Greatest of All-Time is bunch of BS!

[pbftxrs316]

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.

hell of a post. all i can type in really is wow. great post man

[pbftxrs316]

my opinion opn the matter reads as follows. while i agree that it is near impossible to really judge who is the greatest boxer of all time, it is just a matter of preference for fans to decide. yes, who are we to say that floyd mayweather jr would have been kocked out by hagler, hearns, or leonard and vica versa? a lot of times, people make these decisions based on the fact that boxing of today can tend to be a little more show than art. you have the boxers wanting more money, their ring size, wanting their opponents to wear this brand of glove, etc, and that imo takes away from the artform of the sport. i believe people's decisions on who they feel is the greatest boxer of all time are swayed by this as well, seeing as the boxing greats of the past fought more matches, an dfor less money. they seemed hungrier than today's boxers to a lot of people. they fought more grueling fights than boxers of today, and etc. but, people fail to realize is that each genertaions has it's own great boxers, and it has been this way for so many years, that choosing an all time great shouldn't be allowed, because many boxing historians base a lot of their choses on their own preference of the boxers. who really is the greatest? there is no right or wrong answer on this subject because it's a matter of opinion and that is where it should end. now, saying that a floyd mayweather jr is the best fighter in the sport today is a little more reasonable. or ali was the greatest fighter of his generation is a little more reasonable. the same with ray robinson, tyson, leonard, or whoever, although that doesn't make it right or wrong. it makes it reasonable and easier to choose. but, even that can be a little misleading especially when that boxer hasn't fought everybody in their division, nonetheless, it also depends on how you define the best boxer. skills, defense, power, speed, heart, etc comes into play as well. it's so easy for people to say that because ali or joe louis or dempsy, pep, robinson, or whoever else fought so may times, that the fighters of today wouldn't last with them, or can never be as great as them. and, that just shows me that people forget that it is not about the quantity of th ematches these greats had, it's the quality of their performances in these matches that really counts imo. but, we have fans from different generations deciding on the greats as well. each generation of fans tend to choose the fighter they grew up watching as the greatest fighter ever, disregarding the fighter's predecessors. it's subjective most of the time, but that's okay, because it's about each fan's preference. they pay tp watch these guys, so they should the the right to choose the greatest fighter in their opinion.

would srr beat floyd mayweather, who knows. was he more powerful than floyd, who really can say unless they were hit by both floyd and ray. once again, it's their opinion. just because it appears that ray hits harder doesn't mean he really does hit harder, which is why choosing the hardest puncher of all time is another nearly impossible feat, unless of course they hit a mchine and it calculates their punching power, but even then, just because they hit harder that day, doesn't make them the hardest hitter of all time. i think you guys see my point. every generation has their greats, and it should be judged that way, on the fighter's skills, overall impact of the sport during their time, charisma, because boxing is entertainment as well as an artform, and the fighters should be ranked according to their legacy and performance quality in their matches, not just on how many times they fought, which appears to domianate all time greats lists.

[hemichromis]

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.

somebody has to be and we can make eduacted guesses on who it was.

IME most boxing experts rate sugar ray robinson and muhammad ali right up at the top.

i do understand that wewill never prove or disprove who is the greatest but at least it makes for some interesting debates

[lennon]

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.

Post of the year.
I agree, i also think Ali is only said to be the greatest because he called himself that lol, it doesnt mean that he is. If he hadnt got sick people wouldnt hold him quite so highly either.

[jonnyboy151]

Of course you cannot say, beyond all reasonable doubt, who the greatest fighter of all time was. In fairness that's a given mate. However, if you look at a fighter's style, versatility, natural ability, relative punching power and speed, heart, adaptability and take into account the restrictions/advantages (if any) their era placed upon them you can come up with a bloody good idea of who the very best was. Although it will inevitabley vary, most people would go for Sugar Ray Robinson, and rightly so in my opinion.

[Grappler_Baki60]

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.

Sorry to say I may be one of the only few who disagree with you. In the world of boxing I will not talk about the human evolution and how we adapt to things. In my opinion boxers back then were in better condition then the boxers from NOW and we should all know this. Do u see boxers going wich I believe was 16 rounds. So it would be wrong for me to just say this straight up no direspect to anyone OLD DAY BOXERS ARE BETTER THEN MODERN DAY BOXERS.

[small_warrior]

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.

the first time i really agrre with you

[OptimusWolf]

you can't judge skills any differently than you can other abilities. Other than that I agree with the post, it is difficult to compare across generations in all sports. There are actually two schools of thought when studying anything with a historical dimension (usually applied to deciding how good einstein is for example). One is the relativist, measuring people in their own time, and the other is the absolutist, measuring people against an absolute standard.

I tend to favour the absolutist measure, but noones going to tell me Bradman wasn't the greatest batsman ever...

[-Antonio-]

What matters in subjective polls as this one is the consensus of what the public thinks. Just like someone can be champion of their block, they need to be universally recognized as champ by the dudes in their neighborhood.

Likewise, Michael Jordan, even though he never beat every baller in some 1 on 1, is considered the greatest basketball player of all time for what he accomplished. Similarly, Ray Robinson is the consensus greatest fighter all time based on esteem and accomplishments, not statistical figures and facts. It's about respect, and no one was more respected than Ray Robinson.

This is how I see it as well. It's based on esteem and accomplishments. And based on that SRR is the greatest of all time period.

[Grappler_Baki60]

In my opinion Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest of all time. I dont see anyone in any erra who could beat him. The guy was freakin fast as hell. His speed was that of feather weight. He had a left hook that was 2x better then DLHs. Sorry to say! Its hard not to consider this guy the greatest p4p of all time.