Greatest of All Time

[JonesJrMayweather]

Wellllllllll I don't think I need to need say who's my legit threat to the massively understood GOD of boxing.

I've seen a lot of footage of the old era guys. And I'm a bit of a heretic who doesn't just accept that old era will forever be "the greats" simply because old guys pass down stories from their time. Having said that, I take into consideration the evolution of the sport. Though some may call it a decline. But giving all of the modern science applied to sports in general nowadays.

I believe RJJ, Sweet Pea, and Bhop would beat whoever the ATG is in their weightclass and P4P Sweet pea and RJJ would both beat Ray Robinson. And RJJ being all time greatest.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I'm really not into ATG or P4P so have never really bothered to consider it but I guess the guys that we remember as the greatest of our times are usually actually the 3-5 greatest of 'our' time. 'Our time', whenever that may be is reference to 'our generation' and boxing has been going for x generations so I guess as a mathematical answer take x and multiply it by (3+4+5)/3 and there's roughly a guide for how many truly feasible ATG's there should be

Something like 25ish truly undisputed ATG's anyway.

[Mr140]

Pac to me is 15 at best i cant rate him over Sugar Ray Leonard who is only 10 in my book. The greatest of all time is Ali for me could have a chance to beat any boxer who ever lived.

[CutMeMick]

Just to clarify something.
I don't dispute if anyone wants to list Greb, McVea, Loughran as an ATG.
All I'm saying is I can't even consider it and I refuse to list someone whom I've not seen with my eyes just based on print.

You REALLY need to understand the newspaper world of pre-television. New York alone had over a dozen daily newspapers. The competition was fierce and boxing was one of only two major sports. The idea that a sports writer in that era could have just manufactured stuff and survived is lunacy.

Oh come on, of course they survived... Like I said I've read 2 articles on the same SRR fight and both told different stories.
Writers told stories to sell the paper I'm certain they streched the truth out.
Writers those days wrote whatever they wanted. Times were a lot different.

In addition, the notion that all we have is are newspaper accounts is also very, very wrong. We have interviews with trainers, judges, referees and fighters that give one an awfully good comprehensive pictures. We have well researched books as well. The idea that the above can't be critically compared and cross referenced to get near the truth is insupportable I think. And finally the idea we don't have extensive footage is just wrong. I own over a thousand fights that pre-date 1950.

The near truth and the truth can be worlds apart.
Perfect example Bert Sugar, I like the man a lot.
Enjoy his stories and his knowledge but it's been known that he stretches the truth out.

Take the whole Willlie Pep wining a round without throwing a punch.
We really don't know the truth and that was in 1946. Imagine 1800's...

I agree with Mick regarding boxers I have actually seen.

These writers back then weren't credible writers and the sport was just in the early stages...

I agree about only evaluating fighters that you have seen with your own eyes. It's like food, you can read a sparkling review of a restaurant, but you need to eat the food yourself before your opinion is truly made. Same with fighters, you need to see their skills for yourself. If you only base John Ruiz on what Fantana says then you would clearly think you are dealing with Superman. When you finally get to see Mr Huggy in action you would most likely be quite let down. You do need to see a fighter do his thing.

John to Fantana is like SRR + Ali + Armstrong...

Not that I disagree with your point, but I just wanna play devil's advocate here.
Does this notion of not being able to fully judge a boxer's talent without seeing enough footage also extent to that boxer's opponents? For example, how much footage of Armstrong's opponents have you seen, and if little to none, how do you know they were any good?
Personally I hate these kinds of lists. I understand the innate desire to rank everything, to have a concrete numero uno, but there's just so much we really don't know. I guess it makes for interesting discussion, but it's really hard for me to take these things seriously.

It's like this...
Can you compare a movie you've seen vs. a movie you read about?

I can somewhat rate fighters to an extent as individual fighters based on what I've read and the very little if any footage I've seen. But I just can't list them in a specific list with fighters I've seen.

I'm gonna make a list based on food. The best food ever.
Mexican
Japanese
Mediterranean
Italian
Cambodian - Never ate it but the pictures look good and I've read a lot of great things about it.
Peruvian
South African - Never ate it but based on the pics and things I've read looks/sounds good.

Get my drift... I've ate Mexican, Japanese etc. etc. I know it's great. I've never had Combodian or SA so how compare it? What I've read and pictures I've seen?