Does GOAT mean "unbeatable" in your opinion?

[Great John L]

Hello, Boxing Fans. I have been thinking about what it means to be GOAT and after reviewing some of the Top 10 Lists from this forum and others, I wanted to know, does anyone have or view their choice for GOAT as a Fighter nobody can beat????? I notice that in some top 10 lists, not necessarily from this forum, the top 10 list is based on who beat who. But other times I see lists with a certain fighter number one, but the list's creator claims that some of the lower level fighters could beat his top pick in a hypothetical match up. Not just the GOAT on the list either. For example, sometimes I'll see lists with Marciano and Dempsey very high and Foreman very low, but the list's creator believes that Foreman could easily beat Dempsey or Marciano. So I was wondering, does anybody base their top 10 lists or their chocie for GOAT as a fighter who can beat other fighters? Or do your lists go on other qualities, such as how good a fighter was in their own era, or number of defenses, or what they did outside the Ring?

So how do you set up the criteria for your GOAT? Whether that fighter can beat all others? Or by some other standard?????

[NChristo]

No fighter is unbeatable, no exceptions, no one at all.
Everyone has a style that works against them so anyone that does rank purely on who they "think" is unbeatable is going to have a very flawed list.

Being the greatest means achieving the most and beating the best to prove it, coming out on top of great adversity, number of defences, etc, etc.

Also what a boxer does outside of the ring should not effect his standing.

[young_robbed]

no way man Ali may be the GOAT of the heavies but he would eventually meet his match even if he was in his ultimate prime throughout his entire career

[BigStereotype]

No such thing as invincible. Everyone has a bad matchup, it's just a matter of finding it.

[Barn]

No no-one is unbeatable styles make fights.
The closest thing to unbeatable is the G.O.A.T in Sugar Ray Robinson though in my opinion.

[THE REED]

No..........

[Joeyzagz]

There is probably a Heavyweight or 2 who could give Calzaghe problems, so no one is truly unbeatable.

You should rank based on who could beat the most styles, not by invincibility.

[BKM-2010]

The way I see it, skillswise, the GOAT is a boxer who could have beaten any boxer in history even with the absolute worst styles matchup. So he could be beaten, but very difficult, and he himself would win most fights in a 3 fight trilogy against anybody in history.

There is only one man IMO and that is Muhammad Ali. Just my opinion though.

[Barn]

The way I see it, skillswise, the GOAT is a boxer who could have beaten any boxer in history even with the absolute worst styles matchup. So he could be beaten, but very difficult, and he himself would win most fights in a 3 fight trilogy against anybody in history.

There is only one man IMO and that is Muhammad Ali. Just my opinion though.

Ken Norton? He arguabbly won all 3 fights.

[Great John L]

Yes, I of course do not rate by who beats who, but very often I find lists like that. I remember scrolling through the old posts on the top 10 Heavies best to worst and found a few old posters who made their lists based on who beats who and tried to use that as justification for their rankings of Prime Mike Tyson at number 1 and why his flaws in his later career could be overlooked. I also sometimes see people who have Ali at #1 for similar reasons.