How high would you rank Manny in ATG if he beats PBF?

[JazMerkin]

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

It depends if you've seen said fighters in action. It also goes both ways. If you haven't seen many of them in action, then don't make a judgement. If you haven't seen Armstrong in action then it is wrong, however, if you have & simply feel Mayweather is better that is fair enough.

But, the simple fact is you do have to factor different things in. In the eras of SRR, Pep & Armstrong, they would be fighting top opponents every few weeks, which makes their performances all the more impressive. Now a top fighter gets in the ring every 6 months at best.

Also, I can't see Pacquiao as being better than Leonard or Duran yet & probably not Whitaker quite.

The thing that gets me is, as time goes on, styles evolve, tactics tighten and fighters become more athletic and so on... I don't look at Ray Robinson and think ''with today's training methods he'd be unbeatable...'' He was yesterdays fighter and i judge him as such. Hence achievement is the biggest thing these older fighters have going for them. (Hence why it's only the fighters with exceptional achievements who stand out).

Ray Robinson has more knockouts than most guys these days have had fights. But what of things like the 'tours of Europe' and b.s like that? How does that ''factor in'' to his tally?

I'm not knocking Robinson one bit but being old skool is not to be viewed through rose tinted glasses IMO. It's a two way street. There's a lot of old skool shit that went on back in the day that, if still incorporated in today's game, would make some current fighters God like icons (outside of the Philippines).

Another thing about Ray Robinson (Sorry!) was how far ahead of the game he was. Nobody could do the things he could do, brought the fight the way he did (or at least that was how it was viewed).

Thats no different now with both Floyd and Manny (Probably more so Manny; albiet ironically with his technical deficiencies).

NO ONE in the sport today, nor ever have been able to fight they way they do. And this is two guys who have beat the best and done it through numerous weight classes just the same... So how are they NOT ranked higher than those oldies?

I thought i'd rather not go quietly on this one

I do think it's all about circumstances. I agree a modern fighter should be judged equally, but they shouldn't be automatically higher because they can go through more weight divisions. Nowadays, fighters have weigh-ins 36 hours before the fight, only have to go 12 rounds & have far better nutritional training. Not to mention fighting far less regularly. You have to bear in mind that Robinson would have been a 3 weight world champion, but for being dehydrated by the temperature in a fight he was winning against Joey Maxim. If the Mayweather/Pacquiao winner beat the Mosley/Berto winner & then beat Paul Williams, I'd say unequivocally they were the best of all time.

On the subject of the European tours, Robinson did fight some excellent fighters whilst doing those, he wasn't just beating up on bums, he did it because he'd beaten the best in his country & went for the best in Europe.

I would also argue against the idea of greater athleticism. Whilst there might be new training regimens, I'd argue that the overall fitness to fight regular fights meant they were very well conditioned back then, certainly not any less naturally athletic. The key difference imo is nutrition & that styles have tightened.

I do disagree strongly that no one has ever been able to fight to PBF or Pac's levels. There are many who've been on that level. As great as they are, they aren't definitively better than Robinson, Armstrong, Pep or Benny Leonard. It's a careful balance between overrating the older guys & underrating them.