How do you judge what is historic?

[JAB5239]

Taking into consideration all of boxing history, how do you judge what is historic and how do you place a value on it?

Im a big fan of Pacquiao but I tend to look at the bigger picture when placing historical value on achievements. Is winning a title in a 7th division at a time of 4 belts and 17 divisions as great as being the undisputed champion in 3 divisions during a time of 10? Is it as great as beating most of the top fighters from 147 to heavyweight but never being given a chance at the championship?

By todays watered down standards, what Pac may do, What Floyd has done, they are great accomplishments. But there are much greater accomplishments throughout history when you put these under a microscope.

This isn't meant to demean Manny, Floyd or any other great fighter from this era. I just see a lot of people going overboard and putting these guys up with fighters like Langford, Greb, Armstrong and Ross. What they're doing is great, NOW. In a historic sense there have been fighters who have accomplished much, much more, without the baubles that come with 17 divisions and 4 titles.

Opinions?

[The_Demon]

nothing the klitshckos have done is historic
just a little point

[gingeralbino]

nothing the klitshckos have done is historic
just a little point

2 brothers HW belt holders at the same time, id say thats historic in itself.

Other than that though, i see your point!!

to the TS, I only know about what i've seen in my lifetime, so i can only judge what i know. In 40 years i'll be comparing fighters to Pac, Floyd etc, but i cant compare them to the old school guys at all.

[The_Demon]

2 brothers HW belt holders at the same time, id say thats historic in itself.

Other than that though, i see your point!!

to the TS, I only know about what i've seen in my lifetime, so i can only judge what i know. In 40 years i'll be comparing fighters to Pac, Floyd etc, but i cant compare them to the old school guys at all.

i meant entertainment wise
its sad the only way either brother will have a [I]great[I] win on their resume is if they fight each other,that is a shame

[bojangles1987]

It's too damn hard to compare fighters back then who fought every month and ended up with 150-200 fights to today's fighters. History for me is judged by competition. Moving up and winning belts in different divisions is a factor, but much less so these days where a fighter can pick weak the weakest champion and claim they were at one point champ of a division.

Guys who fight the best go down highest in history.

[baracuda]

well,7 out 17 is about winning 41% of the total weightclasses... thats unheard of......

[talip bin osman]

theres a reason why fighters from the old skool are getting more props than their modern counterparts...

the resumes may be comparatively & reasonably close but what sets these old skool fighters apart are the circumstances these guys faced...

SRR for example faced the naturally bigger lamotta 5 times @ 160...

i cant imagine PBF fighting arthur abraham or say paul williams 5 ****in times...

& this is just lamotta we are talking about...

[JAB5239]

well,7 out 17 is about winning 41% of the total weightclasses... thats unheard of......

Than again, you forgot to divide that by 4 titles.

[JAB5239]

It's too damn hard to compare fighters back then who fought every month and ended up with 150-200 fights to today's fighters. History for me is judged by competition. Moving up and winning belts in different divisions is a factor, but much less so these days where a fighter can pick weak the weakest champion and claim they were at one point champ of a division.

Guys who fight the best go down highest in history.

Agreed. But what is more noteworthy.....guys who fought the best on a more consistent basis, or guys who fight some of the best but gather titles that in earlier era's would only count as the scalps of contenders?

There are a lot of posters claiming historical status here. Im just interested in you/their criteria. I respect that you've given an honest answer Bo, Im just digging to see where many of these people are coming from.

Im hearing people proclaim top 5 all time should Pac beat Cotto. Pac is fantastic for today, but where the **** does this reasoning come from? Break it down and its not even close.

Anybody care to challenge this?

[WhoreUs]

i think belts and titles add to one's resume but in the end a fighter is judged by who he fought and his fights.

since you used manny and floyd as an example , i'll use them as well.



if you look at manny's career what's gonna define him is his seemingly uncanny ability to defy the odds.

he was a last minute replacement for his title shot at 122.

he was just thrown in against barrera and few , including i , thought he had a chance.

he was never suppose to beat oscar.

those fights as an underdog is what defines pacquiao's career not the belts.

the belts is just icing on the cake.



same with mayweather. no one is gonna talk about all his green org belts.

they're gonna talk about his destruction of corrales at 130 and his close fight with castillo.

more importantly they'll talk about his skills and how very few of his opponents could be competitive with him.