top 5 for me without a doubt. people keep saying how great the older fighters were but if you look at there records they basically fought a lot domestic scrubs and boxing wasnt an international sport back then. think overrating the fighters from the past seems to be equated with being a 'hardcore' fan. Look at some of the fighters someone like greb lost to (who seems to be a top 10 shoe in), lost to someone who was 48-23, 87-23, 62-33, drew to 63-25, and lost to the same guy 3 times. Can u imagine the reaction if floyd lost to a 48-23 fighter? Im not having it that thats one of the best of all time and a 50-0 guy isnt, a guy with pac, mosley, de la hoya, corrales, castillo, canelo, hatton, cotto amongst some other good world level fighters on his record. from where im looking i dont see many fighters who have consistently fought at world level who have gone 50-0. If u dont rate him highly in the GOAT standings i dont really know what a modern day fighter would have to do to be rated highly. and i know people get offended when the old school fighters get criticised but thats the way i see it.
I actually had to do a double take, then a triple take to make sure who wrote this actually wrote this.
Lewis didn't have the ability Tyson had in his prime.
I rate based on intellectual talent, not on resume.
I'm a master level handicapper that wouldld get paid privately for winnging picks. Listen, Oliver McCall knocked Lewis out AT WEMBLEY no quesitons asked. At least Tyson didn't train, Douglas' Mother died and he fought his ass off in the fight like he never fought before. Lewis got clipped and was out. Tyson never got clipped in his prime.
Plus, Lewis had a giant feature abot him. Tyson was a small asś cat. More ability and no genetics, I rate that and so should you and everyone else on Earth.
Lol. I respect your reasoning.
The mcgreggor signature is kinda harsh. He was good sport.
Anyone that has Mike Tyson in the top 10 ATG should be banned because they DKSAB.
I'm sure Tyson himself would say he's nowhere near top 10. Most people that know boxing would struggle to find a place for him in a list of top 10 HW's.
Yeah that was bugging me out lol. People are letting his popularity bleed over into his legacy. They are not one in the same.
As a rule I don't rank the guys I didn't see in their primes. So when I say Floyd is the 2nd best behind Ray Leonard, it reflects that I rank fighters whose careers were primarily for 1979/80 on.
Personally I don't think people can really rate fighters they've never seen or have seen limited footage. It's a traditional thing that is illogical. ATG is just as subjective as P4P list.
When we talk about wilt chamberlain vs Jordan everybody knows theirs a difference. But when we say Greb vs Pacquiao all of sudden it's a level playing field for judgement. It's a logical fallacy at best. The only thing that old fighters records prove is that they were extremely fought. (Pre-1965ish.semi arbitrary date)
I've already listed reasons why the ATGs of yesteryear were overrated. It's a logica argument but I'm sure it has its flaws. It's a few post that were earlier in this thread if you care to read. If not have a good day sir.
Comment