Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag - Extra Edition: Top 10 List For All-Time Greats

[aboutfkntime]

Sorry Bread, but if your going back as far as Sam Langford then Bob Fitzsimmons really needs to be included end of! These lists really need to be kept to pre & post WW II!!.......

great call Mick !

I don't agree with splitting the list, but Fitzy must be close

be interesting to see a 11-20 list

same with my other guy, Carpentier

and good to see Armstrong getting his due

[TonyGe]

Floyd Mayweather Jnr, Manny Pacman the last of the greatest ever in the sport of boxing. Floyd is probably in the top 3 complete fighter category of all time; skill set definitely at number 1 and I believe history books will ultimately put him there. Funny how other fighters' losses are accommodated more that others - Marvin Haglers' loss to SRL has seemingly nullified all of his accomplishments, fact is the result could have gone either way and where would we rank Hagler then, definitely in the top 5 fighter of all time. This bias towards old school fighters who we all know had an inferior skill set vis a vie the Roy Jones' of this world; but had unquestionable brawl and grit will not last the test of time. Boxing men of old grow up please.

Trying to compare fighters of different era is hard to do because of the rule changes frequency of fights modern conditioning and training. Fighters today have nutritionists access to taped fights etc. I look at how a fighter does against his peers in the era they competed in as a starting point because they are competing under the same level of available aids to improve their performance. Then extrapolate whether they could complete in the modern era with the modern aids to enhance their performances. I'm not talking Peds etc. as aids but you have factor that in as a possibility. A guy like Robinson may have never had to move up or at least be able to continue at Welterweight longer if he had access to modern weight cutting methods.

[aboutfkntime]

Trying to compare fighters of different era is hard to do because of the rule changes frequency of fights modern conditioning and training. Fighters today have nutritionists access to taped fights etc. I look at how a fighter does against his peers in the era they competed in as a starting point because they are competing under the same level of available aids to improve their performance. Then extrapolate whether they could complete in the modern era with the modern aids to enhance their performances. I'm not talking Peds etc. as aids but you have factor that in as a possibility. A guy like Robinson may have never had to move up or at least be able to continue at Welterweight longer if he had access to modern weight cutting methods.

TIP: you were doing well, until you started extrapolating

you compare fighters with their peers, and then you walk away... no extrapolation required...

greatness is determined by what a fighter achieved

every fighter has the same opportunity to ply his craft, you do not need to compare across era's

deciding whether you think a fighter from back in the day could compete against a modern fighter today, is frankly a little silly

boxing it is much easier today, than in the past

back in the day there was no welfare, just think about that for a second... just think about how that would affect your career-development and fight-preparation... 17 divisions today, mean far less size mismatches... only one ladder back then, so it was far more difficult to pick up a title... 15(+) rounds, and yet many fighters today are gassed after 4-5 rounds... fighting every second week... fighting with injuries/sickness, because you need to feed your family

boxing was tougher back then simply because life was tougher

I think it is far more relevant to ask, would fighters today have what it takes to rise to the top in the much tougher, much more competitive climates, of the past?... with no welfare, only 8 divisions, only 1 title, over 15 rounds, often for peanuts?

[TonyGe]

TIP: you were doing well, until you started extrapolating

you compare fighters with their peers, and then you walk away... no extrapolation required...

greatness is determined by what a fighter achieved

every fighter has the same opportunity to ply his craft, you do not need to compare across era's

deciding whether you think a fighter from back in the day could compete against a modern fighter today, is frankly a little silly

boxing it is much easier today, than in the past

back in the day there was no welfare, just think about that for a second... just think about how that would affect your career-development and fight-preparation... 17 divisions today, mean far less size mismatches... only one ladder back then, so it was far more difficult to pick up a title... 15(+) rounds, and yet many fighters today are gassed after 4-5 rounds... fighting every second week... fighting with injuries/sickness, because you need to feed your family

boxing was tougher back then simply because life was tougher

I think it is far more relevant to ask, would fighters today have what it takes to rise to the top in the much tougher, much more competitive climates, of the past?... with no welfare, only 8 divisions, only 1 title, over 15 rounds, often for peanuts?

A lot more boxers competing for a lot less titles in those days for sure.

[TonyGe]

TIP: you were doing well, until you started extrapolating

you compare fighters with their peers, and then you walk away... no extrapolation required...

greatness is determined by what a fighter achieved

every fighter has the same opportunity to ply his craft, you do not need to compare across era's

deciding whether you think a fighter from back in the day could compete against a modern fighter today, is frankly a little silly

boxing it is much easier today, than in the past

back in the day there was no welfare, just think about that for a second... just think about how that would affect your career-development and fight-preparation... 17 divisions today, mean far less size mismatches... only one ladder back then, so it was far more difficult to pick up a title... 15(+) rounds, and yet many fighters today are gassed after 4-5 rounds... fighting every second week... fighting with injuries/sickness, because you need to feed your family

boxing was tougher back then simply because life was tougher

I think it is far more relevant to ask, would fighters today have what it takes to rise to the top in the much tougher, much more competitive climates, of the past?... with no welfare, only 8 divisions, only 1 title, over 15 rounds, often for peanuts?

Just to clear this up. I added that last bit because the forum often gets bogged down with "that old timer can't beat this guy from the modern era" when discussing ATG fighters. Then they quote training etc.. For those people I wanted to point out that they would do quite well.

[aboutfkntime]

Just to clear this up. I added that last bit because the forum often gets bogged down with "that old timer can't beat this guy from the modern era" when discussing ATG fighters. Then they quote training etc.. For those people I wanted to point out that they would do quite well.

aah ok gotcha