Sugar Ray Robinson>>>

[PACBOY]

Why isnt there anyone that can fill his shoes. How can they now of days...

[MANGLER]

Dude will probably never be surpassed as the close to universally recognized GOAT.

[GrizzleBoy]

Why isnt there anyone that can fill his shoes. How can they now of days...

It's impossible to be as hungry as you were in those times cos you can have one or two big fights and have it made for the rest of your life.

Nothing to keep you hungry after you've made it big except for you passion for boxing which I'm not sure a lot of boxers have nowadays with all the dollar signs flashing in their eyes.

Boxing is 70% business and 30% entertainment most of the time, with the occasional fight that creates as much excitement as it does revenue.

[THe TRiNiTY]

The problem with these comparisons of guys like Armstrong, Robinson and so on.. is that those guys, in a weird way, have an unfair advantage.

Without legal problems, they fought more often. Losses didn't matter as much. There was only one title, so it forced them to be all they could be. Less weight divisions, so you HAD to go for the best if you planned on making major money on a consistent basis.

Also, if they looked bad on most nights, it didn't matter to an extent. Sure, the reporters there might rip you, but that doesn't travel as well as the visual does, into the future. The fights they needed to look good in were the taped/televised fights. And those were few and far between for a lot of those fighters. Some simply fought before that sort of thing happened often.

Also, whenever you look back on a fighter, you never remember the gift decisions. (Robinson, as an example, had plenty.) You don't remember the way they acted, for the most part. You don't remember hwo they didn't fight. You generally, only remember the good stuff.

An example is Ray Leonard. Many, at the time especially, were critical of him not fighting Aaron Pryor. Nowadays, when do you hear about that stuff with Leonard? You don't.

So, the guys in the past should be left in the past.

Honestly, I'm a firm believer in only trying to rate the guys from 1970 to now. I look at it like the presidents.

If you compared Bush to Washington, Bush wins in certain cases. For example.. Bush didn't own ******. But that's unfair. I personally think you should judge people based upon their circumstances, and that SADLY was the norm back then. Thankfully, it is not now.

My point is, comparing people from today, to people so far back is an unfair situation to both parties. The circumstances are simply too different.

Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Johnson, Louis, Marciano.. The founding fathers. Personally, from the 70's to now seems to make more sense to me.

[Levcon8686]

The problem with these comparisons of guys like Armstrong, Robinson and so on.. is that those guys, in a weird way, have an unfair advantage.

Without legal problems, they fought more often. Losses didn't matter as much. There was only one title, so it forced them to be all they could be. Less weight divisions, so you HAD to go for the best if you planned on making major money on a consistent basis.

Also, if they looked bad on most nights, it didn't matter to an extent. Sure, the reporters there might rip you, but that doesn't travel as well as the visual does, into the future. The fights they needed to look good in were the taped/televised fights. And those were few and far between for a lot of those fighters. Some simply fought before that sort of thing happened often.

Also, whenever you look back on a fighter, you never remember the gift decisions. (Robinson, as an example, had plenty.) You don't remember the way they acted, for the most part. You don't remember hwo they didn't fight. You generally, only remember the good stuff.

An example is Ray Leonard. Many, at the time especially, were critical of him not fighting Aaron Pryor. Nowadays, when do you hear about that stuff with Leonard? You don't.

So, the guys in the past should be left in the past.

Honestly, I'm a firm believer in only trying to rate the guys from 1970 to now. I look at it like the presidents.

If you compared Bush to Washington, Bush wins in certain cases. For example.. Bush didn't own ******. But that's unfair. I personally think you should judge people based upon their circumstances, and that SADLY was the norm back then. Thankfully, it is not now.

My point is, comparing people from today, to people so far back is an unfair situation to both parties. The circumstances are simply too different.

Robinson, Pep, Armstrong, Johnson, Louis, Marciano.. The founding fathers. Personally, from the 70's to now seems to make more sense to me.

+1

As much fun as conjuring up hypothetical match-ups between past and present fighters can be, it really isn't that conventional considering the difference in circumstances.