In your opinion who is the GOAT

[dynomyte1444]

So people say "How can you rate fighters that you haven't seen fight?"


My response would be "How can you call a fighter the GOAT if you haven't seen every great boxer perform? You don't even know who your comparing him against."



It works both ways.

thats a lame argument. People are calling certain people the best because they have seen them. How can you rightfully say someone in 1400 bc that had an undefeated record was the best of all time when you dont have any footage.


You dont hear MMA fans calling Rickson Gracie the best of all time for his 400-0 record.

I think when it comes to the old timers you have to respect what they did in their time but its better to compare resumes from that time because you cant see them and you cant see with your eyes if you think he would beat a mayweather.

[-PBP-]

thats a lame argument. People are calling the person the best because the have seen them.

All time means just that "all time". Not just your time. That's "best I've ever seen" which is different. To be more direct all you are doing is excusing laziness and ignorance. You calling somebody the greatest ever when you don't even know who you're comparing them against.

How can you rightfully say someone in 1400 bc that had an undefeated record was the best of all time when you dont have any footage.

You dont hear MMA fans calling Rickson Gracie the best of all time for his 400-0 record.

This is irrelevant. No one has ever claimed a boxer from 1400bc was the greatest ever or even in the top 200 for that matter.

I think when it comes to the old timers you have to respect what they did in their time but its better to compare resumes from that time because you cant see them and you cant see with your eyes if you think he would beat a mayweather.

Mayweather is considered the best of his time because of his skills and resume. His superior skill set has allowed him to defeat the best fighters of his time and achieve such a resume. All of that goes hand in hand. You can't have a boxing discussion in any era without talking about resume.

[PureBoxingCEO]

Sugar Ray Robinson, despite ducking Charley Burley

[ILLuminato]

The "Greatest" - Ali.

The "Best" - SRR or Floyd Mayweather. Guillermo Rigondeaux could be up there if he continues.

[crold1]

Sugar Ray Robinson, despite ducking Charley Burley

Ducked him how?

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

Ali is the GOAT imo.

[JAB5239]

dude,

"the IBRO exists to provide a vehicle for individuals interested in boxing research to communicate these interests; to facilitate their research; to coordinate research activities and provide a means of meeting others who share these specialized interests"

anyone can be a member............it's a online paid community. am i doubting that there are a few guys within the group who know there ****? no......but there are much more well respected historians who disagree with the notion that greb is greatest of all time (greb is in everyones top 10) just not number 1. greb has always been between 4 and 7 on most lists.

real historians (respected world wide) like Mike Silver have Robinson as being number one (minus the paid online community) bert sugar one of the most respected boxing historians to date (if not ever) has robinson at 1.....

greb being number one is new to me & my first encounter of this was on boxingscene.com.

the online community that you posted they themselves don't list greb as number 1. (even though they still have greb extremely high) they also have duran over willie pep & Benny Leonard


online paid community...........

My point is that looking over Grebs resume and combing through old newspaper reports its not a crazy notion as you made it seem by asking for 5 names. I know I can find names that rank him number one, but than we get in the pissing contest about historians and their credibility. I myself rank him second with Langford first, Robinson third, Armstrong fourth. Those are the only four I have cast in stone. Does it make it wrong because the majority have Robinson number one? I don't think so because I know I can back my opinions up with facts and logic. At the end of the day its still very subjective. Its much easier rating weight classes in my opinion.

[dynomyte1444]

All time means just that "all time". Not just your time. That's "best I've ever seen" which is different. To be more direct all you are doing is excusing laziness and ignorance. You calling somebody the greatest ever when you don't even know who you're comparing them against.



This is irrelevant. No one has ever claimed a boxer from 1400bc was the greatest ever or even in the top 200 for that matter.



Mayweather is considered the best of his time because of his skills and resume. His superior skill set has allowed him to defeat the best fighters of his time and achieve such a resume. All of that goes hand in hand. You can't have a boxing discussion in any era without talking about resume.

of course I was being sarcastic with 1400 bc but the argument is the same. I like how you skipped over the rickson gracie argument

Its not being lazy or ignorant. People respect the older fighters but you cant say they can beat anyone today because you nor i have ever seen them fight but since video you can make that comparison.

of course you need to talk about a resume but that is not the only way to judge the greatest because people fight in different times and do things differently.

[JAB5239]

Ducked him how?

Because that's what he heard. He doesn't understand the era or the circumstance, and Im sure he doesn't know Burley said he didn't blame Robinson given those circumstances.

[JAB5239]

of course I was being sarcastic with 1400 bc but the argument is the same. I like how you skipped over the rickson gracie argument

Its not being lazy or ignorant. People respect the older fighters but you cant say they can beat anyone today because you nor i have ever seen them fight but since video you can make that comparison.

of course you need to talk about a resume but that is not the only way to judge the greatest because people fight in different times and do things differently.

You can't draw a reasonable conclusion based on newspaper reports of his fights, other fighters testimonial and the plenty of film there is of his opponents as will as their records and legacies?