What does Floyd Mayweather need to do to be in the 10 top Greatest of all time?

[Banderivets]

Its funny...30 years from now when dudes have boxing convos and talk about floyd and m manny like their dinosaurs. You can't keep erasing history like it never happened.

Eventually they probably will be dinosaurs. Evolution is a *****....

Who knows what kinda roids they will come up with in the near future...what new sports research will surface that will change sports forever...

Was the technology that allowed for the space race to happen the top of the mountain in the 1960s? Yes it was...But the fact remains, that the computers that we are typing these posts on are light years faster than the semi mechanical **** they flew to space on...

It's not romantic to think that a dozen of brothas from compton strapped with some street sweepers could take out a spartan battalion...but thats what it is....

[-PBP-]

Eventually they probably will be dinosaurs. Evolution is a *****....

Who knows what kinda roids they will come up with in the near future...what new sports research will surface that will change sports forever...

Was the technology that allowed for the space race to happen the top of the mountain in the 1960s? Yes it was...But the fact remains, that the computers that we are typing these posts on are light years faster than the semi mechanical **** they flew to space on...

So what's your criteria for ranking fighters? Resume, skills, milestones?

[D4thincarnation]

Truth hurts eh.

Its all good, looking at your avatar I already figured what your response would be.

But I have a question, what makes vintage boxing superior?

Vintage boxer's are not superior, neither are modern boxers, you have great boxers in every era.

And you asked for it.

[Banderivets]

So what's your criteria for ranking fighters? Resume, skills, milestones?

Honestly?

Its very subjective for me...You simply have to watch fights and make your own decisions. But for me personally (and I do not claim this to be the TRUTH, its simply my opinion) it's often their athletic and physical attributes...besides the mental aspect of it, has moved on as well I think. I believe fighters are smarter because they truly are "professional...." fighting is their full time job, and I think taken a lot more seriously.

I mean watching Floyd Vs Cotto...Floyd showed that he can ****, he showed that he doesn't have to stay in the shell and run all day to win a fight...He ****** it out and it was still clear that he was superior...So that fight did a lot for me in how I see Floyd today.

[TheHayeMaker]

Honestly?

Its very subjective for me...You simply have to watch fights and make your own decisions. But for me personally (and I do not claim this to be the TRUTH, its simply my opinion) it's often their athletic and physical attributes...besides the mental aspect of it, has moved on as well I think. I believe fighters are smarter because they truly are "professional...." fighting is their full time job, and I think taken a lot more seriously.

I mean watching Floyd Vs Cotto...Floyd showed that he can ****, he showed that he doesn't have to stay in the shell and run all day to win a fight...He ****** it out and it was still clear that he was superior...So that fight did a lot for me in how I see Floyd today.

You can't judge by that though. that's really ******. Because if the older guys is fighting in this era they will have all the physical advantages this era's boxers have. So the only thing you can judge by is boxing skills

A example is

Young George Foreman at 6'4 in today's era would have been packing 240 pounds of solid muscles ...

[Banderivets]

Vintage boxer's are not superior, neither are modern boxers, you have great boxers in every era.

And you asked for it.

You see I think that vintage guys were exponentially tougher then today's guys...Simply for the fact that times were different and life was infinitely harder...But at the same time...who am I to say that growing up in some Chicago projects to gun shots everyday its not tough....But at the same time, the prospect of being shot, and the reality of being hungry every day are very different things...I think the latter has more to do with my subjective perception of toughness then being popped.

And if you were to take these hard guys of the past and train them with modern technology, techniques and diet, they would have an edge over modern fighters...THat is if they were gifted with modern genetics * (tall, healthy etc...)

[SergioMaravilla]

Guys like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Charley Burley all have phenomenal skill-sets, you just don't see fighters coming through today that are schooled in these arts. Look at someone like James Kirkland, technically he's a mess, yet Golden Boy and HBO keep forcing him down our throats, I can't stand watching him, I don't rate him at all.

[Banderivets]

You can't judge by that though. that's really ******. Because if the older guys is fighting in this era they will have all the physical advantages this era's boxers have. So the only thing you can judge by is boxing skills

A example is

Young George Foreman at 6'4 in today's era would have been packing 240 pounds of solid muscles ...

I fully agree. You are right.

But I am talking about, taking a guy from the 40s and making him fight someone modern.

What an old timer would develop into in the modern world is a whole different story.

[Atreyu Khalil]

A example is

Young George Foreman at 6'4 in today's era would have been packing 240 pounds of solid muscles ...

Is that fact?

[Atreyu Khalil]

I fully agree. You are right.

But I am talking about, taking a guy from the 40s and making him fight someone modern.

What an old timer would develop into in the modern world is a whole different story.

Exactly.....

Could jack johnson beat Ali, holmes or Tyson?..