If Tony beats Pac, will it damage his standing a top 5 ATG?

[Pudgemeister]

You think Sugar Ray Robinson of 50 years ago stands a chance against modern WW champions and MW champions recently? Do you think former WBA HW champion Bruce Seldon or even the Klitschkos beat a Foreman of 1970 or even the Ali who danced circles around Cleveland Williams?

Does impact and influence have importance in determining greatness? Do you go by resume or techinical skill? Many people have said the Beatles suck because they only played often only 3 chords, does that mean that Rush is better than the Beatles since their technically leaps and bounds superior to them. Or are the Beatles rated high due to their influence and song writing oppose to their skill?

Greatness is subjective. Ranking fighters from different eras needs a complete analysis, not just simply the monolothic approach he would beat him so that means he is greater.

Using your theory Sandy Saddler is superior to Willie Pep, he beat him three out of 4 times, yet WTF ranks Saddler higher than Pep?

I mostly have a problem with the very old times guys like Greb, or Armstrong ranked so highly. On tape they look very average.

Stop with the music comparisons though. Wagner is exponentially more technical and progressive than Rush ever will be, and a century earlier. Most Beatles songs are far more complicated harmonically than today's pop anyways. Music history is just not a good analogy for sports/boxing history.

[HaglerSteelChin]

Manny has won 7 division titles, fighter of the decade, 3x fighter of the year, 4 lineal champ. if any of you guys think he is not atleast a top 20 ATG's you probably a hater or jealous of what an Asian guy has done in boxing. if 7 division title was so easy why no one ever done it? and fighter of the decade was awarded once every 10 years. you have to make a case to discredit him. not the usual argument that he could not beat this old school boxer, williams would kill him or mayweather would school him bullsheet! boxing resume should be done in the boxing ring like Manny has been doing.

He has accomplished great things, but not everybody will rate him a top 5 fighter, but you need to look at the whole picture. There are 17 divisions with 4 champs on each division, that means there are possibly 68 champs in the sport, in the past there were only 8 divisions with one true champ on each division.

Also if you count minor titles, than a guy like Camacho has won in 7 divisions.
Do you want to count only the WBC, IBF,WBA, and WBO? OR do we count also the Ring Belt and IBO Belts?

[PEBBLES!]

What have i lost??? Just wondering? Put this debate over the history section and put a poll on it or do you make your own evaluations.

THis is just a boxing forum in an internet site, with an open discussion. Failure is a word you seem to throw alot, perhaps that is a word that personofies your personal life. I am sorry mate that you need to resort to throwing these fake moral victories about you lose and failed or whatever. Seems you have some serious issues that you are reduced to calling people a failure and loser, perhaps you need to take a good look in the mirror and judge your own life and see where it is going?

Now, HaglerGlassChin is trying to give me words of advice, instructing me to embark upon a personal-reflection, and think about my life.

That's rich, coming from a joker who just insulted my mother during the middle of a discussion about Harry Greb's greatness on an internet boxing forum.

Therein lies your failure.


You are not wise enough to realise it, mate. You are not able to hang with me in any discussion, whether it be political, socio-economical, religious or boxing. You are an abject failure.


I seem to have personal issues because I claimed HaglerGlassChin 'failed' in a discussion about boxing, yet he is the same person who stooped low enough to insult my mother.


Hypocrisy or idiocy - it's one or the other.


As for your recommendation on making a poll in the history section just to see who people believe, won, is just a case of someone who takes this 'way too seriously'.


Toodles, dunce.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

how could one argue jesse over usain?

it's simple.

just compare times and you got your answer.

whether 1 guy had better training and nutrition or not shouldn't be debated.

he tried to argue that jesse didnt have usain's shoes & training.

You think Sugar Ray Robinson of 50 years ago stands a chance against modern WW champions and MW champions recently? Do you think former WBA HW champion Bruce Seldon or even the Klitschkos beat a Foreman of 1970 or even the Ali who danced circles around Cleveland Williams?

Does impact and influence have importance in determining greatness? Do you go by resume or techinical skill? Many people have said the Beatles suck because they only played often only 3 chords, does that mean that Rush is better than the Beatles since their technically leaps and bounds superior to them. Or are the Beatles rated high due to their influence and song writing oppose to their skill?

Greatness is subjective. Ranking fighters from different eras needs a complete analysis, not just simply the monolothic approach he would beat him so that means he is greater.

Using your theory Sandy Saddler is superior to Willie Pep, he beat him three out of 4 times, yet WTF ranks Saddler higher than Pep?

well good job taking the easy way out with ray robinson. frankly speaking, i think ray robinson is the G.O.A.T, what im saying is the propensity for old timers to marginalize modern greats & showing bias towards old fighters & making them seem untouchable.

the old guard who likes to pretend they are the gatekeepers to all time great rankings need to grade modern fighters accordingly to their era. No modern great is gonna be fighting 10x in one month like they did in the old days, just like no old school fighter has to deal with the 24 rehydration rule that this era deals with.

When it was a featherweight title fight back then, it was against 2 featherweights. Now you got a junior welterweight title fight happening between a blown up 140 vs a middleweight on fight night.

beatles are a great band, the greatest, until music evolved from their teeny bopper popcorn love songs in the 60s to these guys:




sports & boxing is no different. Somebody always comes along.

[Blooper]

sometimes boxing atg comparisons resemble politics.

ask a hundred ********s who's the better president bush or clinton.

then ask the same number of **********s the same question.

compare answers then proceed to scratch your head.

[JDezi4]

Pac's not in the top 5 lol, so I guess he won't be any closer.

[HaglerSteelChin]

Now, HaglerGlassChin is trying to give me words of advice, instructing me to embark upon a personal-reflection, and think about my life.

That's rich, coming from a joker who just insulted my mother during the middle of a discussion about Harry Greb's greatness on an internet boxing forum.

Therein lies your failure.


You are not wise enough to realise it, mate. You are not able to hang with me in any discussion, whether it be political, socio-economical, religious or boxing. You are an abject failure.


I seem to have personal issues because I claimed HaglerGlassChin 'failed' in a discussion about boxing, yet he is the same person who stooped low enough to insult my mother.


Hypocrisy or idiocy - it's one or the other.


As for your recommendation on making a poll in the history section just to see who people believe, won, is just a case of someone who takes this 'way too seriously'.


Toodles, dunce.

You are the one claiming victory on the site, so i am asking you how did you gain this victory? Is it self-proclaimed? Did you take a poll or did you just toot your own horn when your logical flaws are exposed.

You use the words **** and scumbag, when you take the stuff to the gutter than expect it back your way. I never used profanites at you first, go check your messages.

I already been Greek K three times on this thread, so i hardly think that nobody else agrees with what i said.

[dj Ramos]

My boy stones is wrecking everyone right now

[HaglerSteelChin]

well good job taking the easy way out with ray robinson. frankly speaking, i think ray robinson is the G.O.A.T, what im saying is the propensity for old timers to marginalize modern greats & showing bias towards old fighters & making them seem untouchable.

the old guard who likes to pretend they are the gatekeepers to all time great rankings need to grade modern fighters accordingly to their era. No modern great is gonna be fighting 10x in one month like they did in the old days, just like no old school fighter has to deal with the 24 rehydration rule that this era deals with.

Some are better than others. Many including myself have trashed Bert Sugar as one of those guys. He has WAY TOO MANY old guys high on the list. While a guy like Pernell Whitaker is like #47, with many of us feeling he belongs atleast top 25.

Guys like Sugar also were bias toward Asian fighters. His last top 100 list didn't include guys like Harada or Galaxy. Only Pancho Villa made his top 100.