How do you judge what is historic?

[baracuda]

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

why would you do that?........

[JAB5239]

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.

This is all good and I respect your reasoning, but comparatively speaking, should these guys rank with most guys in the top 25? Im not trying to diminish them, but by the same token I can't throw fighters from earlier era's by the wayside either.

[UnDeniable]

This is all good and I respect your reasoning, but comparatively speaking, should these guys rank with most guys in the top 25? Im not trying to diminish them, but by the same token I can't throw fighters from earlier era's by the wayside either.

I think its safe to say that Greb, Armstrong, Robinson etc are comfortable at the top, nobody is close

I'm particularly impressed with Armstrong, i'm starting to question if Robinson really is the best ever

[bojangles1987]

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?

Pac is not top 5, or top 10, or even top 20 for beating Cotto. Fighters today cannot be rightly compared to fighters in the past who fought 200 fights because we have no idea how they would have done fighting every month and being forced to fight all the best. That's why Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, and Sugar Ray Robinson will always be at the top unless some featherweight comes along that ends up middleweight champ at some point.

For me, the best fighters in the modern era of meaningless belts and 2 fights a year are the guys who move up and win belts WHILE fighting the best competition. Manny has not only won titles in 6 divisions, he has fought the best, Cotto being the latest example. Oscar won in 6 divisions and win or lose, fought the best. I don't want to make this about Manny, but if he at some point wins a welterweight belt he has a legit argument to being the best fighter of the modern era, without it being too close.

The greatest fighters now, since I don't think you can really compare them to the past fighters, are the ones who push themselves. The Thomas Hearns and Roberto Durans and Sugar Ray Leonards who beat the best while moving up in weight.

[WhoreUs]

This is all good and I respect your reasoning, but comparatively speaking, should these guys rank with most guys in the top 25? Im not trying to diminish them, but by the same token I can't throw fighters from earlier era's by the wayside either.

i'm just voicing my opinion on titles and belts and legacy.

i don't have a top 25 nor am i knowledgable enough in over 100 plus years of boxing in 8-17 weight divisions to make one.



old era fighters are as overrated by historians of the sport as the younger fighters are by the younger generation who never saw the old guys.

having less titles back then also doesn't necessarily mean their titles were somehow automatically better.

they had their own issues with blacks not being able to get fights and title shots , boxing not being as global as it is now meaning less competition , corruption of the sport with mafia ties , etc.


people tend to romanticize the past. it's human nature.

but let's not pretend the good , old days didn't have issues as they do now.

different issues but they had them back then as well.


jack dempsey was a champion for 3 straight years without defending his belt just as one example. that's as bad as having 4 champions at a time.

[baracuda]

i'm just voicing my opinion on titles and belts and legacy.

i don't have a top 25 nor am i knowledgable enough in over 100 plus years of boxing in 8-17 weight divisions to make one.



old era fighters are as overrated by historians of the sport as the younger fighters are by the younger generation who never saw the old guys.

having less titles back then also doesn't necessarily mean their titles were somehow automatically better.

they had their own issues with blacks not being able to get fights and title shots , boxing not being as global as it is now meaning less competition , corruption of the sport with mafia ties , etc.


people tend to romanticize the past. it's human nature.

but let's not pretend the good , old days didn't have issues as they do now.

different issues but they had them back then as well.


jack dempsey was a champion for 3 straight years without defending his belt just as one example. that's as bad as having 4 champions at a time.

great post pink!......

[WhoreUs]

great post pink!......

watch everyone post their top 30 , 40 , 50 , etc. comments.

then they can't post their list without copy and pasting some writer's list.

[WhoreUs]

Pac is not top 5, or top 10, or even top 20 for beating Cotto. Fighters today cannot be rightly compared to fighters in the past who fought 200 fights because we have no idea how they would have done fighting every month and being forced to fight all the best. That's why Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, and Sugar Ray Robinson will always be at the top unless some featherweight comes along that ends up middleweight champ at some point.

For me, the best fighters in the modern era of meaningless belts and 2 fights a year are the guys who move up and win belts WHILE fighting the best competition. Manny has not only won titles in 6 divisions, he has fought the best, Cotto being the latest example. Oscar won in 6 divisions and win or lose, fought the best. I don't want to make this about Manny, but if he at some point wins a welterweight belt he has a legit argument to being the best fighter of the modern era, without it being too close.

The greatest fighters now, since I don't think you can really compare them to the past fighters, are the ones who push themselves. The Thomas Hearns and Roberto Durans and Sugar Ray Leonards who beat the best while moving up in weight.

quantity doesn't necessarily mean better.

mayweather could fight 200 guys right now and be 200-0.

do you honestly think the guys fighting 1-2 times a month are fighting top 10 , elite competition?

[baracuda]

watch everyone post their top 30 , 40 , 50 , etc. comments.

then they can't post their list without copy and pasting some writer's list.

yup....bert sugar wannabees...lol

[nujabes77]

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?

great boxers will do well regardless of the era you place them... and pacquiao is an atg


i judge a boxers historic value by his skill, quality of opposition and character