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

[IronDanHamza]

people need to accept the fact that manny and floyd are ATG'S meaning they can be the best of the best in any damn era

Great logic.

They're ATG's so that means they can be "the best of the best in any damn era"

Does it? Is that what it means to be an ATG?

Because I'll tell you now, if Pacquaio and Mayweather were in Hearns and Leonard's WW Era then they wouldn't be "The best of the best"

Being an ATG doesn't mean you can be the best of the best in any era. Do you know how ****** that sounds?

Would Barrera and Morales be the best of the best in any era?

Oh wait, you don't think they are ATG's do you?

[The Big Dunn]

Many of us have already answered the question of what happens if Floyd and Pac fight the guys listed over and over and over and over. That's not even what the TS was asking, the whole point of his thread is to attack people who think some of the greatest welterweights of all time would beat two guys who are not among the greatest welterweights of all time. It is common sense that has been argued hundreds of times.

If he's going to attack us for being biased, if you are going to attack us for being biased, then we will attack back, because we are the ones that don't actually have bias, we have common sense that huge, ATG welterweights like Hearns or Leonard would beat the sh** out of two small guys like Floyd and Pacquiao. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Bojangles you will never bust my bubble. Its fine with me you think hearns and leonard destroy floyd or manny. But no one attacked you. And you are as biased as anyone, especially if the reasons for winning are "huge" and "ATG" status.

Look, I can see why the poster feels the way he does. You at least will discuss and give reasons. But some just go with it and can't articulate why, prob because they never actuallysaw the older guys fight.

[Barry Halls]

Respectfully, I saw your scoring for the floyd cotto fight so I tend to think whatever answer you give will be driven by your personal agenda.

That said Tommy has the jab, reach and power to destroy manny or floyd if he hit either one of them.

Yeah i scored it 8-4 in favor of Mayweather despite him fighting my favorite fighter and i admitted to being emotionally invested. I felt it was very clear and never closer than competitive.
But sure enough. If you feel I'm driven by an agenda for not scoring it 9-3 in favor of Floyd, so be it. Floyd is one of my favorite active fighters.

Yes. Tommy has a good variety of choices to win these matchups while Floyd and/or Pac doesn't. Floyd would pretty much have to trade with Tommy and i don't think he has the toughness, chin (despite having a good chin) or power to do that.

That's why i asked. The poster said "it's obvious" as it is just that. IT's obvious.
I don't like that argument for other matchups, but the Hearns one is... obvious.

Actually, i feel it is the other side that come with flawed arguments if any. They assume that because some other sports have developed rapidly, boxing has too.
They fail to put into the equation that boxing was more prestigious (hard to compensate for lack of great athletes), competition more fierce and the methods of training pretty much the same.

So in the end Floyd is better than those scrubs you see in black and white clips on youtube because he eats rahmen noodles, twinkies and hang out with 50 cent.
Because i fail to see the rapid evolution of this very primitive sport in any other capacity.

[MRBOOMER]

This thread went to hell

Question tho how people keep bring up the size of ray Leonard and hearns that's not the only people who were mentioned ya know I'm just saying you can throw in whoever you like that fought at this weight or any ATg that fought at a weight they (mayweather pacquiao ) fought at I basically made this thread to say this old fighters were great these two are great but that doesn't mean one or the other gonna win strengths and weakness apply game plans strategy I mean there's way for all of them to beat each other. I'm just tired of most people using the there bigger or fought better oppents or there just better all together if people say they can beat em there should be a drawn out reason and plan why not just because.

[Roman Moreno]

Respectfully, I saw your scoring for the floyd cotto fight so I tend to think whatever answer you give will be driven by your personal agenda.

That said Tommy has the jab, reach and power to destroy manny or floyd if he hit either one of them.

Are you insinuating Harry has a personal agenda against Floyd?

[bojangles1987]

This thread went to hell

Question tho how people keep bring up the size of ray Leonard and hearns that's not the only people who were mentioned ya know I'm just saying you can throw in whoever you like that fought at this weight or any ATg that fought at a weight they (mayweather pacquiao ) fought at I basically made this thread to say this old fighters were great these two are great but that doesn't mean one or the other gonna win strengths and weakness apply game plans strategy I mean there's way for all of them to beat each other. I'm just tired of most people using the there bigger or fought better oppents or there just better all together if people say they can beat em there should be a drawn out reason and plan why not just because.

Size and who they fought plays a big part in who you would pick in a fight. Ray Leonard is a big welterweight, with tremendous ability in the ring, as proven by his record. He fought a defensive specialist on Floyd's level and won, he's fought offensive fighters above Pacquiao's level and won, so why wouldn't I pick him to beat either? Same with Hearns.

Trinidad or Whitaker are different, I wouldn't ever degrade someone who said Floyd would beat one of them, nor for saying Pacquiao would beat Whitaker. I don't believe they would win those fights, but they are very close. It's much different to throw Pac or Mayweather in the ring with Sugar Ray Robinson or Sugar Ray Leonard or Tommy Hearns.

[IronDanHamza]

This thread went to hell

Question tho how people keep bring up the size of ray Leonard and hearns that's not the only people who were mentioned ya know I'm just saying you can throw in whoever you like that fought at this weight or any ATg that fought at a weight they (mayweather pacquiao ) fought at I basically made this thread to say this old fighters were great these two are great but that doesn't mean one or the other gonna win strengths and weakness apply game plans strategy I mean there's way for all of them to beat each other. I'm just tired of most people using the there bigger or fought better oppents or there just better all together if people say they can beat em there should be a drawn out reason and plan why not just because.

Your question has been answered.

People don't pick those fighters because they are "old" they pick them because they are better and mainly because they they are natural ATG's at the weight as opposed to Pacquaio and Mayweather who aren't. (Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard etc)

It's an unfair match up in the first place. It's not that Mayweather or Pacquaio aren't good enough. The same logic would apply when comparing Ray Robinson to Micheal Spinks (Please don't say he's an "old" fighter). Does that mean I'm biased to new fighters? Because I adknowledge that Micheal Spinks would beat Ray Robinson at 175?

The reason you see "older" fighters get picked over new ones is because people do ****** comparisons.

How often do you see Salvador Sanchez win by landslide over Manny Pacquaio at 126? Never.

There was a poll in the history section where Mayweather beat Arguello handily. Strange that, isn't it? Considering everyone is "biased" for old fighters in there.

You need to realise that just because someone picks the obvious answer as Ray Robinson to beat Pacquaio at 147 and other natural ATG WW's to beat them it doesn't make them "biased".

[bojangles1987]

Your question has been answered.

People don't pick those fighters because they are "old" they pick them because they are better and mainly because they they are natural ATG's at the weight as opposed to Pacquaio and Mayweather who aren't. (Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard etc)

It's an unfair match up in the first place. It's not that Mayweather or Pacquaio aren't good enough. The same logic would apply when comparing Ray Robinson to Micheal Spinks (Please don't say he's an "old" fighter). Does that mean I'm biased to new fighters? Because I adknowledge that Micheal Spinks would beat Ray Robinson at 175?

The reason you see "older" fighters get picked over new ones is because people do ****** comparisons.

How often do you see Salvador Sanchez win by landslide over Manny Pacquaio at 126? Never.

There was a poll in the history section where Mayweather beat Arguello handily. Strange that, isn't it? Considering everyone is "biased" for old fighters in there.

You need to realise that just because someone picks the obvious answer as Ray Robinson to beat Pacquaio at 147 and other natural ATG WW's to beat them it doesn't make them "biased".

Bad example.

Pacquiao very rarely wins fantasy fight polls, no matter who he is matched up against.

[MRBOOMER]

[QUOTE=IronDanHamza;12154299]Your question has been answered.

People don't pick those fighters because they are "old" they pick them because they are better and mainly because they they are natural ATG's at the weight as opposed to Pacquaio and Mayweather who aren't. (Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard etc)

It's an unfair match up in the first place. It's not that Mayweather or Pacquaio aren't good enough. The same logic would apply when comparing Ray Robinson to Micheal Spinks (Please don't say he's an "old" fighter). Does that mean I'm biased to new fighters? Because I adknowledge that Micheal Spinks would beat Ray Robinson at 175?

The reason you see "older" fighters get picked over new ones is because people do ****** comparisons.

How often do you see Salvador Sanchez win by landslide over Manny Pacquaio at 126? Never.

There was a poll in the history section where Mayweather beat Arguello handily. Strange that, isn't it? Considering everyone is "biased" for old fighters in there.

You need to realise that just because someone picks the obvious answer as Ray Robinson to beat Pacquaio at 147 and other natural ATG WW's to beat them it doesn't make them "biased".[/

Im gonna ask you this question were any of those fighters beat by smaller men?

[Larry the boss]

Great logic.

They're ATG's so that means they can be "the best of the best in any damn era"

Does it? Is that what it means to be an ATG?

Because I'll tell you now, if Pacquaio and Mayweather were in Hearns and Leonard's WW Era then they wouldn't be "The best of the best"

Being an ATG doesn't mean you can be the best of the best in any era. Do you know how ****** that sounds?

Would Barrera and Morales be the best of the best in any era?

Oh wait, you don't think they are ATG's do you?

yes Floyd and Manny would be ATG'S in the Leonard,Hearns era.they are great fighters