Robert Garcia says "Floyd is the greatest fighter of all time"

[TheProfessor]

Legacy fights are usually the ones that draws in the most money.. since Floydie claims he's the biggest draw in boxing, he cant only fight bum ass Mexican (spanish) fighters, then claim he's greater than Ali, Tyson, SRR, Leonard.. nikka is a joke

He can claim whatever he wants, why are you so bothered?

 

[TheProfessor]

Most of the time legacy fights=$$$$, unless you're fighting some tomato can just to unify for legacy's sake.

In Floyd's position, they all equal money. And I can't think of any fighter around him aside from Pacquiao who brings in huge, huge money. He already fought Canelo and made a killing.

 

[Champ_KW]

No, I named those names because I'm aware of the history of boxing.

Nostalgia? How can it be nostalgia if I've never seen those fighters through firsthand experience

No, people name those names because it's hard to argue Floyd being better than those guys. And the funny part is that if people didn't name those "typical" names and threw out some other names, we'd be called Floyd haters and trying to go against the grain to be different

Boxing has been around before any of us were born, and some of us are big enough fans of the sport that we actually like to research the history. It's not my fault you feel some type of way about it

I don't feel any particular way about it. It just look funny in the light when people name old names when it's clear that skill set for skill set, they wouldn't even be competitive in this era. I love Ali, but it's no secret that he pulled his head straight back with his hands down a lot. You somehow think a 220 lb heavyweight can get away with that today on a world class level? These men you named are great, but to just plug them in as being better by default is a little misleading given the fact you never even seen these guys fight. You couldn't tell me about what styles gave Henry Armstrong difficulties, you couldn't tell me if he struggled with his offense to defense transition while fighting off his back foot, etc....the only thing you can tell me is he's "great"...and you can only tell me that cause somebody told you that.

 

[TheProfessor]

I don't feel any particular way about it. It just look funny in the light when people name old names when it's clear that skill set for skill set, they wouldn't even be competitive in this era. I love Ali, but it's no secret that he pulled his head straight back with his hands down a lot. You somehow think a 220 lb heavyweight can get away with that today on a world class level? These men you named are great, but to just plug them in as being better by default is a little misleading given the fact you never even seen these guys fight. You couldn't tell me about what styles gave Henry Armstrong difficulties, you couldn't tell me if he struggled with his offense to defense transition while fighting off his back foot, etc....the only thing you can tell me is he's "great"...and you can only tell me that cause somebody told you that.

Yeah Ali would've definitely gotten away with it today. He wasn't just a "220 lb heavyweight."

 

[Black_Jesus]

He can claim whatever he wants, why are you so bothered?

Not bothered, I just find it funny that nobody had Floyd as TOP 5 GOAT until Floydie declared it recently

 

[TheProfessor]

Not bothered, I just find it funny that nobody had Floyd as TOP 5 GOAT until Floydie declared it recently

He's definitely the best of this era. I don't know about Top 5 but Top 25 seems ok.

 

[blackzeus]

I don't feel any particular way about it. It just look funny in the light when people name old names when it's clear that skill set for skill set, they wouldn't even be competitive in this era. I love Ali, but it's no secret that he pulled his head straight back with his hands down a lot. You somehow think a 220 lb heavyweight can get away with that today on a world class level? These men you named are great, but to just plug them in as being better by default is a little misleading given the fact you never even seen these guys fight. You couldn't tell me about what styles gave Henry Armstrong difficulties, you couldn't tell me if he struggled with his offense to defense transition while fighting off his back foot, etc....the only thing you can tell me is he's "great"...and you can only tell me that cause somebody told you that.

Jim Brown azz nikka

 

[King P]

I don't feel any particular way about it. It just look funny in the light when people name old names when it's clear that skill set for skill set, they wouldn't even be competitive in this era. I love Ali, but it's no secret that he pulled his head straight back with his hands down a lot. You somehow think a 220 lb heavyweight can get away with that today on a world class level? These men you named are great, but to just plug them in as being better by default is a little misleading given the fact you never even seen these guys fight. You couldn't tell me about what styles gave Henry Armstrong difficulties, you couldn't tell me if he struggled with his offense to defense transition while fighting off his back foot, etc....the only thing you can tell me is he's "great"...and you can only tell me that cause somebody told you that.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But I gotta disagree with some of this.

1) Have you seen those guys fight? If not, how would you know that they couldn't compete in this era? I believe great fighters can compete in any era, that's why they're great. You're also making the mistake of putting them in a time capsule instead of giving them the adjustments of the advancements of this era, which they would have if they fought in this era.

2) Yes Ali would be great in this era as well. No he wasn't technically perfect, but he didn't have to be. Few could handle his imperfect style because he was great enough to make it work. Plus you act like fighters today don't have unorthodox styles. Roy Jones had his hands low and lead with hooks. Vitaly Klitschko kept his low and backed up in straight lines. Still ain't stop them from dominating.

3) I'm not automatically classifying them as better. I believe they are better by looking at their resumes. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm ranking them by talent. Which isn't the case. Fighters (and athletes in general) aren't ranked by their skills, but rather their accomplishments. Talent is great, but if you don't do anything with it, it means nothing. There have been plenty of fighters who were talented, but were lazy and underachieved (Leon Spinks, Riddikk Bowe, Hector Camacho, Wilfred Benitez) which prevents them from being ranked higher than where they are. And it's hard to rank newer fighters over older fighters, because the game has changed so much. You talk about Henry Armstrong, this is a man who held 3 titles (FW, LW, WW) all at once, at a time where there were only 10 titles. So he was defending them all the time, all against the top guys in his division, while having a 10-15 pound disadvantage frequently. Thanks unheard of in today's era. I don't see how anybody these days can top something like that.

 

[Jesus Is Lord]

In Floyd's position, they all equal money. And I can't think of any fighter around him aside from Pacquiao who brings in huge, huge money. He already fought Canelo and made a killing.

Yes but those aren't all legacy fights.

 

[TheProfessor]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But I gotta disagree with some of this.

1) Have you seen those guys fight? If not, how would you know that they couldn't compete in this era? I believe great fighters can compete in any era, that's why they're great. You're also making the mistake of putting them in a time capsule instead of giving them the adjustments of the advancements of this era, which they would have if they fought in this era.

2) Yes Ali would be great in this era as well. No he wasn't technically perfect, but he didn't have to be. Few could handle his imperfect style because he was great enough to make it work. Plus you act like fighters today don't have unorthodox styles. Roy Jones had his hands low and lead with hooks. Vitaly Klitschko kept his low and backed up in straight lines. Still ain't stop them from dominating.

3) I'm not automatically classifying them as better. I believe they are better by looking at their resumes. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm ranking them by talent. Which isn't the case. Fighters (and athletes in general) aren't ranked by their skills, but rather their accomplishments. Talent is great, but if you don't do anything with it, it means nothing. There have been plenty of fighters who were talented, but were lazy and underachieved (Leon Spinks, Riddikk Bowe, Hector Camacho, Wilfred Benitez) which prevents them from being ranked higher than where they are. And it's hard to rank newer fighters over older fighters, because the game has changed so much. You talk about Henry Armstrong, this is a man who held 3 titles (FW, LW, WW) all at once, at a time where there were only 10 titles. So he was defending them all the time, all against the top guys in his division, while having a 10-15 pound disadvantage frequently. Thanks unheard of in today's era. I don't see how anybody these days can top something like that.

Nice post. I don't understand how people look at the great technical boxers of today and then think old school boxers don't stand a chance.

The shoulder roll? Old school.

Pull counter? Old school.

Check hook? Old school.

Floyd Mayweather and James Toney both fight like a cross between Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles with a bit of Joe Walcott mixed in.

If you truly watched old school fighters you'd think to yourself...damn these muthaphukas would destroy cats today.

 

[patscorpio]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But I gotta disagree with some of this.

1) Have you seen those guys fight? If not, how would you know that they couldn't compete in this era? I believe great fighters can compete in any era, that's why they're great. You're also making the mistake of putting them in a time capsule instead of giving them the adjustments of the advancements of this era, which they would have if they fought in this era.

2) Yes Ali would be great in this era as well. No he wasn't technically perfect, but he didn't have to be. Few could handle his imperfect style because he was great enough to make it work. Plus you act like fighters today don't have unorthodox styles. Roy Jones had his hands low and lead with hooks. Vitaly Klitschko kept his low and backed up in straight lines. Still ain't stop them from dominating.

3) I'm not automatically classifying them as better. I believe they are better by looking at their resumes. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm ranking them by talent. Which isn't the case. Fighters (and athletes in general) aren't ranked by their skills, but rather their accomplishments. Talent is great, but if you don't do anything with it, it means nothing. There have been plenty of fighters who were talented, but were lazy and underachieved (Leon Spinks, Riddikk Bowe, Hector Camacho, Wilfred Benitez) which prevents them from being ranked higher than where they are. And it's hard to rank newer fighters over older fighters, because the game has changed so much. You talk about Henry Armstrong, this is a man who held 3 titles (FW, LW, WW) all at once, at a time where there were only 10 titles. So he was defending them all the time, all against the top guys in his division, while having a 10-15 pound disadvantage frequently. Thanks unheard of in today's era. I don't see how anybody these days can top something like that.

id rep you again if I could...excellent post

 

[Newzz]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But I gotta disagree with some of this.

1) Have you seen those guys fight? If not, how would you know that they couldn't compete in this era? I believe great fighters can compete in any era, that's why they're great. You're also making the mistake of putting them in a time capsule instead of giving them the adjustments of the advancements of this era, which they would have if they fought in this era.

2) Yes Ali would be great in this era as well. No he wasn't technically perfect, but he didn't have to be. Few could handle his imperfect style because he was great enough to make it work. Plus you act like fighters today don't have unorthodox styles. Roy Jones had his hands low and lead with hooks. Vitaly Klitschko kept his low and backed up in straight lines. Still ain't stop them from dominating.

3) I'm not automatically classifying them as better. I believe they are better by looking at their resumes. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm ranking them by talent. Which isn't the case. Fighters (and athletes in general) aren't ranked by their skills, but rather their accomplishments. Talent is great, but if you don't do anything with it, it means nothing. There have been plenty of fighters who were talented, but were lazy and underachieved (Leon Spinks, Riddikk Bowe, Hector Camacho, Wilfred Benitez) which prevents them from being ranked higher than where they are. And it's hard to rank newer fighters over older fighters, because the game has changed so much. You talk about Henry Armstrong, this is a man who held 3 titles (FW, LW, WW) all at once, at a time where there were only 10 titles. So he was defending them all the time, all against the top guys in his division, while having a 10-15 pound disadvantage frequently. Thanks unheard of in today's era. I don't see how anybody these days can top something like that.

Man.....this is probably the best post you ever wrote in The Ring breh (and you make alot of good points all the other times too)


The bolded is EXACTLY what people need to realize when discussing "ranking" opponents. It's not about skill, it's about what you do with the skill....and the resumes they possess tell the story


GREAT post breh:salutekobe:

 

[Champ_KW]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. But I gotta disagree with some of this.

1) Have you seen those guys fight? If not, how would you know that they couldn't compete in this era? I believe great fighters can compete in any era, that's why they're great. You're also making the mistake of putting them in a time capsule instead of giving them the adjustments of the advancements of this era, which they would have if they fought in this era.

2) Yes Ali would be great in this era as well. No he wasn't technically perfect, but he didn't have to be. Few could handle his imperfect style because he was great enough to make it work. Plus you act like fighters today don't have unorthodox styles. Roy Jones had his hands low and lead with hooks. Vitaly Klitschko kept his low and backed up in straight lines. Still ain't stop them from dominating.

3) I'm not automatically classifying them as better. I believe they are better by looking at their resumes. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm ranking them by talent. Which isn't the case. Fighters (and athletes in general) aren't ranked by their skills, but rather their accomplishments. Talent is great, but if you don't do anything with it, it means nothing. There have been plenty of fighters who were talented, but were lazy and underachieved (Leon Spinks, Riddikk Bowe, Hector Camacho, Wilfred Benitez) which prevents them from being ranked higher than where they are. And it's hard to rank newer fighters over older fighters, because the game has changed so much. You talk about Henry Armstrong, this is a man who held 3 titles (FW, LW, WW) all at once, at a time where there were only 10 titles. So he was defending them all the time, all against the top guys in his division, while having a 10-15 pound disadvantage frequently. Thanks unheard of in today's era. I don't see how anybody these days can top something like that.

I respect that. But the extra credit given to the older fighters for all, let's say, having 100 plus fights or defending their belts all the time against top guys in their division, etc shouldn't be held against the newer fighters. I'll only reference Floyd cause this is a Floyd thread, but this guy has been a world champion since 1998. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially when close to 28 of his fights after winning his first belt have been title fights. People nitpick and say he hasn't fought anybody, but they're all championship pedigree talent. Exactly how many people in SRR or Henry's 100 plus fights were championship pedigree? So I'm basically saying is, when these conversations come up, the newer fighters are automatically dismissed in favor of the same template of historically great fighters. Floyd stacks up, whether it's skill set or resume. If he's not the GOAT, cool...but the "here's 5 names and I could probably name another 10" rhetoric seems kinda disingenuous when the fighters being named are prior to you actually seeing them. And the fighter that you're actually watching is dismissed for no other reason than "history" sake. If Floyd was born in 1912, was a world champion at 21, was undefeated until at least the age of 37, fought 28 plus championship fights, 5 time division champ, won 10 world titles, lineal champ in 4 different weight classes, and while being undefeated in 46 fights all but three ended in KO or UD (he's lost on one Judge's scorecard his entire career), you'd speak differently of him I guess.

 

[blackzeus]

I respect that. But the extra credit given to the older fighters for all, let's say, having 100 plus fights or defending their belts all the time against top guys in their division, etc shouldn't be held against the newer fighters. I'll only reference Floyd cause this is a Floyd thread, but this guy has been a world champion since 1998. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially when close to 28 of his fights after winning his first belt have been title fights. People nitpick and say he hasn't fought anybody, but they're all championship pedigree talent. Exactly how many people in SRR or Henry's 100 plus fights were championship pedigree? So I'm basically saying is, when these conversations come up, the newer fighters are automatically dismissed in favor of the same template of historically great fighters. Floyd stacks up, whether it's skill set or resume. If he's not the GOAT, cool...but the "here's 5 names and I could probably name another 10" rhetoric seems kinda disingenuous when the fighters being named are prior to you actually seeing them. And the fighter that you're actually watching is dismissed for no other reason than "history" sake. If Floyd was born in 1912, was a world champion at 21, was undefeated until at least the age of 37, fought 28 plus championship fights, 5 time division champ, won 10 world titles, lineal champ in 4 different weight classes, and while being undefeated in 46 fights all but three ended in KO or UD (he's lost on one Judge's scorecard his entire career), you'd speak differently of him I guess.

Let's call beating 4 Hall of Fame fighters "extra credit" brehs, I can't believe what I'm reading

 

[Newzz]

If Floyd was born in 1912, was a world champion at 21, was undefeated until at least the age of 37, fought 28 plus championship fights, 5 time division champ, won 10 world titles, lineal champ in 4 different weight classes, and while being undefeated in 46 fights all but three ended in KO or UD (he's lost on one Judge's scorecard his entire career), you'd speak differently of him I guess.

He would've also been forced to face the best fighters of his era at their peak abilities as well.....something that present day Floyd doesnt do/hasnt done except for with prime Ricky Hatton


*edit*

And let's be clear, Floyd has a very good resume. But when we are discussing his resume vs the best of the best, The ATGs, it doesnt stack up as well when you really break it down and digest it.

When Victor Ortiz is one of your best 10 opponents you've faced....you dont belong as the GOAT or in that discussion.