Quote Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus View Post
Which begs the question: How far removed from a fighters era can you honestly place that fighter in contextually. (does that even make sense?! )

I mean fighters of the 40's being compared with fighter of the 60's, sounds fine by me but what about fighters from the 30's being compared with fighters of the 70's? Wouldn't there be a fundamental flaw from just about every analytical angle?
Without doubt it's totally flawed. Boxing "experts" today get fights WRONG all the time. Doesn't matter who the "expert" is - fighter, trainer, writer, manager, matchmaker, promoter. Even with the benefit of following the fighters entire career progress, and having collateral form, they still get it wrong. That's the nature of the sport.

Judging fighters from different eras is nothing but pure fantasy. NO-one could ever be 100% right.

Virtually every fighter named on this thread has actually had a fantastic successful career. It's only our nerdness about this boxing lark that makes us see them as overrated. Great stuff.