The "Greatest of All-Time" Discussion

[DeeMoney]

- -got it ass backwards.

Biggest difference now is training and specialized nutrition including PEDs, and money that allows year long devotion to training, and change of rules that allows narrow focus specialized players called forth by computer algorithms instead of innate player and coach intuition in a game where the best athletes stayed on the field for all 60 minutes in what amounted to a part time profession necessitating another job in the off season to make ends meet for their families.

Jim Thorpe was a far superior athlete than today's athletes, as was Babe Ruth and Wilt Chamberlain.

Baseball, football, basketball has become tragically so stilted and slowed down that I can no longer watch it. So to is boxing, but on rare occasion we can see a rare old school fight like AJ vs Wlad or a pacquiao fight and so on. Even those are contaminated with modern training methods and rule changes, but the nature of a good fight remains pretty much as it was .

I meant the biggest difference of measurable athletic ability (strength, speed, agility, endurance, and body type), not causes
of these changes- which is what you listed.

If you want to argue Jim Thorpe is superior to today's athletes in a natural state, ie without the use of modern training, then thats acceptable but completely immeasurable. But compare Jim Thorpes athletic measurables to those of modern athletes with their training and he gets dusted. The famous hand eye coordination test that Babe Ruth took, was given to modern baseball players (Pujols) who performed just as highly. Although baseball leans less on measured athletic ability. Wilt was far more modern than the other two you listed, and was well known for strength training, so you could clump him somewhat in with modern athletes.

Now, some of that can be attributed to modern equipment (running on synthetic tracks) which is a variable that shouldnt be attributed to the athlete itself and I believe is addressed nicely here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

Still, as I stated earlier we are arguing apples to oranges. I was writing about different end result measurables (lag measures) you were discussing the reasons for them.

[ShoulderRoll]

But that's an exception. Resume means a lot. It's the criterion that has me ranking Dempsey lower than many people do. For example. And Marciano higher.

That's why resume alone is not a good enough criteria.

Marciano got a late start in the sport while Dempsey was fighting grown men for money since he was a teenager. And most boxing experts who were alive to witness both of them ranked Dempsey much higher.

[QueensburyRules]

Still, as I stated earlier we are arguing apples to oranges. I was writing about different end result measurables (lag measures) you were discussing the reasons for them.

- -Ass backwards again. It's you comparing apples to orange claiming today's athletes are better.

Are you really daft enough to think Pujols was Administered the same tests as Babe? And that Babes greatness can be explained by an eye test?

Words fail to described the limitations of your knowledge. Both Babe in his off season training and Wilt as a Field athlete in college would have been exposed to weight training but not near the level of today, but no matter , that ain't why they were far superior to today's athletes.

I doubt few decathletes surpassed Thorpes 1500 meter time set on a cinder track in mismatched shoes he lifted out a garbage heap after his were stolen. The three represent 3 distinct eras that have not been replicated since.

[The Old LefHook]

It is all about who beats whom. I don't care who lasted longer or had the better career. Who beats whom. First you determine the divisional leaders. Line today's junior middleweights up against yesteryear's middleweights, and away you go. Do it for every division. You end up with a quite short list that might typically look like:

Ali
Robinson
Hafey
Duran
Leonard

Then you hone it from there.

[DeeMoney]

- -Ass backwards again. It's you comparing apples to orange claiming today's athletes are better.

Are you really daft enough to think Pujols was Administered the same tests as Babe? And that Babes greatness can be explained by an eye test?

Words fail to described the limitations of your knowledge. Both Babe in his off season training and Wilt as a Field athlete in college would have been exposed to weight training but not near the level of today, but no matter , that ain't why they were far superior to today's athletes.

I doubt few decathletes surpassed Thorpes 1500 meter time set on a cinder track in mismatched shoes he lifted out a garbage heap after his were stolen. The three represent 3 distinct eras that have not been replicated since.

C'mon now, we can disagree on whether athletes from a century ago were better than those today. But no need to be insulting.

Difference of opinion is no need to result to insults and name calling.

[billeau2]

I have none. I find Goat debates to be some of the most worthless debates on boxing forums.



I don't think most boxing fans even have the knowledge of boxing history or have seen enough film to give an opinion on such a wide selection of possible nominees for such a title.

And the select few that do gotta come up with some fantasy realm or speculative logic on how you can even compare top fighters from every era when times were different, top opposition was or wasn't available & sometimes the rules that governed the sport were different among many other variables that are tough to quantify & handicap against others. Its an impossible mission to come up with a top ten Goat list let alone finding the Goat.

Totally agree with this.

When I look at the best/ greatest I look at what the individual did on a technical level for the sport. So to me, a guy like Tunney, as great as he was, does not get mentioned enough because historically when he fought Dempsey he was the last great champion of the old fencing preclassical style of boxing that emerged after bare Knuckles. As a rule preclassical fighters were well rounded and knew how to do a lot of things in the ring.

Then we get the punching technicians and the great fighters that could do it all on a technical level.

Ali deserves his own special category lol.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Tyson and Duran incorporated much of the Dempsey Style, so how is Dempsey outdated.

Young Ali just replicated the personality and boxing style of Jim Corbett, but with a twist, and boxer punchers like Joe Gans who was mentored by Bobby Fitz existed long before today.

[Joe Beamish]

- -Tyson and Duran incorporated much of the Dempsey Style, so how is Dempsey outdated.

Young Ali just replicated the personality and boxing style of Jim Corbett, but with a twist, and boxer punchers like Joe Gans who was mentored by Bobby Fitz existed long before today.

I'm not sure who would beat Gans at LW. We'd have to agree on gloves, ring size, the number of rounds, all that crap. How would a contemporary dude handle going 20 or 42 rounds? How would Gans handle competing for the figure skating scores that judges today hand out for only 12 rounds?

So instead of going with fantasy matchups -- not unless we're going to define the specific rules for these fights that happen across different eras -- I rate resume as the top indicator of greatness. Not all fighters were blessed with great competition during their primes, but that's their problem, not mine.

Who did you beat? How good were they when you beat them?

Fantasy matchups should use the "who'd you beat?" criterion as the departure point for discussion. If you beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler, you're a MFer.

[OctoberRed]

- -Tyson and Duran incorporated much of the Dempsey Style, so how is Dempsey outdated.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -Ass backwards again. It's you comparing apples to orange claiming today's athletes are better.

Are you really daft enough to think Pujols was Administered the same tests as Babe? And that Babes greatness can be explained by an eye test?

Words fail to described the limitations of your knowledge. Both Babe in his off season training and Wilt as a Field athlete in college would have been exposed to weight training but not near the level of today, but no matter , that ain't why they were far superior to today's athletes.

I doubt few decathletes surpassed Thorpes 1500 meter time set on a cinder track in mismatched shoes he lifted out a garbage heap after his were stolen. The three represent 3 distinct eras that have not been replicated since.

Great post, Queeny. Everyone who wants to post here should have to read it upon signing up an account.


I'm guilty as anyone at stressing head-to-head match ups. I think the H2H argument matters tremendously, but that doesn't necessarily prove who's more talented or a more natural/gamer fighter.

I have no doubt that if Sullivan or Dempsey had come of age in this generation they'd look a lot like Lomachenko - generally speaking. Most likely, if Roy Jones had come of age 100 years before no one would have heard of him.

Modern rules, development, training, nutrition, and medicine provide fighters with tremendous advantages over their predecessors. The skills haven't evolved as much as in other sports, but everything else has changed for the benefit of the fighters. So someone who might not have been very much in past decades can be molded into a noteworthy fighter. Less heart and skill are required.

That being said, exposing modern fighters to the rules of the game as experienced by past generations would have immeasurable impact: look at how Floyd responded to McGregor and Judah's body shots. Can you imagine how he'd handle Armstrong full-on nut-*******s?