of the the top guys. i'd pick hearns over srr in a h2h matchup, without comparing their achievements in their respective eras. most of these 'historians' lose credibility in these h2h matchups of old fighters and more modern fighter due to their bias or some ****. case in point some fools in the classic section picking jack johnson, dempsey, louis etc... over tyson.

 

atsch

Floyd DOMINATED 147 with three wins? And DOMINATED 154 with ONE?

 

Wrong, it keeps your technique sharp and leaves you constantly in shape.

 

If you include sparring sessions, todays athletes also fight 100s of times.

It would be fair to say over half of Robinson's fights are comparable to sparring sessions (hopefully nobody objects to this - over 50% still leaves a lot of fights)

 

Sparring isn't the same as fighting.atsch