Does any modern boxer have a chance to be the greatest?

[Boxingraya]

no because they don't have enough tough fights. that implies shortage of stars so nobody can achieve say 10 phenomenal victories because they aren't available. for example inoue would have to clean bantam, defeat 3 top guys at super bantam, russell, warrington and santa cruz at feather, berchelt and tank at super feather, lomachenko at lightweight, then number 1 at 140 and finally the number 1 at welter at that time to be in the conversation for the best ever. something like this is highly unlikely to ever happen with any fighter until the end of time.

Does Ali really have 10 phenomenal victories? SRL? Floyd? Better question: can you name 5 fighters with 10 phenomenal victories.

[Boxingraya]

only thing is hes never really dominated any of his big fights but you are correct

Fair point. He was the underdog vs G though, right? He wasn't even supposed to win those fights much less dominate.

[MulaKO]

I just don’t see it
Especially with social media where everyone has a voice
It’ll always be a 50/50 discussion amongst fans
And a lot of haters as you can’t tell from this site
Some of these guys would rather give it to a platform ( Dazn or espn or ) you get what I mean

[Lomadeaux]

There are guys like Inoue who i believe is very special but it’s also the level of competition that needs to be available for him to reach Mt Rushmore.

Pacman could have been the greatest had he beaten Floyd..

SRR would have destroyed Pac Man.

[KING MEAT]

canelo is on the same group of elites from last generation

[Motorcity Cobra]

Inoue. He's a special fighter.

[satiev1]

Lomachenko.

[drablj]

Does Ali really have 10 phenomenal victories? SRL? Floyd? Better question: can you name 5 fighters with 10 phenomenal victories.

i said 10 for example. it's not written in the stone. if someone doesn't have quantity (like every boxer in this century) he can only compensate with quality. so when there was only one champion and he fought 5+ times a year (or 45 like greb once ) and he has a lot of wins over top10 guys in his and surrounding divisions that is almost impossible to achieve in one division now. so one would have to jump in weight several times and clean them since there usually isn't only one clear number 1 guy. nobody can do something like armstrong did in 1938. at this age (3 division champion at the same time when there were 8 or 9).

if one modern boxer wants to be the greatest, he must surpass those among the greatest. let's forget about those who are consistently ranked among the top10 for a minute. people like gene tunney and jimmy mclarnin aren't in the top 10 and have less than 100 fights.
tunney has wins over greb, dempsey, tommy gibbons and carpentier.
mclarnin has wins over labarba, pancho villa (reigning flyweight champion), sammy mandell (reigning lightweight champion), al singer (reigning lightweight champion), benny leonard, young corbett III (reigning welterweight champion who has wins over walker, conn, lesnevich, apostoli), barney ross, canzoneri and ambers.

you mentioned sugar ray leonard. he has wins over 3 p4p number ones (duran, hearns and hagler) and he is sometimes at number 10 on atg lists.
for one modern boxer to surpass them all in everybody's eyes, he has to do something like i wrote in my last post. it would be more possible if there were clear number 1 guys in every division and boxers fought much more. i am not saying that past boxers are genetically better than those now. they simply had more opportunities to achieve greatness. boxers now have more opportunities to earn a lot of money. so everybody has something.

[champion4ever]

No, not even close. The old-timers and all-time greats had over 200 some odd bouts. Today fighter's make too much money which is the reason why there are fewer fights among them today.

[Boxingraya]

i said 10 for example. it's not written in the stone. if someone doesn't have quantity (like every boxer in this century) he can only compensate with quality. so when there was only one champion and he fought 5+ times a year (or 45 like greb once ) and he has a lot of wins over top10 guys in his and surrounding divisions that is almost impossible to achieve in one division now. so one would have to jump in weight several times and clean them since there usually isn't only one clear number 1 guy. nobody can do something like armstrong did in 1938. at this age (3 division champion at the same time when there were 8 or 9).

if one modern boxer wants to be the greatest, he must surpass those among the greatest. let's forget about those who are consistently ranked among the top10 for a minute. people like gene tunney and jimmy mclarnin aren't in the top 10 and have less than 100 fights.
tunney has wins over greb, dempsey, tommy gibbons and carpentier.
mclarnin has wins over labarba, pancho villa (reigning flyweight champion), sammy mandell (reigning lightweight champion), al singer (reigning lightweight champion), benny leonard, young corbett III (reigning welterweight champion who has wins over walker, conn, lesnevich, apostoli), barney ross, canzoneri and ambers.

you mentioned sugar ray leonard. he has wins over 3 p4p number ones (duran, hearns and hagler) and he is sometimes at number 10 on atg lists.
for one modern boxer to surpass them all in everybody's eyes, he has to do something like i wrote in my last post. it would be more possible if there were clear number 1 guys in every division and boxers fought much more. i am not saying that past boxers are genetically better than those now. they simply had more opportunities to achieve greatness. boxers now have more opportunities to earn a lot of money. so everybody has something.

You can't hold today's fighters to the standards of yesterday. That's just not fair.

A great fighter should clean out a division or two, ( at least) while facing the best comp available. Simple.