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

[Mars_ax]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs ().

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

Dempsey's "amateur" career consisted of fighting for food or money in barrooms as a teenager. One thing Dempsey learned was how to actually 'fight' and survive, he perfected this instinctive skill when he became a Pro. This was never more apparent then when Dempsey defended his HW title against Luis Firpo, (The wild bull of the Pampas) from Argentina.

[Mars_ax]

The keyword here is "fighter", Floyd is the best at what he does, but there's hundreds of pugs i'd rather see fight besides him. From a boxing purist's point of view, Floyd is certainly one of the best ever, but from my perspective as a boxing fan, most of Floyd's fights simply aren't all that entertaining.

Believe me, I don't like Floyd personally and I can list 100 boxers I'd rather watch than Floyd, past and present.

But being the best doesn't necessarily = excitement. Muhammad Ali had a boring-ass style too for the most part. People remember Muhammad KOing Liston and Foreman, but they forget him stinking out areas by dancing around and excessively holding opponents.

Exactly, the thing is, I watch boxing for entertainment, if it's not entertaining, I do something else.

[Fenster]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs ().

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

I think that's a bit of an American-centric view that shows a decline in popularity in America and a viable way of earning quick money. With greater and safer opportunities to earn money I guess being punched in the head became less desirable. It doesn't mean the overall standard of boxing declined.

I know the argument is - more people were doing it so it had to be better. But the majority of those fighters would have been crap by any generations standard - separate the wheat from the chaff - unless we believe the old duffers that claim modern men lost the ability to fight.

The Jack Dempsey manual is a prime example. We are expected to believe that people stopped being able to emulate what Dempsey was teaching. His manual is so advanced that thousands and thousands of fighters and trainers just couldn't grasp it. Really?

We now get fight cards from every continent on a daily basis. In December last year, in Britain, there were 58 fights in one night, the highest amount in 60 years. There are still thousands of boxers, trainers and gyms all over the world.

I'm not saying the fighters from the past weren't great. I just don't buy that they were so advanced compared to modern ones. Floyd Mayweather could easily pad his record out by fighting ten "bums" this year. What would it mean in this day and age? Nothing.

[Beanflicker]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

[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.

[Beanz]

Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 times. That speaks volumes. He put his reputation on the line and EARNED the reputation, as one of, if not the ,Greatest boxers ever to lace up a pair of gloves. Since Floyd fought Hatton in 2008 he has fought a further 4 times. In SRR last year as an active fighter he fought 14 times. Floyd has won by KO 26 times the other 17 fights he had to rely on a points win. SRR won by KO 108 times and only had to rely on a points win 38 times. Offensively Sugar had not just the killer instinct but the intelligence to get that KO even when faced with the most negative and defensive fighters. He had great power in both hands and immaculate footwork that would have given Floyd nightmares. Personally having not seen Floyd fight live I can honestly say that Sugar in the fights I have seen on record beats him aesthetically, technically and by any other criteria with which one could wish to judge him. Who has Floyd rematched ? It's easy to pick out Jake LaMotta and think well Floyd would have handled him as easily as Hatton but Floyd would never had fought him 5 times and would not have had the luxury of Cortez. I am a huge Hatton fan but you must be wearing Rose colour specs if you really think Kostya was one of the all time greats on his division while saying of Sugar "He dropped decisions to nobodies all over the place". Sugar beat legendary fighters like Henry Armstrong,Kid Gavilan, and Carmen Basilio all of whom rank equally if not higher in the all time great lists for their weight class.

[Rantcatrat]

There were trainers, like Ray Arcel, who saw fighters from the 20's up to the 90's. They had the historical perspective to be able to analyze contemporary greatness. There are others like him.

dont know what you mean

He means that to analyse the best fighters you'd have to ask an expert who has been there through a long time period. A trainer like Ray Arcel would have seen it all. Hard to argue with that.

However, just because Ray Arcel says some dude from the 30s would whip all the current guys means absolutely nothing.

In this modern day, with the benefit of seeing every single fight take place, great trainers and fighters consistently get fights wrong. So why exactly should their "opinion" hold so much weight when comparing fighters from completely different generations?

Boxing is the only sport in the world that apparently stopped evolving and went backwards. Somehow, modern fighters lost the ability to correctly move their arms and legs ().

There were many more boxers/trainers/experts on boxing between 1920 and 1960 than there are now. There were many more places to learn the craft and refine one's approach. Think about it. In the worst ghetto of Chicago, a den of organized crime, in the first 40 years of the last century, boxing was the most popular sport. There were boxing gyms all over the place. There were fight cards multiple times every week. The biggest stars in the United States weren't football players or basketball players, they were boxers. When they held a lightweight tournament to see who would inherit Benny Leonard's crown in the twenties, 50 people from all over world showed up to fight in it. It only took 6 months to crown a new champion. So, yes, I actually believe boxing has regressed to an extent. There is just no way it couldn't.

To me it's a bit remarkable to think that someone like Jack Dempsey could author an intricate manual on boxing:

Championship Fighting : Jack Dempsey : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

There is just no way that someone who thought and experimented so much with boxing with the challengers he faced isn't a legend. How many guys that you watch on FNF, Showtime, or HBO even know half those tricks?

This is not to put down our generation of fighters at all. There are absolutely still great talents out there. I just think there aren't as many of them, and, thus,l it's harder to determine how good they really are.

I think that's a bit of an American-centric view that shows a decline in popularity in America and a viable way of earning quick money. With greater and safer opportunities to earn money I guess being punched in the head became less desirable. It doesn't mean the overall standard of boxing declined.

I know the argument is - more people were doing it so it had to be better. But the majority of those fighters would have been crap by any generations standard - separate the wheat from the chaff - unless we believe the old duffers that claim modern men lost the ability to fight.

The Jack Dempsey manual is a prime example. We are expected to believe that people stopped being able to emulate what Dempsey was teaching. His manual is so advanced that thousands and thousands of fighters and trainers just couldn't grasp it. Really?

We now get fight cards from every continent on a daily basis. In December last year, in Britain, there were 58 fights in one night, the highest amount in 60 years. There are still thousands of boxers, trainers and gyms all over the world.

I'm not saying the fighters from the past weren't great. I just don't buy that they were so advanced compared to modern ones. Floyd Mayweather could easily pad his record out by fighting ten "bums" this year. What would it mean in this day and age? Nothing.

I don't mean it to be American-centric at all. And @Fenster, I hope you don't think of me as some American centric guy. I love my country, but when it comes to boxing, I appreciate a good scientist from anywhere. You know that, I hope.

Quite frankly though, your point is is a solid counter argument. Where were the Russians and Germans between 1900-1960? I'm not sure its absolutely correct, but there is merit to it. Some of the best fighters at the time were NOT American. Ted "Kid" Lewis was a Brit who is in the Hall of Fame. Dai Dollings, arguably the best trainer in New York at that time was a Welshman. Pancho Villa was a Hall of Fame Filipino boxer from that era. Jimmy Wilde was another great fighter from your side of the pond. Max Schmelling was a German. These are just off the top. The list goes on.

It's like anything, baseball and basketball have got considerably better in the last 50 years because there are more people playing baseball and basketball. There is more to talent to choose from. Whereas the good pros from the 50's in basketball would have been good in any era, they might not have been professionals these days because there are so many more kids playing basketball. At least we can agree that in the United States at least, there were more people boxing between 1900 and 1950. There is no debate. It's not even remotely close. How many world-level boxing gyms are there in Chicago now? I'm not sure there is even one. It was harder to rise to the top because there were so many people gunning for it.

It's not just that either. There was more money in boxing for the average guy. The top guys from the era made more money than any other sports figure by far. Dempsey's salary during his prime dwarfed Babe Ruth's. But, even smaller figures in boxing could earn a living doing it. People didn't treat boxing as a second job. More time was spent in the gym as a result.

I'll give you an example. Back in the day, a boxer coming up through the ranks would ply his trade year round. They would fight every two or three weeks, with training in between. That was their only job. Typically, as I understand, a boxer would face certain styles over and over again in attempt to master it. So, Joe Schmo would start as a 4 round boxer, facing only swarmers, then when he mastered that style, he would move to counter punchers at four rounds, then to boxer-punchers etc. When he felt comfortable, he would move on to 6 rounds to do the same thing. If he lost, it wasn't a big deal. It was usually viewed as a learning experience. Fritzie Zivic, one of the craftiest/dirtiest fighters of all-time, didn't win a title until he had 100 fights.

Here's what I mean about the Dempsey manual. It's not like that knowledge completely evaporated. You are correct. It didn't. The same sort of methods I explained in the paragraph before are done today. For example, Golovkin has brought in Philly fighters to train for Rosado. But, there aren't the same number of people doing it. Fighters learn and develop by fighting other good fighters. If you've never fought a great defensive fighter, how can you do it well? It takes time. Today there just aren't as many other good fighters to show other good fighters lessons.

I'm rambling. Apologize for that. We can agree to disagree.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

[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.

[Addicted to_boxing]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

[Rantcatrat]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

[Addicted to_boxing]

Your point is that you look at visual clues from their in-ring dominance to determine who is the best, whereas I think that is only part of it. I think most of it is your experience, and the quality of the people you face. It's easy to look good against bad competition.

I have more faith in the fact that Ray Robinson fought professionally 200 times and defeated other Hall of Fame fighters such as LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Armstrong, Graziano, Gavilan. Guys who saw him fight and were great, Joe Louis, Ali, Leonard, trainers like the aforementioned Arcel, said he was the best of all-time. I'm not even arguing Robinson was perfect. I just think there are more grounds to say that he is the best, than Floyd, which is just a visual test against good fighters.

I still find it a bit hypocritical because you can't explain to me how a guys like Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson, Graziano (who by his own admission in his book Somebody Up There Likes me, admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a one-dimensional fighter who hardly trained, and relied mainly on his big right hand) are better than guys like Hatton, Mosley and Corrales. Like I said, Lamotta dropped decisions to nobodies all across the board. What did they specifically do better than Floyd's opponents? How were they more of a test to SRR than Corrales or Hatton was to Floyd?

I also think it's inconsistent that you set the criteria of "it doesn't matter how many wins you have, what matters is wins against great opposition", and then you use the fact that Robinson fought over 200 times as a reason why he's the best. How many of Robinson's 173 wins were against great opponents?

Also, I think comparing how many Hall of Fame fighters fought against is unfair, as with any Hall of Fame, it becomes harder to get in as time passes by and the "pioneers" and early trendsetters always get precedent, so the fact that a lot of Robinson's opponents ended up in the Hall (and if I may be so bold to suggest, I think a lot of them made it their simply on the merit of beating Ray Robinson) doesn't necessarily mean that they were a better quality opponent or a bigger threat to Robinson than Floyd's opponents were to him.

As far as old timers saying he was the best... you have to allow for a certain level of bias. Remember, to a lot of these guys, Ray Robinson was their childhood hero and they're going to have a certain nostalgic, "rose colored glasses" childhood view of the guy. Also, we all know how old people love to brag about "back in the day." I've heard old timers talk about how garbage the Klitschko bros were and how they'd be bums if they fought in any other generation, which is absolutely retarded.

The reason why I think that guys like Ceferino Garcia and Fritzie Zivic are better than Hatton and Corrales is because of the amount of guys they had to get through to get the top, the number of times they fought different styles, the number of great trainers and gyms that were all over the place where they could learn their trade.

My opinion is that Floyd could have fought well across the generations of boxing. Same with the Klitschko's or Pacquiao. Same with a handful of other fighters now. But, I'm nowhere near convinced that any of them would be the best of all-time.

Thus, We can agree to disagree @Beanflicker. I appreciate the good dialogue.

Let's both hope we get to see Floyd fight Martinez, Trout, Lara etc., so there is even more evidence of his greatness. Do you know that on the Ring Magazine website, the fight people most want to see after Marquez-Pacquiao V, is Floyd-Sergio? Let's both hope it happens.

I am probably guessing 90% of those that posted are broken hearted Pac fans. Pac does not deserve a rematch anymore than Bradley. There is no controversey here he got KTFO. Funny how over all the years Pac side stepped the dangerous opponents in favor of beatable fighters iin their decline

Lets see the road map:
Barera had brain surgery in 1997 continued to fight and never seemed to have the sharp skills after being dominated by Naseem Hamed ( had a lot of ring war mileage vs Jones & Morales) . Mosley had lost 2 fights prior to their fight to Mayweather. Margarito Had beeb KTFO by Mosley two fights prior to their fight. Clottey had lost previous fight to Cotto. Cotto had been knocked out three fights brutally to Margarito. Hatton had been KTFO brutally by Mayweather 3 fights prior by Mayweather. ODLH had lost two fights prior to Mayweather and KO two fights prior to that ti Hopkins ( at 150 lbs ) fought Pac at 140 weight drained to the naked eye ) JMM had lost to Mayweather at 147 and JMM had no clue how to get into fighting shape to fight at 147. Pac figured JMM would be slow and still not posses the power to KO him out so fight four took place. JMM was denied a win ( robbed is too harsh as it was a good fight). Bradley has no power , no real threat

Then JMM 4 : Pac figured JMM had no KO power untill JMM surprised Pac by gettiing into 147 fighting condition wih power and we all saw the end result.

Pacs career is a complete joke with great entertainment value but little to be proud of. All hand picked fighters on their downside, with little power, little speed, no lateral movement, and mental questions coming off losses. Styles make make fights .... I rest my case ..

Glad JMM surprised him by negating all the perceived advantages by the Pac camp and training freakishly for 4 months to brutally KTFO the Origami champion.

Not me at all if that is what you are implying. I'm one of the few that thinks very highly of both Floyd and Pac. They are two of the best boxers of the last twenty years easy.

To prove it, just take out Floyd's name in all of my posts, and replace it with Pac's. I would make the same point about experience/competition and him.

Why will no Pac fan debate the detailed cherry picked resume facts layed out in fine print above, funny how you avoid the facts? Mayweather has not nearly cherry picked as Pac as he has beaten the same boxers before Pac .

[TysonBomb]

Floyd is untested over 135

He became totally content after the Oscar fight and is just living off his name ... cashing out for low risk, high reward, lucrative fights.

Nothing wrong with that though but I've personally witnessed better boxers than Floyd.

I was young for the tail end of Tyson's career but I still remember it. His physical gifts and attributes trump Floyd's ... his skill wasn't quite the same in the 90s as it was in the late 80s but he still showed flashes of excellent footwork, head movement, punching technique and combination punching. Of course I didn't really notice these things as a kid ... was more impressed with his explosiveness

Roy Jones Jr. is another guy I rank above Floyd ... as a boxer I personally watched. Floyd's defense is supposed to be what makes him special, right? Well RJJ is the ONLY guy to have never been hit for a single round in the CompuBox era. Vinnie Paz didn't land a single shot in Roy in the 6th round of their bout. So much for Floyd bragging about his CompuBox stats. Roy arguably didn't lose a single round in his prime. He was the most dominant champion I've ever seen, along with Tyson.

Two guys that I've personally seen who were leagues above Floyd IMO. He's nothing special compared to Tyson or Roy. Elbowing people in the throat isn't great defense IMO.

[Fenster]

@Rantcatrat

I wasn't calling you "American-centric," I respect your opinion, I was merely refering to the decline in boxing from the golden period, where all the titles and championships were in America. We now have "champions" from all over the world plying their trade in their own countries. (I'm not explaining this very well )

My only argument in this debate is - modern fighters are not worse than those from the past. Obviously I am not a boxing expert but, to my eye, I don't watch old footage of great fighters and believe they are doing things far superior to modern ones. And with the limited footage of great fighters available, I don't believe the fighters just below that level could have been so superior either.

So getting back to Floyd

I believe all the "world-class" opponents he has beaten would have been "top-class" in other eras too. Obviously some periods are much stronger than others, so not all would have been champion, but they still would have been top fighters. (And I'm definitely NOT saying Floyd is the best fighter ever)