Greatest of All-Time is bunch of BS!

**Welter_Skelter** · 03-01-2007, 09:38 AM

You Sir.... Are very Correct... And I also get tired hearing about the good OLE days..

**kayjay** · 03-01-2007, 09:40 AM

Well said Mr. Gunstar.

**cortdawg25** · 03-01-2007, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Gunstar1

There is no such a thing as the greatest of all time, because every era had some great fighters. It's dumb to consider any boxer as the greatest of all-time.

Each era is different, we don't know how great Sugar Ray Robinson would've been in today's era or how great Floyd Mayweather Jr. would've been in Robinson's era or Jack Dempsey fighting today in the so called ****ty heavyweight era, would Jack Dempsey still been an all time great fighting in the era of the super heavyweights, (Dempsey was only 175 to 180 in his prime) etc etc....

Skills is different, you can judge skills with your own eyes, but still you can't just consider guys like Whitaker, Mayweather Jr., Roid Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard & James Toney the greatest of all time, because none of these guys fought the other era greats.

We just don't know how these greats would've been fighting in diffwerent era, all great boxers from each era should be considered an all time great but not the greatest of all time.

Mohammad Ali was not the greatest of all time, Sugar ray Robinson was not greatest of all time, Henry Armstrong was not the greatest of all time, Sugar Ray Leoanrd was not the greatest of all time, Willie Pep was not the greatest of all time, Roberto Duran was not greatest of all time, Rocky Marciano was not the greatest of all time, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is not the greatest of all time etc...

I've seen too many great boxers and I can't pick just one guy as the greatest of all time, maybe 10 or 20 but not 1.

I hear you, it's too many eras with different rules and different circumstances to say who is the greatest of all time. All a fighter can do is dominate his time and he'll be forever remembered for that. The greatest in this here day!!

**GunStar** · 03-01-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Welter_Skelter

You Sir.... Are very Correct... And I also get tired hearing about the good OLE days..

You're not the only one mate, I respect and love the good ole days but I'm also sick of heaing about it!

A true boxing fan will love each era not just the good ole days!

**Kid Achilles** · 03-01-2007, 10:02 AM

This is the most intelligent thing you've ever said on this forum. Now if you could just concede that Carmen Bassilio had the perfect style and strength to have a good chance of beating Mayweather.

**Deeznuts** · 03-01-2007, 10:04 AM

I think Ali is considered the greatest of all time, not just because of what he did in the ring, but what he did outside.

**tito yuca** · 03-01-2007, 11:34 AM

Comparing different eras is ridiculous. The proper way of making all-time best lists is judging how much each athlete dominated his era, not by who would win fantasy matchups. Changes in nutrition, training, medicine, technique, and numerous other factors make it impossible to correctly determine who would come out on top in a matchup of boxers (or any other athlete) from different eras.

This being said, I don't agree that saying an athlete is the best of all-time is ******.

**.Mik.** · 03-01-2007, 11:43 AM

I agree with you, but all just to an extent.

I dont think that there is any way that you can compare the boxers of today with those of yesteryear when it comes to deciding greatness.

The reason being that I dont think greatness ought to be defined as a skill thing. For example Ali at his peak may well have been crushed by someone like Lewis simply because of the natural human evolution and development (something that SEEMS to not be as prevalent in boxing as in other sports...but we dont know cos unlike sprinting for example, its not measurable) that allows him to be bigger, stronger etc. So with that off the table you need to look at other ways to define greatness and to me the best way is if you take competetivity into account. You CAN measure that because it is something that has been completely shaped by events within the boxing world since. You can get through your entire career, win a couple of championships, retire undefeated and still not have fought someone as close to your ability range as the stars of yesteryear...because there werent as many divisions, werent as many titles, werent as many networks, promoters, people to divert this, block that, hide behind this, stop that from happening.

Thats why so many of the great older fighters had many more losses on their record than their modern day equivalents. Because the fighters were more competetive (not necessarily better) and in fighting more competetive matches, putting yourself in more danger, making things more difficult...you have a better call for greatness than many of the modern champions (and I include the likes of Calzaghe, who I admire and respect a great deal and rate as highly as anyone else in boxing today or in the close past) wouldnt make it too high on the All-Time-Great 'list', in my opinion.

**Hydro** · 03-01-2007, 12:07 PM

It's the same as mythical matchups and p4p lists.

It may be b.s., but it is fun to debate regardless.

Greatest of All-Time is bunch of BS!