I can't remember seeing a better fighter than prime Floyd Mayweather Jr

[0james0]

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

[TitoFan]

The "old timers vs. current fighters" debate will continue to rage on forever, which in itself is a great thing about boxing discussions. I have to admit I am guilty of favoring fighters from a certain era forward. I, like everyone else, have no scientific facts on which to base my opinions. Like someone else already said, short of having a time machine and yanking these fighters together in their primes, all the rest is assumption.

That "certain era" for me is the 1980's. We were spoiled in those days, with ATG's such as SRL, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez, Gomez, Arguello, Pryor, etc. I watch those fights and I see everything I see today. Speed, boxing prowess, beautiful defensive moves, power, etc. I watch fights from the 50's, and I see robotic movement, plodding, but plenty of power. I'm not putting everybody in those baskets. SRR undoubtedly was ahead of his time, and exhibited the movement, skills and speed to dominate as he did in his era. And he was so damn busy, it's difficult not to consider him among the ATG's. Rocky Marciano was tough as nails. Had he been 20 pounds heavier, I would make a case for him against any HW in history. But again, HW's were smaller back then. Now we have 6'-5", 240-lb behemoths like the Klitschkos, and it's almost unfair to try and compare these fighters.

But by and large you watch fights from the 50's and before... and you see the same thing. Human beings have evolved. I would draw a parallel with another sport I'm very familiar with, American football. Players are bigger, faster, and more athletic now than they were back in the 40's and 50's. It's just a fact. The games themselves back then were great, don't get me wrong. Because it was an even playing field. Everybody was smaller and slower. So the degree of competitiveness was the same. So as evolution is true for sports like football, same thing I think holds true for boxing.

This is not meant to diminish in any way the greatness of the old fighters in their own eras. But once you start to compare fighters from different eras, it becomes a guessing game.

[Spicoli]

Look at your opinion from the opposite point of view, how can you say Floyd Mayweather is better than Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson when you haven't seen footage on Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson? It's impossible.

If that's true, than the inverse must be true in that how can you say Benny Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson were better than Floyd if you haven't seen the footage?

What great fighters did Ray Robinson beat? Jake Lamotta? Ok, well why was Jake Lamotta great when Ricky Hatton isn't? Lamotta, who I admit was a fantastic fighter with underrated boxing skills, is famous for beating Ray Robinson and giving him his first loss. But why is he great? He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place. Ricky Hatton was an undefeated champ who beat one of the greatest fighters in the history of his division (Kosta Tyszu) to win the title.

Half the guys he fought are only known and considered "great" or even "very good" because they fought him and may have done well at some point or another. He was the litmus test!

And again, I can't say an opponent was great because newspapers said he was great. I have to bring up Roy Jones again: imagine if Roy Jones fought in the 20s and all we had of him were a few dusty video clips and a ton of newspaper clippings and hearsay.

"JONES MOVES UP TO SUPER MIDDLEWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES UNDISPUTED CHAMP."

"JONES GOES A ROUND WITHOUT OPPONENT LANDING PUNCH."

"JONES RACKS UP YET ANOTHER TITLE DEFENSE, KO'S CONTENDER WITH BEHIND-THE-BACK SURPRISE PUNCH"

"LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT JONES MOVES UP TO HEAVYWEIGHT, EMBARRASSES CHAMPION WITH AMAZING HANDSPEED, WORLD CHAMP FROM MIDDLEWEIGHT TO HEAVYWEIGHT"


He would be the undisputed #1 p4p of all time.

Now that is very true. I actually think if he was around back then, he would have cleaned up most of it.

But based on what exactly. The assumption that they would be 'easier'? Jones didn't even clean up his own era in fairness. I hardly expect he'd see fit enough to do it then.