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

[New England]

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?

he's the most complete fighter of all time
no fighter is perfect. he got hit, which i mentioned

you didnt read the post clearly, as you've stated


if you're not going to hear people out then why even ask?

[MRBOOMER]

he's the most complete fighter of all time
no fighter is perfect. he got hit, which i mentioned

you didnt read the post clearly, as you've stated


if you're not going to hear people out then why even ask?

Nope I actually read that part also.

But i just felt like pointing how your over the top usage of flawless lol

[IronDanHamza]

yea im serious not sayign they'd beat everyone but they'd compete in any damn era and be world champions

You just said they'd be "The best of the best in any era"

translation=shut the hell up cause you know nothing about me.they would be able to compete and beat top fighters in any damn era

First you said they'd be the best of the best now you're saying they would compete with anyone.

But it's sad that you rate them so highly because they're the first boxers you've witnessed and are so ignorant to other fighters from older eras.

[res]

hearns would destroy mayweather because of his range

but against manny he would try to turn it into a fight after he felt pacquiao's power
and would get haggler'd all over again

HAHAHAHA, *gasp*

How overrated is pacquiao's power at 140?

Mayweather can adjust as far as range in concerned, but little Manny's penchant for taking punches would be his undoing here.

[res]

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. .

Exactly. When people talk about "favoring the past" what they're admitting to is that they favor the present.

What is "the past"? we're talking about decades and decades of time, and it just all get's lumped into one term "the past"; everything from the early 90's to the 40's?

Most of the people who say this have a bias for the present, which can not in principle feature anywhere near as many great fighters because it's just a snippet of time.

[tennis]

lets be real here

just for that second morales fight manny is in the HOF

his resume at 130 and under> sugar ray robinson

[WARQUEZ]

lets be real here

just for that second morales fight manny is in the HOF

his resume at 130 and under> sugar ray robinson

Of course it is dummy. Ray only fought like 3 times at 130 pounds.

[The Big Dunn]

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

Its impossible on this board to have any real discussion about yesterday's greats vs todays greats. ANy argument you make is never debated. You are just labeled as a fan of the new guy because thats the easiest way to refute an argument.

[tennis]

Of course it is dummy. Ray only fought like 3 times at 130 pounds.

ray's entire (overratted) career

or i should say turpins *****es career- since he destroyed robinson both times and was very unlucky to get caught by a lucky punch

[StarshipTrooper]

ray's entire (overratted) career

or i should say turpins *****es career- since he destroyed robinson both times and was very unlucky to get caught by a lucky punch

Troll alert. I wonder who's alt this is :rolleyes9: