Greatest of All-Time is bunch of BS!

[cortdawg25]

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.

But what if competition from yesteryears couldn't compete in this age, what if the competition now couldn't compete then. there is still too much doubt and too much room for opinion to actually come to a fact "who is the greatest of all time" Ali's competition might couldn't do nothing with the HW today. I think that's what you were saying, but just cause a certain group was competitive with Alli doesn't mean they would be competitive with Klitschko. So you can't just base the greatest of all time based on their competitive matches. Just maybe their is athlete that is so good that he makes other fighters look like nothing...hint!!

[HitBattousai]

George Foreman already proved he could give the Heavyweights of at least the 90's(and prime Shannon Briggs, a champion today) hell at an ancient age. He's one case for the greatness of Ali's time. But you're right, there's no way to definitively say who the best is.

[Mr. Ryan]

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.

[.Mik.]

But what if competition from yesteryears couldn't compete in this age, what if the competition now couldn't compete then. there is still too much doubt and too much room for opinion to actually come to a fact "who is the greatest of all time" Ali's competition might couldn't do nothing with the HW today. I think that's what you were saying, but just cause a certain group was competitive with Alli doesn't mean they would be competitive with Klitschko. So you can't just base the greatest of all time based on their competitive matches. Just maybe their is athlete that is so good that he makes other fighters look like nothing...hint!!

I dont think that you quite understood what I was saying. It doesnt matter if Ali wasnt good as Lewis, or Ali's opponents werent as good as Lewis' opponents (actually, Lewis fought pretty credible opponents for the most part, so thats not the best example). The fact is that when Ali was fighting, or in bygone eras, there wasnt really anywhere to hide, you had to fight the top guys if you were champion because there werent multiple belts to sit behind. In the era of Ali, there were 5 or 6 people realistically capable of beating Ali if they were both on their best day. The Shavers, the Foremans, the Fraziers, the Nortons, the Listons etc etc etc. Even if Ali was at his absolute best...they had a chance of taking him if he was at their absolute best. Very few fighters these days go through their careers fighting the other best fighters, the other ones who are most closely matched to them and have legitimate chances of beating them...because they dont have to.

Take PBF for instance. Even if he beats DLH and then fights Hatton or Mosely...and then retires. Thats like literally 2 or 3 of the best, most competetive fights he could possibly have fought, and many would dispute that DLH is on the top of his game. Yet people seem to think that he could be considered one of the greatest of all time (taking into consideration that Ali wasnt the only guy who fought so many top names, Frazier did, Foreman did, Norton did, Shavers did, etc etc). Take Calzaghe, he defeated Lacy (say what you will about that win, Lacy was highly favoured and as such a genuine threat), say he now fights and beats Taylor...then fights and beats Hopkins. Can he really argue that he faced all the top guys over his career when they were at their best? Or just 2 or 3?

You cant measure too much in boxing over the years, you cant measure the quality of the opposition from 30 years ago compared to today. But you can measure the quality of opponents from 30 years ago fought 30 years ago, compared to the opponents of today fight today. You will find that very few of the top guys today fight the other top guys of today. In previous times (before all the belts came in) it was commonplace that you had to fight pretty much everyone who was considered close to you.

[RAESAAD]

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 agree........but don't you think Jermain Taylor is the greatest MW ever.....n00b?

[Ether]

It'd be tight to see PBF fight back in the old days and sugar now.

[kayjay]

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 ******.

Exactly brother tito

[squealpiggy]

The greatest of all time isn't as great as it used to be...

[butterfly1964]

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.

It's not the style at all, it's just that Basilio is just too big for PBF.

[psychopath]

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!

Hahahahahahaha, well said!