Tweet
It's speculative but with a bit of knowledge and perspective you can figure out a rough idea of who deserves to be remembered with greater fondness than who.
-
-
Boxing did not exist 30 decades ago (in 1710).
It's impossible to be definitive, it's purely opinion - but that doesn't invalidate the exercise. Without doing the exercise of comparing the achievements of modern fighters with the greats from the past, there is no context for what is happening now; and without that context, boxing would be a far less interesting sport.
Is Usain Bolt a greater sprinter than Jesse Owens? If Owens were running today, with modern nutrition and training methods, would he beat Owen? Who knows? But most athletics historians would say they are probably the greatest 2 sprinters of all time, and would have a lively and interesting debate about which order to rank them in. But if you look at Bolt's achievements in isolation without any sense of history, then his career becomes far less meaningful.
The more knowledgeable the compiler of the list is about boxing history, the more respect the list should be given, but only as an opinion, not as fact.
In any case, fighters in ATG lists aren't ranked on the basis of who would beat whom. That is taken partly into account, but their record and level of competition is given much more weight than a simple fantasy match-up.
Obviously you do.
The usual definition of ATG is "one of the 100 greatest fighters of all time", based on a combination of ability and achievement. So you're arguing that a top 100 list is fine, but not a top 10 list! That's illogical. If either is okay then both are okay. If either is invalid then both are invalid.Last edited by Dave Rado; 08-13-2010, 07:01 PM.Comment
-
If there was Omar Henry would be on it though. Just saying.Comment
-
[QUOTE=Dave Rado;9033339]Boxing did not exist 30 decades ago (in 1710).
Wong!
Comment
Comment