It is INTELLECTUALLY & ANALYTICALLY DISHONEST to rank fighters with NO FIGHT FOOTAGE

[DuttyAlacrity]

Julius Ceasar, Napoleon , Atilla the Hun, etc. couldn't have been great generals... there's no footage smh

[The_Sandman]

I haven't been watching boxing back in the 1920's or anything but I do believe that boxers today will most likely beat the boxers of yesterday. The boxers of today are just more evolved and are a product of the fighters of the past.

[DuttyAlacrity]

being great is not just about physical attributes kids...there are many other factors to consider: level of competition, fighting schedules, weight classes, championship rounds,etc. Smh you guys are the same ones who say Henry Armstrong is not as great as Pacquiao because Pacquiao won "8 titles"

[Vasyl’s dad]

lol has to be 120 hrs ? is that a prerequisite for it to be a historical fact?

120 hours is extensive don't you think? If you can't provide it, slavery never existed.

[Vasyl’s dad]

Ha! You're hanging onto that? You do ****ing know slavery is still alive and well today don't you? In some countries it never really ended. You made a horrible analogy, why don't you just accept it and move on?

Show the extensive footage.

[The Tase]

120 hours is extensive don't you think? If you can't provide it, slavery never existed.

its less than 30 minutes so you might be on to something.

because comparing how great a fighter is based on fight footage as oppose to fighters with no fight footage is the same as actual slave footage for slavery to be determined as a historical fact for you.

stick to hating floyd tom flores. ill be right there with you.