shza

His record was padded for sure but he beat more prime ATGs and HOF guys than anybody else and often did it multiple times over a span of almost two decades (to say nothing of the eye test)... Angott (who beat prime Pep), Zivic (who’d toppled Armstrong), Lamotta, Gavilan (arguably top 20), Basilio, Graziano, Olson, Fullmer... if you think those guys were bums go watch some tape. #1 is debatable (there’s a good case for Armstrong there imo) but top 5 is a lock.

i didnt say anything about skill here.. my only point was that we can't compare different generations by talking about who beats who to gauge who was better, since it's a n/a scenario anyway. the generation today being taller than the old, wasnt to argue that 'this generation is better', it was just to point out that it's due to natural selection, eugenics and diet. so if you could imagine an ali born in this generation being taller and stronger in line with the above...then maybe we can start comparing.. but the problem there is there's no equation to work that one out. how would you look at the same age if you were born in 1930? a lot different im sure. I ain’t no biologist, but I know natural selection takes far more than 2-3 generations to produce appreciable changes ... It manifests a lot quicker in short-lived species like fruit flies but human beings? We’re talking tens of millennia... Here’s an analogy for you: imagine there are two people trying to learn something (guitar, unicycle, whatever). Person A practices 20 times a month, whereas person B practices 2, maybe 3x a month. Who’s going to be better at the end of the month? Same thing applies to boxers: obviously the guy who stays in fighting shape and fights 20x a year is going to get better, faster than the guy who fights 2x or 3x and gains weight in between. Pick any great modern boxer and imagine how great they’d be if they took as many risks and were as active as a SRR. It’s not genetic, it’s about experience and putting in WORK.

I just read a book about this called “The Arc of Boxing” by Mike Silver, which argues that boxing is the ONLY sport where athletes have actually regressed since the 1950s. While their total disregard for modern boxers is irritating, the author and interviewees made some great points: 1. Old school boxers fought as much as 25 times per year. 2. Fighting more often exposed them to every conceivable style which made these guys much more clever and versatile. It was unheard of win a title after only 20 fights... a cagey vet with experience would expose you. 3. There were thousands of boxers to fight from the 20s to 50s (6000 in the USA alone at one point) and only one champ per division, which made competition fierce. 4. Almost every division was stacked, especially from the 30s on when black fighters were allowed to compete for the world titles. That undisputed greats like SRR and Willie Pep took Ls (however few) speaks volumes. The book goes on about the lack of great trainers and the falling out of favor of certain fighting styles but I’ll stop here by saying just watch some videos of SRR, Joe Louis, Kid Gavilan, Willie Pep, and Sandy Saddler and some of the beatings or schoolings they put on top competition. Pay attention to the timing, footwork, head movement, strategies and remorselessness. While I’m hesitant to mention Dempsey, Greb or Jack Johnson because there’s just not that much tape available, the guys I mentioned and any other great from the 30s-50s are the real deal and it’s hard to argue otherwise.

FACT: Willie Pep is greater than Pac, and he only ever fought in one division same with Ali... etc, etc, etc... so that is total nonsense dude, stop talking shlt there is - and only ever has been... ONE criteria for greatness... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how there is a also lesser consideration given to losses... nothing more you cannot claim to understand boxing, and yet question that fact ask any historian... check Cliff Rold's 'Measured Against All Time' that is how it is... that is how it has ALWAYS been lowering the standards for Pacquiao are not the actions of a genuine boxing fan... they are the actions of a pacfan to those who know this game, it is not really that close at all OK, but even if we go with your criteria, there's a strong case for Pacquiao.... IMO their resumes are dead even, which is the only reason why I'd say the 8-division record puts Pacquiao's legacy over the top. For example, what are these three definitive Floyd wins that are more impressive than anything Pac ever did? Hernandez & Corrales? Canelo? Gatti??? Are those really better than Pac's stoppages of true ATGs in Barrera and Morales or his W over Thurman at 40 (when/how, right)? Mentioning Floyd's h2h win over Pac would make sense, but the "how" & past prime factors rob it of some luster imo. You may turn to the common argument that Manny only beat the **** out of Oscar, Cotto and Margarito due to catchweights, but this logic could also be applied to some of Floyd's best performances, like Canelo, Marquez, or Hatton... I've never understood that one. But anyway, my point is that it's ridiculous & irrational to say "it is not really that close at all," especially if your argument is based on body of work... You'd do better to focus on Floyd's superior BOXING skills, trickier style & ability to avoid getting hit & dropped because there's no debate as to who was superior in that department. Any argument that says EITHER guy is substantially greater than the other reeks of fandom/feelings and cannot be taken seriously... They are the 1a and 1b greats of the last two decades in no particular order and the order will ALWAYS be debated because they never fought each other in their primes and their resumes are just that close.

that is just pac-tard nonsense FACT: MANY fighters who are greater than Pac only ever fought in 1 division the number of divisions you represented is NOT criteria for greatness that comes down to size/metabolism... and possibly steroids none of that shlt is genuine criteria for greatness there is only one criteria for greatness... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how nothing else matters * Mayweather has three wins better than anyone on Pac's resume * Mayweather also has a better body-of-work * Mayweather beat Pacquiao * Mayweather retired undefeated... Pacquiao got KTFO numerous times this is a fkn ridiculous discussion... as always LMAO not... even... close... !! Nah man, I'm not a "fan" of Pac nor a hater of Floyd or any boxer, so don't bring feelings into this. We are talking about 2 legendary fighters whose greatness is separated by the tiniest of margins. Saying that Pac > Floyd or Floyd > Pac is hardly ludicrous as there are good points on both sides. To say otherwise is some goofy ass fan ****. To justify my original argument: winning straps in multiple weight classes is a commonly cited criterion for ATG status... Fitzsimmons, Ross, and Armstrong benefited especially from this, as they were the first three-division champs. While jumping weights is no longer as impressive with all the new trinket belts and weight classes, going from FLYWEIGHT to 154 is a remarkable achievement any way you slice it, as is convincingly beating a Keith Thurman in one's 40s. Retiring at 49/50-0 is impressive but will probably be surpassed... ****, JCC could've hung it up at 87-0-1. Going from fly to super welter while fighting the best of the best, however, may never happen again. IMO the best argument for Floyd > Pac is not resume, an area in which both guys are near even, but rather that he would've beaten prime Pac h2h, which I believe he would have.. Floyd was a master adjuster/pragmatist and a guy who always figured out what to do in order to win. Case in point being the first Maidana fight, which is a textbook example of how to beat a mauler & a great showcase for PBF's wits.

He was off balance and moving backwards when he caught the tail end of that body shot... Tough call. He probably wouldn’t have fallen if he hadn’t been touched but I wouldn’t call it a knockdown because the punch barely landed.

Open doping would lead to oneupmanship and boxers who look like anime characters, at which point the fight would become a freak show... When Floyd fought that Japanese kickboxer on Rizin I caught some of the undercard and there was some cabinet of curiosities type **** going on there including a woman built like Scott Steiner lol. I don’t think that would catch on. I’m sure most boxers are pushing the limits with regards to supplements and work, anything to get an advantage... However, I’m equally sure that none of that can substitute for skill and experience. Plus a lot of them are using it to cut weight, which means they’ll be drained and weakened on fight night. Take Jarrell Miller for example... he could juice himself to the gills and still stand 0 chance of beating or even competing with an AJ or Usyk.

It seems to me like there are two classes of boxing heels... The brash trash-talker (think Ali, Money May after his "heel turn") and the mean, dirty fighter who ain't afraid to cheat (think Sonny Liston). Broner is pretty good at the former... Case in point his speech after the Pac fight which was straight out of WWE. As a matter of fact, I wonder why AB hasn't gone the wrasslin' route given his hopeless prospects as a boxer and talent for trash talk/swagger. Tyson Fury also has heel tendencies and potential (licking Wilder's bloody neck...). As for the latter... Nery and Benavidez come to mind as guys who shamelessly miss weight and, in the case of Benavidez, get caught playing with their nose.

FACT: Willie Pep is greater than Pac, and he only ever fought in one division same with Ali... etc, etc, etc... so that is total nonsense dude, stop talking shlt there is - and only ever has been... ONE criteria for greatness... WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how there is a also lesser consideration given to losses... nothing more you cannot claim to understand boxing, and yet question that fact ask any historian... check Cliff Rold's 'Measured Against All Time' that is how it is... that is how it has ALWAYS been lowering the standards for Pacquiao are not the actions of a genuine boxing fan... they are the actions of a pacfan to those who know this game, it is not really that close at all I'll definitely check out the book. And yes, Willie Pep & Ali were on a different level than both these guys & titles in multiple divisions is not the only criteria for greatness... But I'd argue it's a factor, especially when we are talking 8 divisions. Anyway, even based on your own criteria (who did you beat with consideration given to when and especially HOW) there is an strong argument for Pac > Floyd... Pacquiao stopped Barrera and Morales & beat the ****ing **** out of a much larger Margarito. Pac also stopped Cotto and made DLH quit, while Floyd struggled with both. Which 3 Mayweather Ws were better than those 5 I just mentioned, to say nothing of those I did not mention? (Canelo?) Regardless of whether I disagree though, I can concede that Floyd > Pac is defensible & respect your opinion because Floyd was a great boxer. In fact, I gave you a much better argument than the one you're trying to present: prime Floyd's style would've neutralized prime Manny h2h. Hell, emphasizing Pac's tendency to get dropped would get you much further than resume. To say "it is not really that close at all," however, is ridiculous. Irrational statements like that & infantile insults like "pac-tard" make you sound like an overly invested/emotional boxER fan rather than a clear-eyed boxING fan.

They are both great fighters, but Loma likes to fight on the front foot and be the aggressor whereas Whitaker liked to throw counters on the back foot and make guys miss... Loma’s style can be neutralized by larger guys with power while Sweet Pea’s was designed to neutralize.

The fact that Pac went from winning titles at FLYWEIGHT to super welter in itself automatically puts him ahead of Floyd on any ATG list, IMO.... That will never happen again.

You are a wise guy. But neither is your fault, not mine, people want gladiators. If everything was tight -- the last true natural champ was Sonny Liston ? Who knows... I don't even pay attention to the rumors and accusations because we have no way of knowing the truth given the corruption in boxing. Plus, "supplementation" is constantly evolving to exploit holes in the testing regimes. Either way, a juiced up bum is going to lose to a talented natural fighter 9x out of 10. This is the freakish Brazilian kickboxer I mentioned, btw (Gabi Garcia): https://middleeasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Gabi-Garcia-1.jpg

This belt is a joke going back several years. Mikey was the last to win it in the ring... off a C-level fighter in Zlatičanin who won the vacant strap by fighting another C-level fighter in Mamani. Devin's a quality boxer with potential star power, so I do get their rationale in lining themselves for $$$ down the road ... However, his eliminator with Abdullaev was such a mismatch that mosts fan will not recognize him as champ until he squares off with Lomachenko or Lopez (whose "franchise" belt is equally ridiculous). As far as I'm concerned, there is no legimate WBC champ at 135 until that happens.

He’s very big for middleweight so it wouldn’t surprise me but his chin will always be a question mark until he fights somebody with real one shot power at 160... Korobov and Derevyanchenko ain’t it. Jermall should fight the GGG-Munguia winner.

I think people prefer Pacquiao’s more aggressive, fan-friendly style of fighting and respect that he took on more dangerous opponents in their prime. I didn’t like to watch Floyd until I got heavy enough into boxing to understand the nuances of timing, distance, and adjustments.

As we saw in the first Canelo fight, GGG doesn’t deal well with guys who move a lot and fight on the back foot like Andrade. He is much more comfortable trading bombs at mid range and Munguia plays right into that. Munguia can bang but I think G’s chin will hold up and he’ll get the stoppage or a couple knockdowns at the very least.

They all do it, it’s lame as ****. This is reason 157 why casual fans prefer UFC.

Canelo has the best chance, but he'd have to have sustained championship runs fighting quality opposition at light-heavy and cruiser/heavy to put him the conversation with Robinson, Ali, or Leonard given how match-making works these days. Inouye's off to a good start & he's only 27 so that's another possibility.

It's actually good for the WBA because it justifies their having 3 champions instead of the logical one... Maybe they'll borrow the WBC's "franchise" concept and bump that up to 4.

You see Inoue possibly ending up as the best of all time? Especially from a public standpoint? Seems far fetched Not unless he ends up at welter & light-middle like Pacquiao with half the losses.... Far fetched indeed. But theoretically, he has a shot given his young age and how much he's already accomplished.

The media's making it out like the guy forgot how to fight after losing a relatively close decision lol... It's not like Teofimo did him like Beterbiev did Gvozdyk. How Lomachenko mentally rebounds from this will be what defines his legacy, not that loss. If he can figure out how to look good while boxing a power puncher, he could theroetically beat anybody at 135 or 130. All the IG kvetching and lack of a comeback fight on the horizon are not promising signs, though.

The memes are funny but like Ali said after failing the army IQ test for the second time, “I said I was the greatest, not the smartest!” Who cares about the literacy of these guys who get hit in the head for our entertainment?

What did they say that jab was a low blow or that Rosario went down too easy? Charlo had beaten the **** out of that man before that shot.

After thinking about it for a bit and writing some names down, I'd say there's a case for top 20-30, but definitely not top 10: 16 Who Are Definitely Greater IMO: Jimmy Wilde, Joe Gans, Jack Johnson (though this is mostly eye-test/sentimental tbf), Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, Barney Ross, Henry Armstrong, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Pernell Whitaker 18 Who Are Arguably Greater: Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Tony Canzoneri, Joe Louis, Charlie Burley, Archie Moore, Sandy Saddler, Rocky Marciano, Eder Jofre, Emile Griffith, Jose Napoles, Carlos Monzon, Salvador Sanchez, Tommy Hearns, Julio Cesar Chavez, Evander Holyfield, Ricardo Lopez, Manny Pacquaio (and probably a lot more I can't think of rn, especially old school guys) Depending on how you rate Pacquiao and Holyfield, then, Floyd definitely has a strong case for #1 since 1990.. I would personally rank him ahead of contemporaries like Oscar, Calzaghe, B-Hop, RJJ, JMM, MAB, Morales, Tito, and Tyson, although I've seen ppl argue otherwise. Also, he's probably a top 5 defensive fighter (I'd put Sweet Pea, Pep, and Ali ahead of him). Ultimately, what separates Mayweather from the guys at the top is the fact that he didn't fight many ATGs in their PRIMES... He doesn't have a definitive win like Tunney over Greb & Dempsey or Hagler over Hearns (though that Canelo W is looking better with each passing year... Pacman was well past-prime). Plus, as a modern boxer fighting 2x a year in an era where refs have all but shut down the savage physicality of yesteryear, there is simply no comparison to the old school. The 50-0 is kind of a moot point when you compare it with Wilde's 92-0-1, Chavez's 87-0-1, or Sugar Ray's 92 win streak.

I wouldn't make too much of it. Errol did better numbers cuz he had a better opponent. Fans are always willing to pay more for better fights & will wanna pay less for a bs fight. x1,000,000

No sources so it's probably fake, but a Dinu fight would be county fair sideshow type **** & Deontay reverting back to his old Butterbean status. Dinu is a Romanian police officer. I'd respect it more if he posted up as the inaugural WBC "bridgerweight" and started calling out Usyk & ****.

He needs to fight SOMEBODY at 160... **** even Jacobs. It’s sad that it took him that long to fight somebody like Derevyanchenko. Meanwhile his brother is unifying at 154.

PAC man is doing incredible things for his country, could potentially be president. That would actually be the greatest thing a boxer did outside the ring. Become a high level political official and help lead his country. Top notch. True... Vitali also stands out as the mayor of Kiev. I’d have to agree with Jack Johnson as well!

I would say Floyd's resume is better, but not by THAT much... "ten times better" is taking the piss. They are both in the same tier (top 15-50 ATG) and there isn't much separation. Here are my arguments why, feel free to counter them one by one but please none of the three Fs: fanboyism, femininity, or fake "facts"... ain't no facts when evaluating resumes. I am actually trying to find a SOMEWHAT objective way to rank ATGs though, so any feedback as to my rationale and which categories you think should be most heavily weighted is welcome: R1-R4: High Quality Wins (Floyd, close): Both guys have a similar number of high quality wins. Chavez has Azabache Martinez, Mayweather, Ramirez, Lockridge, Rosario, Limon, Cortez, Taylor 2x, Hernandez, Camacho, Randall (12)... Whereas Floyd has Hernandez, Corrales, Chavez, Castillo 2x, Gatti, Mitchell, Hatton (great win IMO), Judah, Oscar, Shane, Cotto, Pac, Canelo (13).... You could give a take a few on either side for sure... my point is it's close with a slight advantage to Mayweather. (This is the most important category but also the most subjective, so I'm not sure whether to assign 4 rounds to it or not.) (R1, R2: Mayweather, close, R3: Chavez, close, R4: Draw) R5-R6: Solid Title Defenses (Draw):: Both of them have a lot of defenses against decent contenders (Maidana or Haugen types)... Chavez probably has more but Floyd's opposition may have a better W/L percentage. Feel free to do the research, I am too lazy. (R5: Mayweather, close, R6: Chavez, close) R7: Legendary Wins v. ATGS (NC): One big knock on JCC's resume is that he definitely LOST when he fought a prime top 50 ATG in Whitaker (and it wasn't close IMO... I usually respect the judges' decision but this one was a ****ing joke)... but Floyd didn't fight Oscar or Pac in their primes so we'll never know on his end. Neither guy has anything like Ali over Liston and Foreman, Ross over Canzoneri, or SRR over prime Gavilan or Basilio. This keeps both of them out of the top tier. (R7: Draw, 9-9) R8: Manner of Victory (Chavez, clear): When comparing resumes, some attention has to be given to HOW fights were won... prime Chavez destroyed most of his greatest opponents... Mayweather has some good shutouts and stoppages (Hatton, Canelo) but a lot of close and questionable UDs as well (Castillo, DLH). (R8: Chavez, clear) R9: Titles, Weight Classes, Accolades: (Floyd) : Floyd's 15 titles across 5 weight classes clearly takes this one, though JC was no slouch... I believe he's second after Joe Louis for most consecutive title defenses. I didn't assign this one any more than a round to adjust for era... One belt or two classes in the one belt and eight class era is as or more impressive than four belts or four classes in the era of alphabet belts and weight class ****ery (i.e. pit stops in weight classes just so you can say you're an "x-divison champ"). (R9: Floyd) R10: Activity, Overall Record (Chavez, clear): OP's argument that we can completely disregard Chavez's early record against club fighters is facetious, IMO, as activity and quantity counts for something. We don't know **** about Chavez's early bum of the month club in Culiacan, but beating the **** out of a different guy every two weeks is impressive no matter how you cut it... This is another way to adjust for era--JCC came up at the tail end of a harder era and that's important. (R10: Chavez, clear) R11-12 (Championship Rounds): Fantasy H2H Matchup, Prime for Prime (Floyd, close): JCC struggled with great boxers like Taylor and Pernell, while Floyd excelled against pressure fighters so I think Mayweather takes this. However, the JCC of the Rosario and Taylor fights would've given PBF everything he could handle, I believe... That fight probably would've played out like the first Taylor fight (sans stoppage) or the Floyd-ODLH fight, imo. (R11-12: Floyd, close) R1: Floyd, 10-9 close R2: Floyd, 10-9 close R3: Chavez, 10-9 R4: Draw, 10-10 R5: Floyd, 10-9 close R6: Chavez, 10-9 close R7: Double KD, 9-9 R8: Chavez, 10-9 R9: Floyd, 10-9 R10: Chavez, 10-9 R11: Floyd, 10-9, close R12: Floyd, 10-9, close Verdict: 115-113 Mayweather in a UD with a lot of close rounds... surprise, surprise. I could also see 116-112 Floyd, 114-114, or 115-114 Chavez, but NOT a domination from either guy...

Goldberg, Goldberg...