Who is the greatest of all time? P4P? Robinson, Leonard, Mayweather or RJJ?

[billeau2]

no its not unfair of you to ask. Legitimate questions. No its not something i wish to be true. I live in one era and studied in the other i did not live in. We had our moments of really entertaining fights. Back in the old days fights meant more to the fighters. More pride involved. And also a way to make money. But that money did not motivate them. That's a fact.

Those claims you mentioned i brought up. Are all history of boxing references. Not claims. Actual findings and facts.

Since the birth of Boxing im sure there were boring fights that took place back in the day. They weren't reported as much mostly because they didn't have the media we do today social and news media blasting it. But we do have historians that dug up things but that's about with any history in the past on ony topics.

Today though. And even as of old. The politics surrounding boxing is horrible. Lucertuvie also. Lots of people became wealthy in this game while the fighters seem to be the ones who ended up broke and without a job. So yes in today's world that has changed and is changing more so. Fighters fighting less and not as long in their career. Marketing themselves for their financial future rather than their legacy in the sport.

More fighters today are skipping the olympics and turning pro faster to get a foot in the door rather than wasting years trying to get to the olympics and through the Amatures to maybe turn pro and go somewhere in the game.

Back in the day a tough kid off the street could get a shot at a title after fighting a few who knows kinda fights. You cant deny if you know the history of the sport that men got into the ring with more passion for the title of champion than they do today.

I dont know your age or how long you've followed Boxing. Or to what degree you have. I dont claim to know it all or be as some type of expert either. But i have sat and talked with guys like Forman, SRL , Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Pernel , Boom Boom, Hagler, just tot name a few. Watched countless interviews, Done some myself, new and old. And one thing i've learned from all of them. It just aint like it use to be. That fire that drive that pasion. They have it today YES...But not like then. And their are some that do but most dont.

I agree with you in principle but I do not think such a statement or position that either you, or Bundana took is defendable. Bundana is one of the smartest posters here, his understanding of trivia in boxing is incredible, and I know you are also a knowlegable poster which begs the question...

Why would two smart boxing minds choose to argue something that is patiently ridiculous? Its like saying women today are sexier. How does one prove that exactly? I can tell you that boxers prepared better on average than modern fighters. One need only look at the weights fighters come in at, etc. I can show you (the impersonal 'you' not you per se) film and make a list of all the things a fighter knew how to do in 1950...as compared to fighters who are professional amateurs, and do little more than go back and fourth out of a classic boxing pose... I can even go so far as to show training and tricks fighters used...

But these are all specific categories and we are basing conclusions on behavior and observation. "heart" is not such a thing. Did Andy Ruiz show heart the first fight? after getting starched? did fury show more heart getting up than Ali? or less heart? see the problem here? and as far as goals? again we might be better off looking at athletes and where they are going. Sure there are more boxers now, but the elite athletes are not interested in being the heavy weight champ of the world... this is a statement that can be subject to proof.

Both of you guys are IMO are too smart to be arguing about how many angels are on the head of a pin.

[Bundana]

the fact that you said that means you kinda do understand youre just not seeing my point. I really do understand your though. Im saying money wasnt their motivator.

Youre thinking it was and youre saying they fought more because they had to to get more of it...and all those are true in fact. And i cant disagree with you. But...The MONEY was not what made them fight. They act of survival was their motivation.

And its a whole lot different than just fighting now a days for a check. Today...we cant see the fights we want for political reasons. When then people would fight a grizzly bear to feed their family. It meant something more back then is why they fought with a different intensity and passion.
Especially during the Great Depression. If they didn’t put these unbelievable displays of courage on they wouldn’t of been put on the bill the week after, and sometimes the very next night.

Middleweight Champion Tony Zale claimed that he fought professionally 5 nights a week when he first started out just so his family could eat everyday and if he didn’t put it all on the line, he wouldn’t have been matched the next night (needless to say he didn’t have to train in those times – he was “match fit”).

How could you not give your all in those circumstances? The big money would come when you got your title shot.

Jack Dempsey famously fought with no food in his stomach for days. And the only way to put food in his stomach was…….to fight! Thats intense man. I dont know if you know what its like to be hungry. Or have nothing. Or watch your kids cry because theyre hungry. But you will do what you gotta do to survive. Fighters that did it for that reason back then didnt care if they died or killed someone in that ring. Keep in mind Boxing was also involving to what it is today also...
Nowadays the money comes all too easy by comparison, in fact it’s literally thrown at the amateur starlets coming through to the paid ranks, and that’s the reason I believe why boxing could be in decline (in my opinion).
The stars of today haven’t got to prove how good or tough they are before they make the “big time” money. They’ll never have to go hungry.
Pampered from the first day they turn pro in some cases living a champion’s life of cars and plenty of spare cash, without having to prove anything.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they shouldn’t be rewarded for their efforts but I believe that there should be a system of some sort for making the money.

When I said that money was the motivation for the old-timers, I meant that it was necessary for them to make money to provide for themselves and their families.

So when you say that survival was their motivation, that's pretty much the same thing (as they needed money to survive) - so I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

Whether or not the average fight was more exciting in the old days, compared to today, is impossible to say - since we have maybe less than one percent of the fights available to us.

And this is the first time I've heard, that Zale fought 5 times a week early in his career! Not that I dispute this - I just haven't heard that before.

Also let me add, that I'm very surprised to see, that our little exchange of views has gone down without the usual snide remarks and name-calling… which, unfortunately, seems to ruin just about every discussion here in this forum. So it's nice to see, that a serious debate CAN be had - without it degenerating into some form of mud-slinging.

[billeau2]

It really doesn't even deserve an explanation. lol. The guy just wants SRR to go to the back of the bus, so to speak.

Ill tell ya one thing T...If Rosa Parks had the fire power of Robinson, can you imagine how history might have changed a bit?

[them_apples]

What is true is that they couldn't go to the lengths Floyd did to engineer their careers. Even those who did that to build up momentum and make money had to eventually fight opponents with a heart beat if they wanted to wear a belt. And the living breathing opponent (usually) got to meet him on even footing.

Floyd's antics with gloves, and weigh-ins, and dope testing, and venues... it was no different than Anthony Joshua avoiding Fury and Wilder - clearly a guy going to those lengths has something to hide. Floyd was lucky that he carried the Box Office Draw, so fighters always acquiesced. It would not have gone that way for him in decades past.

This I do completely agree with. Like Olympic records, if you pay close attention, the rules often change as does the equipment, giving a false sense of improvement.

Floyd figured the game out, and went full 90 once he did the whole "I am my own promoter now".

Back in the day, promoters got paid first, then fighters. Fighters had a lot less control to manipulate things as they do now. It was sort of like the UFC, fights were almost forcibly made and a fighters only job was to stay in shape and always be ready, this is also why a lot of boxers racked up losses and had rematches all the time to try again. A fighter would fight anyone. I light weight would have gone in with a heavyweight if that's what the promoters wanted, and they would try - until they got stopped. A lot of guys today are getting paid just to lose. Take Broner for example. He never shuts his mouth because thats how he get's paid. The entire splurge after the Pacquiao fight about how he thought he won, was a comical way of staying in the relevant cheque cashing business. People forget these guys aren't gonna make this kinda of money ANYWHERE else, they probably couldn't even hold a factory job.

[PAC-BOY]

I agree with you in principle but I do not think such a statement or position that either you, or Bundana took is defendable. Bundana is one of the smartest posters here, his understanding of trivia in boxing is incredible, and I know you are also a knowlegable poster which begs the question...

Why would two smart boxing minds choose to argue something that is patiently ridiculous? Its like saying women today are sexier. How does one prove that exactly? I can tell you that boxers prepared better on average than modern fighters. One need only look at the weights fighters come in at, etc. I can show you (the impersonal 'you' not you per se) film and make a list of all the things a fighter knew how to do in 1950...as compared to fighters who are professional amateurs, and do little more than go back and fourth out of a classic boxing pose... I can even go so far as to show training and tricks fighters used...

But these are all specific categories and we are basing conclusions on behavior and observation. "heart" is not such a thing. Did Andy Ruiz show heart the first fight? after getting starched? did fury show more heart getting up than Ali? or less heart? see the problem here? and as far as goals? again we might be better off looking at athletes and where they are going. Sure there are more boxers now, but the elite athletes are not interested in being the heavy weight champ of the world... this is a statement that can be subject to proof.

Both of you guys are IMO are too smart to be arguing about how many angels are on the head of a pin.

i agree. I really didn't see it as an argument or at least he didn't come off to me that way. Had he done that the conversation would have been way different lol. He has his views and opinions as i do mine and i respect his also and understand his as well. There are always different reasons we think what we do and know the things we do. He brought up smart questions. Your points are also understandable also. And agreeable.

[PAC-BOY]

When I said that money was the motivation for the old-timers, I meant that it was necessary for them to make money to provide for themselves and their families.

So when you say that survival was their motivation, that's pretty much the same thing (as they needed money to survive) - so I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

Whether or not the average fight was more exciting in the old days, compared to today, is impossible to say - since we have maybe less than one percent of the fights available to us.

And this is the first time I've heard, that Zale fought 5 times a week early in his career! Not that I dispute this - I just haven't heard that before.

Also let me add, that I'm very surprised to see, that our little exchange of views has gone down without the usual snide remarks and name-calling… which, unfortunately, seems to ruin just about every discussion here in this forum. So it's nice to see, that a serious debate CAN be had - without it degenerating into some form of mud-slinging.

I can honestly say our view on motivation are the same that it always will boil down to money one way or another. Because nobody wants to do it for free. Especially back in them days when a savings account was unheard of. My point on that was these guys fought for a real hunger. It wasnt just a paycheck is maybe for better words if you know what i mean. Unless you were being controlled by the mob in that era also.lol whole other story...
Remember how cage fighting took off? MMA? I know its whole other sport and all that but it was new. Exciting. Different. I kinda compare that to the 1020's -1950's when Boxing was the a close 2nd to how big baseball was back then. How popular it was. Boxing evolved into what it is today. It changed with the times as everything has and does. I get it. But its still fighting. And a lot has changed. Rounds got shorter. Going to a neutral corner, standing 8 count, three knockdown rule, ref or doc can stop the fight...list goes on. People would get knocked down and get back up only to have the guy right back on top of him. lol. Imagine that ****.
I can rant on why i think it was more exciting or could have been however you wanna look at it. But it was new and popular and interesting to everyone. People knew who the champ was. Most casuals dont know Wilder or ever seen a fight. They only remember TYSON...Or De la Hoya, Ali Foreman And the older guys know older fighters depending on the age of the person. We compare fighters P4P. Current and of all time. IMO...P4P fights were more exciting back then for reasons of maybe not comparison but of the people because it was an important event. It was different in rules. They did fight for money but also because of actual survival for themselves and family. And win or lose they had to fight to win not just look like they were there to get paid. Fans dont like that now or then and they wouldn't be able to fight again. Which could then cost them their family or their life. So i see it as more intense. MOre exciting because it was fresher more popular . Of course not as theatrical as of today.
As for debate...I dont really even see it as a debate really. Discussion better maybe. But yes nice to agree to disagree or See how other views are. You're not off youre rocker, or disrespectful. Respect is a two way street. I wouldn't type this many words if it wasn't enjoyable of a conversation despite you not agreeing or maybe we misunderstanding our logic or trying to understand where the logic comes from. Plus there are plenty of other people on here i can go off on name calling rants and bashing. Which is fun also but you cant beat a serious topic or conversation with a good poster.

[travestyny]

Ill tell ya one thing T...If Rosa Parks had the fire power of Robinson, can you imagine how history might have changed a bit?

LMAO. Nearly spit out my beverage. And you nearly owed me a new macbook

[hansS]

Laughing at Mayweather even part of this question.

[Blond Beast]

When Rocky said he was fighting Drago for “No Money” that’s the one joke every boxer who has ever lived can laugh at.

[Rusty Tromboni]

WHAT? Did he say Loma is better than SSR ???

I didn't just say it. I proved it.

I noticed you have William Hung as your avatar. What is he up to these days?

It really doesn't even deserve an explanation. lol. The guy just wants SRR to go to the back of the bus, so to speak.

So are you two already swapping cum?

Which one of you was on top first?