I have a ?

[Jambo boy]

I also liked how you made a privete conversation public when i did not do **** to you. Look dude if you were a normal person you would have just disagreed and moved on why did you need to personally attack me more then 20 times. How many times did i attack you.

You are one classy individual.

grow a pair

[The Gambler1981]

Great fighters would be great in any era. Boxers are way better athletes now and techniques have got better over time. Have you ever watched how wild old fights are and thier face first style.

Also i said how can you hold the rules of the games against todays boxers. I think that is highly unfair.

People do not get worse at things over time. People and boxing technique evolove over time.

If fighters today had to fight by older rules some would not be as good and other might actually be better but you do not know that for certain.

[abadger]

I've seen a lot of talk about past and present ATG status recently, and specifically lots about Floyd v Robinson. My thoughts are these:

Based on what they've achieved in their careers, the number and quality of titles held, opponents beaten, longevity etc, Floyd is not fit to carry Robinson's jockstrap.

In a fantasy matchup where the two fight prime for prime, could Floyd compete with Robinson? Absolutely.

[The Gambler1981]

Sorry, but thats not a reply, get an education.

grow a pair

Please follow your own advice sir.

[Thread Stealer]

It's just difficult to compare fighters from different eras. There is a romanticism when it comes to fighters of the past (a lot of times people talk about the "good old days" and know **** all about the history), but ultimately, many fighters of the past just fought more often because of the times and ended up facing more quality fighters than most modern-day fighters.

Talented and skilled fighters come in all eras, but it's a fighter's achievements and resume that tends to have greater importance. You can debate "so and so would have beaten so and so", but it's easier to defend an argument about how many quality fighters of that time that a certain fighter faced.

Sugar Ray Robinson, by his own admission, looked at boxing as a business and didn't enjoy the sport. He was notorious for fighting for every last dollar and was brilliant at the negotiating table. Logic tells you that if he were around today, he'd be getting a ****load of money from HBO and going for the big money fights. But who's to say that a guy who was criticized for milking an HBO contract, like Roy Jones, wouldn't be fighting very often and sometimes against bigger opponents if he were around in the 1940s? The fighters generally got paid less, so they had to fight more often. HW champs in the old days (pre-Louis) got paid well, and you saw how inactive a lot of them were.

You can speculate all you want, but the concrete facts are that Robinson defeated the lightweight champ within a year of his pro debut, won world titles at both WW and MW, defeated a whole slew of quality fighters throughout his career, and it doesn't take an Eddie Futch to watch films of him to see that he was a very talented fighter.

[The Gambler1981]

I've seen a lot of talk about past and present ATG status recently, and specifically lots about Floyd v Robinson. My thoughts are these:

Based on what they've achieved in their careers, the number and quality of titles held, opponents beaten, longevity etc, Floyd is not fit to carry Robinson's jockstrap.

In a fantasy matchup where the two fight prime for prime, could Floyd compete with Robinson? Absolutely.

Thank you, this is what i have been getting at.

[The Gambler1981]

It's just difficult to compare fighters from different eras. There is a romanticism when it comes to fighters of the past (a lot of times people talk about the "good old days" and know **** all about the history), but ultimately, many fighters of the past just fought more often because of the times and ended up facing more quality fighters than most modern-day fighters.

Talented and skilled fighters come in all eras, but it's a fighter's achievements and resume that tends to have greater importance. You can debate "so and so would have beaten so and so", but it's easier to defend an argument about how many quality fighters of that time that a certain fighter faced. I remember reading an article by Micheal Katz that was comparing PBF to SRR and basically said PBF was a lot more like Robinson then Mosley or Leonard.

Sugar Ray Robinson, by his own admission, looked at boxing as a business and didn't enjoy the sport. He was notorious for fighting for every last dollar and was brilliant at the negotiating table. Logic tells you that if he were around today, he'd be getting a ****load of money from HBO and going for the big money fights. But who's to say that a guy who was criticized for milking an HBO contract, like Roy Jones, wouldn't be fighting very often and sometimes against bigger opponents if he were around in the 1940s? The fighters generally got paid less, so they had to fight more often. HW champs in the old days (pre-Louis) got paid well, and you saw how inactive a lot of them were.

You can speculate all you want, but the concrete facts are that Robinson defeated the lightweight champ within a year of his pro debut, won world titles at both WW and MW, defeated a whole slew of quality fighters throughout his career, and it doesn't take an Eddie Futch to watch films of him to see that he was a very talented fighter.

I do not disagree with you. It is all specualtion and no one knows which is better. I just think its counter intuitive to think that the best boxer was made 40 years ago and his greatness can never be touched again.

[Thread Stealer]

I do not disagree with you. It is all specualtion and no one knows which is better. I just think its counter intuitive to think that the best boxer was made 40 years ago and his greatness can never be touched again.

Well, yeah. I don't believe in that either.

But what a guy does in his era, whom he fights, whom he beats, etc....is more important in ranking a guy all-time than it is to say whom you feel wins head-to-head.

That's why it's so hard to compare, a modern-day fighter to fighters of the past like Ray Robinson, Maxie Rosenbloom, Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb, Archie Moore, etc...because they were so active.

Just look at the resume of Rosenbloom and how many quality fighters of his time that he faced. It is insane.

[Jambo boy]

I do not disagree with you. It is all specualtion and no one knows which is better. I just think its counter intuitive to think that the best boxer was made 40 years ago and his greatness can never be touched again.

it's also counter intuitive to think floyd is the greatest when he won't let himself be fully tested against allcomers.
You're only as good as the people you fight. SRR faught allcomers
Floyd has had 7 8 fights against great fighters the rest weren't. He'll retire soon and everyone will say he's great because he's undefeated.
SRR went a hell of a lot longer undefeated.
Check his record out dude.
He's the greatest floyd isn't
You fail

[The Gambler1981]

I still view the old timers as being ahead in all time top 50 status based on all the good names those dude beat back then. Not because they have 150 wins or 200 wins. I also think you should wait until someone career is over before you matchup accomplishments.

I still feel the same though accomplishment mean little when you actually meet up in the squared circle. I guess it depends on how you view things. I never said anythign of the sort either that PBF should be ahead of SRR or anyone like that.