Why is it that when people compare Floyd or manny to past fighters?

[MRBOOMER]

think about it. boxing has been around for over a hundred years, what are the chances that the two top guys today are better than all that came before them? there have been generations of champions before these two. on top of that fighters in general arent as good today as they once were, dont have the mental toughness or the skill, there arent as many good teachers around and a big number of top fighters have major holes in their game. back in the day fighters honed their craft more, the world was tougher as was the competition.

mayweather and pacquiao are atgs for sure, but there are plenty of fighters of the past better than them. ofcourse they are better than many former welterweight champions too. the latest fighter on that list was pernell whitaker, think about all the great WWs who came after him in just a few years. mosley, DLH, forrest, trinidad etc. go back just a bit and you have camacho, curry, starling, breland, mccrory etc.. thats just two eras. imagine the greatest of all time, several dozens of great WWs.

ppl on this site are ignorant, they only know recent history well and very little about the fighters of the past. they only know about the very best fighters in history from other eras. so when they go to compare todays fighters with fighters from the past they talk about guys like robinson, duran, hearns, leonard, whitaker, griffin etc and when knowledgeable fans tell them todays fighters arent as good as any of them they think they are being unreasonable. what they fail to realize is no WW in history is as good as these guys.

compare them to cuevas, benitez, gavilan, napoles etc and you can have a real discussion. all these fighters are great too, these arent random fighters they were all great, great champions. as are pacquiao and mayweather. but there has been many great, great champions through the years. you just have to face the fact that pacquiao and maywetaher arent the greatest of them all and stop comparing them to the fighters who are.

That great and fine when did I say they were the greatest?

[#1Assassin]

That great and fine when did I say they were the greatest?

you wanna compare them to robinson, leonard, duran, hearns, whitaker etc.. the greatest WWs of all time. you think they should win those matchups, if they did the would be the best WWs ever.

[DoktorSleepless]

Alvarado should get first dibs if he wants it, but Prescott will give a good fight. On short notice, I can't imagine many other worthwhile fighters stepping up.

[MRBOOMER]

I think most of y'all missed my point.
All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to say they'd win because they fought better fighters or they went up to higher weight classes and beat bigger an better people


If there great now and you classify them as such they should be great then to
Same way people say if past greats were here now they'd still be great Just give em a fare shake anything can happen in this sport and we know it. I made this thread because there the two biggest names at the moment and get thrown up in fantasies the most. All I'm saying is there's nothing that says they can't win and it just gets old that people always say they'd lose because past ATg beat better fighters that's all oppion I'm not making a case sand saying how they'd win or saying I'm sure they would I'm just saying its possible.

Of your skill set is great in this era it should be great in any and that's why I think it should be more even just my two cents...

[MRBOOMER]

you wanna compare them to robinson, leonard, duran, hearns, whitaker etc.. the greatest WWs of all time. you think they should win those matchups, if they did the would be the best WWs ever.

I'm not saying they'd win or saying they should but the possibility is there because there skill sets are they high same with the others so it's only fair to imagine its possible but it's not written in stone. Or anything I'm just saying fairness would be nice.

[New England]

The older fighter typically wins like really wtf

In the case of Robinson vs mayweather or manny at 147 how much footage of Robinson there exist? For you to say he'd beat these two? Just because he one of the greatest doesn't mean he'd win...has he ever fought anybody with there style sets? And beat them? Is their footage to prove it?

This goes for every other ATg fighter there compared to
Bassilo
Whitaker
Trinidad
Pryor
Hearns
SRL
And the list goes on? I just don't get it just cause they beat other great fighters doesn't just mean they'd beat these two

robinson is very well filmed as a middleweight

he's widely considered in the top 3 of all time at MW
he was champion five times. when there was only one belt.

at WW he's the consensus goat. the film is grainy, but it's out there. WW robinson had no flaws
do you understand that?
pacquiao and manny have big flaws.

manny has trouble with boxers and floyd is not an overly potent offensive fighter.

robinson has one of, if not the best left hook ever thrown
some some of, if not the best combinations ever
he was fast
huge
had a DYNAMITE chin. one of the greatest ever
and if he had to he could box

his only real flaw?
he was all offensive and thus was open to be hit a bit. his chin was so good it never really mattered

there's also a good amount of some of the fighters he defeated, and lots of them are great great fighters


if you watch boxing long enough you honestly know what to look for. if you watch a few rounds of a guy against a top opponent you can generally get an idea of how damn good these guys were.



there were more boxers licensed in new york state in the 50's than there are in the entire world today

boxing, baseball, and horse racing used to the the biggest sports on the planet

the heavyweight championship used to be the most coveted title in sport, surpassing the others by a great margin.



oh yeah
and the amateurs used to box in a professional tradition with larger gloves and shorter fights. it was a far better system for creating great professional boxers

[MRBOOMER]

robinson is very well filmed as a middleweight

he's widely considered in the top 3 of all time at MW
he was champion five times. when there was only one belt.

at WW he's the consensus goat. the film is grainy, but it's out there. WW robinson had no flaws
do you understand that?
pacquiao and manny have big flaws.

manny has trouble with boxers and floyd is not an overly potent offensive fighter.

robinson has one of, if not the best left hook ever thrown
some some of, if not the best combinations ever
he was fast
huge
had a DYNAMITE chin. one of the greatest ever
and if he had to he could box

his only real flaw?
he was all offensive and thus was open to be hit a bit. his chin was so good it never really mattered

there's also a good amount of some of the fighters he defeated, and lots of them are great great fighters


if you watch boxing long enough you honestly know what to look for. if you watch a few rounds of a guy against a top opponent you can generally get an idea of how damn good these guys were.



there were more boxers licensed in new york state in the 50's than there are in the entire world today

boxing, baseball, and horse racing used to the the biggest sports on the planet

the heavyweight championship used to be the most coveted title in sport, surpassing the others by a great margin.



oh yeah
and the amateurs used to box in a professional tradition with larger gloves and shorter fights. it was a far better system for creating great professional boxers

He has no flaws huh? So he's god now?
I'm sorry after I saw that I just stopped reading I mean that's a bit over the top don't you think?

[Barry Halls]

most people have never even seen the ond fighters fight and the rest most of the time are just delusional Manny and Floyd would be the best of the best in any damn era hands down

Would the same be said for the Klitschkos? If not, why?

People grossly overestimate the impact of "modern training techniques" when it comes to boxing. Boxers mostly train the same they always done. So what is it that would make current boxers better than those of the past even when there's less fighters now and the best athletes generally pick other sports?

Oh i guess it's the great advances in nutritional science. IT's the power of all the ramen noodles and twinkies floyd eats!
Or Maybe god loves Pacquiao more than he did Duran!

[bojangles1987]

Would the same be said for the Klitschkos? If not, why?

People grossly overestimate the impact of "modern training techniques" when it comes to boxing. Boxers mostly train the same they always done. So what is it that would make current boxers better than those of the past even when there's less fighters now and the best athletes generally pick other sports?

Oh i guess it's the great advances in nutritional science. IT's the power of all the ramen noodles and twinkies floyd eats!
Or Maybe god loves Pacquiao more than he did Duran!

All the roided heavy super advanced training methods of today are producing guys who can't go 12 damn rounds without getting tired. So how advanced could they possibly be?

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Because usually said "old fighter" is better.