what's your opinion?

No, i don't consider him the best. Just because he was the first good lightweight and all of the opponents from his era get overrated by writers, it does not make him the best. Roberto Duran and Pernell Whitaker are both superior.

No, i don't consider him the best. Just because he was the first good lightweight and all of the opponents from his era get overrated by writers, it does not make him the best. Roberto Duran and Pernell Whitaker are both superior.oh ok, i was just asking because a couple of magazines rate him as the best lightweight of all times. :)

oh ok, i was just asking because a couple of magazines rate him as the best lightweight of all times. :)

This sport is known to show favourtism towards old fighters. The main reason to this is because, the writers in this business are older than my grandparents and they tend to like thier childhood heros more than the current talent involved in the business.

This sport is known to show favourtism towards old fighters. The main reason to this is because, the writers in this business are older than my grandparents and they tend to like thier childhood heros more than the current talent invloved in the business.that's true.

and another reason why they claim the old fighters as the greatest of all times is because they didn't use any steroids nor weights, they were natural fighters.

what's your opinion?

He could be.

I'm not really sure at the moment.

I don't know enough about Gans, but what I do know is enough to rank him near the top.

I think at this moment in time I'll have Duran above Gans, because of lack of knowledge :pat:

I'm not really sure at the moment.

I don't know enough about Gans, but what I do know is enough to rank him near the top.

I think at this moment in time I'll have Duran above Gans, because of lack of knowledge :pat:it's ok. :boxing:

I consider him the best.

I consider him the best.it sucks their's not that many boxing clips of him. :nonono: