Todays fighters have no chance to reach past the top 20 of all time status

[eze]

The more I read. Its just simply impossibly for most of these posters to consider some of the todays talents with no matter what they accomplish.


Is it just me or could they beat a time machine and the todays fighters could beat the old fighters and it still wouldn't matter?

[Illmatic]

its a different era, and we have to account for that...

yes older fighters fought more, but also we have to take into account that for a time period, black fighters werent getting opportunities at belts, and I personally think that (since they fought so often and didnt get to prepare as much as they shouldve been able to) their higher losses kind of even themselves out when comparing with todays fighters...its just not the same game as it was before.

but then, there are exceptions...like SRR who seemed like he was fighting ATGs every other week....

[Illmatic]

also, fighters who werent on film much are chronically overrated b/c most accounts were given by newspaper writers who were more sensationalistic in their writing styles. You wouldve thought guys were flying out of ring, literally, by reading some of those accounts.

[eze]

its a different era, and we have to account for that...

yes older fighters fought more, but also we have to take into account that for a time period, black fighters werent getting opportunities at belts, and I personally think that (since they fought so often and didnt get to prepare as much as they shouldve been able to) their higher losses kind of even themselves out when comparing with todays fighters...its just not the same game as it was before.

but then, there are exceptions...like SRR who seemed like he was fighting ATGs every other week....


Well I know that that fighters of the past fought a lot more. And gave themselves little time to rest. They use this like if its a huge deal, its not, the fighters they were facing also fought a lot. So it was equal as if both fighters had rested.

You can almost call it two different sports. They are so different with everything that has changed.

[brooklyn1550]

It's all a matter of opinion where people place fighters in their rankings

Hopkins, Mayweather, and Pacquiao all have the talent, ability, competition, and potential to become top 20 of all time.

[bigtime9]

The more I read. Its just simply impossibly for most of these posters to consider some of the todays talents with no matter what they accomplish.


Is it just me or could they beat a time machine and the todays fighters could beat the old fighters and it still wouldn't matter?


it doesn't matter what a parrot says, most of the guys on this forum who downplay floyds, roys, and b-hops accomplishments are fake. they will try and convince you that todays fighters are less then the fighters of yesteryear without any evidence other than someonelse's word.

[bigtime9]

Hopkins, Mayweather, and Pacquiao all have the talent, ability, competition, and potential to become top 20 of all time.


so roy was the first MW to win a heavyweight title in 100 years and he is not ranked in the top 20:rofl he had over 19 defenses of his titles in these weightclasses, more than leonard, hearns, duran, and hagler, and he is not mentioned as a top 10 ATG.

[brooklyn1550]

so roy was the first MW to win a heavyweight title in 100 years and he is not ranked in the top 20:rofl he had over 19 defenses of his titles in these weightclasses, more than leonard, hearns, duran, and hagler, and he is not mentioned as a top 10 ATG.

I never said he wasn't in the top 20...there is a very good case with him being top 20 all time and I won't argue with anybody who puts him there.

To me, Roy at his best was perhaps the best fighter I have ever seen, although there are others in the running.

[jlrivera81]

Perhaps people should completely separate the fighters of yesteryear to today's fighters. perhaps fighters from the late 70 and 80's and up shouldnt be compared to fighters before that time.

kind of like football, you cant compare the sport then to the sport now. it's a fact. athletes now are bigger, stronger, faster, and overall are more knowledgeable about the physical aspects of their sport.

so in the end there is just no way of saying what era is better.

one thing that is for sure when it comes to boxing though is that most of the guys now are getting too caught up in money and dont fight the best fights like the guys back then.

[bigtime9]

Perhaps people should completely separate the fighters of yesteryear to today's fighters. perhaps fighters from the late 70 and 80's and up shouldnt be compared to fighters before that time.

kind of like football, you cant compare the sport then to the sport now. it's a fact. athletes now are bigger, stronger, faster, and overall are more knowledgeable about the physical aspects of their sport.

so in the end there is just no way of saying what era is better.

one thing that is for sure when it comes to boxing though is that most of the guys now are getting too caught up in money and dont fight the best fights like the guys back then.


I agree to a certain degree. certain old school fighters like armstrong held titles at three different weight classes at the same time. the closest to that in our era is floyd if he beats hatton. there is a case for certain old school fighters, but like you said I like to seperate them by their era it is much simpler and less convoluted.

[jecxbox]

Yea I can kind of see your point..In this game its like now adays people get WAY TO HUNG UP on physical talent and ability and say oh well Roy Jones would have wupped so and sos ass or Whitaker wouldn't of been touched by so and so or shit like this...But it doesn't matter about physical talent..if this was the case roy jones would be at number 1 or something. This game is about accomplishments...and when you fight over 200 fights against B level opposition..shit even C level opposition..that shit is INSANE...

I mean sure you can take fighters now a days and make claims like Trinidad probably coulda knocked Durans head off...or Roy Jones would have schooled Hagler etc...stupid shit like this doesn't really matter or change the ATG rankings..Its about accomplishments and thats all there is to it.

Its like Mike Tyson probably could have knocked any mother fucker out cold in any generation, but on an ATG list? he probably doesn't even crack top 50 hehe...

Every Great fighter that makes it to the hall of fame means that they are fighters that could have competed against other great fighters. Sure fighters like DLH/Trinidad/Mosley are not very high on the ATG list...but they are Hall of Famers and that means they could have competed with the best of the best Prime vs Prime from any time...And thats really what the standard should be..Boxing has been around for ALONG time and the ATG list is VERY small. Very few fighters transcend boxing like that. Its all about the accomplishments.

[boxbox]

Comparing yester years and modern times fighters is extremely difficult, in theory, yes we can base their skills on videos and documentaries, but still, it makes a whole lot difference when they're on the ring together, there's that
"intimidation" factor. Some may appear flawless and great while fighting lesser opponent, but once faced with a rather famous, skilled, "intimidating" opponent, he suddenly goes into a shell and that look of confidence vanishes. Some may think this is nothing but IMO, is an important factor. Thats why its inaccurate to compare who's better. Fighters from the past i think are braver, more courageous ,because boxing during that time was a little more sadistic, 15 grueling rounds, and that mandatory 8 count wasn't in effect right? i mean you can get beat up so bad those days! now they are more protected, you are given more time to recuperate with todays game. On the other hand, todays fighters have better techniques due to the evolution of the sport, they have actually learned from these old fighters and raised it to the next level. But we know that Modern style is not always dominant to old school. So its really a matter of opinion and top 20 fighters should be compared only to their respective generations.

[Illmatic]

Perhaps people should completely separate the fighters of yesteryear to today's fighters. perhaps fighters from the late 70 and 80's and up shouldnt be compared to fighters before that time.

kind of like football, you cant compare the sport then to the sport now. it's a fact. athletes now are bigger, stronger, faster, and overall are more knowledgeable about the physical aspects of their sport.

so in the end there is just no way of saying what era is better.

one thing that is for sure when it comes to boxing though is that most of the guys now are getting too caught up in money and dont fight the best fights like the guys back then.

ALL the big fights are being made now. Have you been paying attention?