Tweet
When talking about ranking fighters of today on the ATG list there seems to be a school of thought that today's fighters are simply not as active as fighters of yesteryear and that is what keeps them from moving up higher on the list.
While that is true for the most part I would like to point out to the anomaly that is Muhammad Ali.
Ranked 2nd or 3rd alltime on just about everyone's alltime great list with only 61 fights.
I was on another thread about Pacquiao's atg status and if he's not top 20atg based on achievements then fine....but I seen several cite the lack of activity of today's fighters as why pacquiao isnt rated any higher on their list. Well Pacquiao only has 5 less fights than Muhammad Ali had in his entire career.
Ali lost 3years which may have been his prime due to his suspension but based on the fact that the most fights Ali ever had in 1 year was 5....it would have added only 15 fights to his resume at the most who retired at age 39. It would still be within the realm of possiblity for pacquiao who is only 32 to have just as many if not more fights than Ali by the time his career is over.
So my question is...why does boxing history tend to be harsher towards fighters of today but at the same time have guys like Ali and ray leonard who really did not have many fights compared to even fighters of today ranked so high???
While that is true for the most part I would like to point out to the anomaly that is Muhammad Ali.
Ranked 2nd or 3rd alltime on just about everyone's alltime great list with only 61 fights.
I was on another thread about Pacquiao's atg status and if he's not top 20atg based on achievements then fine....but I seen several cite the lack of activity of today's fighters as why pacquiao isnt rated any higher on their list. Well Pacquiao only has 5 less fights than Muhammad Ali had in his entire career.
Ali lost 3years which may have been his prime due to his suspension but based on the fact that the most fights Ali ever had in 1 year was 5....it would have added only 15 fights to his resume at the most who retired at age 39. It would still be within the realm of possiblity for pacquiao who is only 32 to have just as many if not more fights than Ali by the time his career is over.
So my question is...why does boxing history tend to be harsher towards fighters of today but at the same time have guys like Ali and ray leonard who really did not have many fights compared to even fighters of today ranked so high???