When Ranking All Time Greats
The latest Mayweather thread got me thinking, we should change the way we rank all time greats and all time P4P.
It just seems ridiculous that there is literally NOTHING a fighter today could EVER do to be considered greater then Sugar Ray Robinson. Nothing anyone could ever do could ever match up to accolades of Sugar Ray Robinson. Nothing anyone could do today could really exceed what Joe Louis or Henry Armstrong did. Sorry not even Manny Pacquiao matches up. There's no way he ever could.
Imo it just seems unfair therefore I think we should just compartmentalize the ATG rankings and never again post a 1-20 from 1896 to today.
Don't you agree? Don't you think when you ask can Mayweather be the greatest ever, it's more realistic to ask can Mayweather be the greatest since...Ali? That would seem to be fair 1964 on the Ali era to today that compares somewhat favorably upon the fighters of today. Also that's important because for the most part we have pretty much every fight every fighter from that era on has been in which is huge.
Then maybe you can have an era from the 20s to the 60s you can call the Louis era where a fair percentage of the top level fights were recorded, at least championship bouts.
Then you rank the guys who we really haven't seen more then 5 fights of in our life and who without really deep research most of us are in the dark as to wtf happened back then. I am. You can call that the Dempsey era.
1900-1934
1935-1963
1964-today.
Seems about right, otherwise how would a fighter ever be able to repeat what Robinson did? He wouldn't where almost anyone had the opportunity to fight as many times a year as Robinson did if they had enough talent.
Re: When Ranking All Time Greats
Ranking all time greats is really subjective but I do agree with you on how do one rank guys that only have maybe 4 or 5 fights that you can access to and watch?
Talent is just one equation to ranking a fighter but his level of opposition and the state the opposition was in also counts. Guys like Ray Robinson and Ali are so revered in the sport are because they beat top level HOF fighters that were at their peak or close to their peak, and they beat many of those guys when they were not at their physical prime anymore. While modern fighters, and let's use Mayweather and Pacquiao as examples since they both are considered to be the 2 major faces of boxing, beat guys with some sort of question mark next to it.
For example, Mayweather has received considerable criticism for figthing a guy that was about 2 weight classes past his best fighting weight, Pacquiao got an official decision victory and a draw over the same guy whom many thought beat him both times. You factor in things like this and those 2 guys fall way short of many of the past greats whom fought more and had a much higher level of competition. That's just an example of modern fighters.
Re: When Ranking All Time Greats
When ranking all time greats you must follow some specific criteria.
1. Is the fighter in question Greek?
2. Does the fighter's last name rhyme with Karnamoutis?
3. Has this fighters been ducked by the commercial "best"?
This reduces the list a bit and you can judge after that records and what not.
To get back to what you are saying though, you are right, the sport as a whole has gone through some really significant changes. I would actually add another time frame of when 15 round fights went away that was a hugely significant change.
Re: When Ranking All Time Greats
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
When ranking all time greats you must follow some specific criteria.
1. Is the fighter in question Greek?
2. Does the fighter's last name rhyme with Karnamoutis?
3. Has this fighters been ducked by the commercial "best"?
This reduces the list a bit and you can judge after that records and what not.
To get back to what you are saying though, you are right, the sport as a whole has gone through some really significant changes. I would actually add another time frame of when 15 round fights went away that was a hugely significant change.
LMAO ;D
Re: When Ranking All Time Greats
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BIG H
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
When ranking all time greats you must follow some specific criteria.
1. Is the fighter in question Greek?
2. Does the fighter's last name rhyme with Karnamoutis?
3. Has this fighters been ducked by the commercial "best"?
This reduces the list a bit and you can judge after that records and what not.
To get back to what you are saying though, you are right, the sport as a whole has gone through some really significant changes. I would actually add another time frame of when 15 round fights went away that was a hugely significant change.
LMAO ;D
he's a hell of a nice guy also, faking TKO losses to help out the young guys that are coming up ;D
Re: When Ranking All Time Greats
Its the good ol Harry Grab dilemma.Written,reported and spoken of on the highest of plateaus throughout history...but hey,we have never seen him fight.Exactly whos opinion was that and wheres he buried.The old adage...'seeing is believing'.Honestly,alot of the intrigue may be the mystery and not seeing everything?I dont know.Ive always been a sucker for history and its refreshing to step outside of the now...our immediate era and delve into another that we can only read about or see through some patched together highlight reels.Whats interesting is that with todays technology we possess the ability to absorb and learn so much about the days gone by and other greats with the click of a button.Though its immportant to appreciate that reading,rewatching a certain era as opposed to actually following the fighters live are hugely different and not the same.Every generation thinks its the new best thing and places guys atop of the mount as far as greatness when they are still very much active.History has a way of being a long continuum and cannot be fully put into perspective for many years and generations,when the dust settles a bit.Its fully natural to live in the moment and focus in on whats in front of us,at this very moment in regards to the sport but it does not show the bigger picture.
