Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
Why is everyone so binary on here? If someone says that they think person x is the best fighter, or leaves the best 'legacy', that doesn't mean everyone else is shit! People can only argue their own polarised view, without nuance or any semblance of open mindedness. Jesus!

All this stuff about 'legacy' is also quite simpleminded, isn't it? What does a 'legacy' look like? What does it really mean .... And how can one be better than another?

When someone's father dies, he may leave a 'legacy'. When someone else's father dies, will the two people argue over who left the best 'legacy'? It's ridiculous, guys.

The four fighters named above are definitely amongst the best of their generations. If somebody says they think one of them was the best, they are not automatically criticising the rest of them.

Good balanced opening post on this thread, by the way.

I have no idea who was the greatest fighter of the four, but:

Hopkins is an ageless phenomenon, right up there with Jersey Joe and the Old Mongoose. Prison made him, he survived through iron discipline and that us what made him a great fighter. His records are exemplary, he fights like an old school fighter and he would probably see the distance against just about anyone who ever lived. He is a legend, and will always be one.

Roy Jones was a freak of nature. He was the closest thing I've seen to bring a natural. Amazing coordination and unreal reflexes. He didn't even have to try to hard or train too much, he was just born to be in the ring. He toyed with an entire generation of middleweight and super middles until he got bored and cruised through the light heavies. His tragedy was that he never found anyone who excited him enough, or scared him enough, that he felt seriously challenged. As soon as all those natural reflexes began to desert him, he never had the technique to fall back on that someone like Hopkins did.

Who is the greater .... Is it better to burn brightly as the most incandescent star in the sky and burn out gloriously, or to defy time like the moon? I don't fucking know, but I will enjoy them both.

Floyd Mayweather was born and bred to be a boxer. His ring intelligence and strategic brain in the ring exemplifies true 'grace under pressure'. Beautiful, pure technique. Evey punch in the book and he just always seems to have more time than the other guy. He has fought (nearly ) everybody and come out on top. Usually massive lopsided points decisions against world class, proven boxers. It's pretty hard to argue with 47 and 0, and he's not even a real welterweight for chrissakes. He is one of the only fighters I think who could have engaged in a technical boxing match with Ray Leonard, Wilfred Benitez or even Willie Pep.

Manny Pacquiaio changed boxing. He is a Filipino. He is the first Asian fighter who has transcended the sport in that hemisphere and opened the sport up to billions of new fans. His rise from true abject poverty is inspiring, and his rampage through the lower weight classes has never been equalled. It's astonishing that this guy began his career as a half starved flyweight and he has overpowered, out punched, out speeded and plain outfought people who are naturally a couple of stone heavier. I remember gasping at his speed, combination punching and sheer balls at staying in that pocket and blasting people out. And he did it with grace, humility, a smile and a love of warfare that shines through every second he's in the ring.

Who wins between the irresistible force and the immovable object?

What's the point in over analysing something as simplistic as a 'legacy'

I hope you just enjoyed them while you could, admired them for what they were, doing what they did best ..... Without over analysing the immeasurable and going down blind alleys that disrespect every journeyman, opponent, tomato can and plodder who have contributed to this great sport that not too many on this forum really appreciate.

Rant over, Badum-tish
Great post. I have enjoyed watching all of them, but I have also been frustrated by all at one time or another. Roy frustrated me the most because had he been less business savvy and more interested in his legacy, he would have fought Benn, Eubank, Collins, Darius, Byrd, Jirov, Evander...etc., and fulfilled his potential as the G.O.A.T. Hop frustrated me with his spoiling tactics vs Joe C. And Dawson, as well as his ridiculously slow/passive start vs Jermain Taylor. Floyd has frustrated me with his shitty attitude and issues making the Manny fight. Manny frustrated me by fighting Marquez four times. I was good at three. Overall though, all four are great fighters and will be missed once they are done (Roy is pretty much done now though...).