Fighters that were beaten in their primes can never be considered the GOAT!

just what the topic says. If a fighter was legitimately beaten when they were in their primes then they simply cannot ever claim to be GOAT and neither can their fans make that claim. A man who claims to be the greatest of all time would have to have beaten everyone when they were in their primes. If s man was at his best then he shouldn’t have lost if people want to say that he’s the best ever. Simple logic.

Only three exceptions:

1. They got disqualified
2. They suffered an injury in the fight and lost as a result of the injury
3. Loss via controversial decision

(And 4: honourable mention to Tyson losing to Douglas because he was too busy having fun with Japanese Punani leading up to the fight)


But if they were legitimately bettered by their opponent when at their best, no claim to GOAT status for them.

When Ali first lost, it was after his forced retirement of three and a half years and he was obviously not the same after that and he was rusty. A loss to left hook Frazier is excusable.

By contrast, when Leonard lost to Duran, a guy two divisions smaller AND arguably slightly post prime himself, Leonard immediately lost all rights to claim the GOAT title.

Boxing fans love a good loser and hate winners, but the fact is that a prime fighter cannot lose and then claim goat status.

This rule may impact Robinson also for losing to LaMotta....although it could be argued that LaMotta outweighed him by 13 lbs and that’s his excuse.

Roy Jones has a claim. His one loss in his prime was by DQ.

Whitaker has a claim as his one loss was by controversial decision.

Mayweather has a claim (I have to mention him as everyone would assume this is a Floyd agenda thread anyway, which it actually isn’t)

Chavez has a claim.

Duran lost to DeJesus so has no claim...unless there’s something About that fight that I don’t know that allows him an exception.

The Sly One has Spoken!!

 

Bullshit

 

Sly's monthly direct deposit from the The Money Team must have just arrived.

 

Only a matter of time before he opens a thread called "No fighter born outside of Grand Rapids, MI has a claim at the GOAT" and starts off the thread with "No agenda here, guys. But let's discuss."

 

Stupid thread. These guys are humans not robots. If you lose to a guy but avenge it multiple times you are still clearly better.

 

Nah. Ali was born in Louisville, Kentucky (“Ken-tuckeh!”)

 

perhaps. I’ll give Robinson a pass where Lamotta is concerned for those reasons but not Leonard with Duran. Leonard had no business losing to a former lightweight

 

Floyd won a controversial decision in his prime. He does not qualify.

 

He didn’t lose so he’s not disqualified. Besides more think he won that fight than lost.

Still, for the record, I don’t think Floyd is the GOAT or TBE. Roy Jones for one was better than him. Floyd is clearly top 5 though

 

being DQ'd is a legit loss
especially in a fight that is close up until the DQ

 

Robinson lost in his prime, so I disagree there.

 

As I mentioned, I give Robinson a pass.

Two reasons:

1. He was fighting every week
2. He lost to a man that outweighed him by 15lbs

So he's an outlier

 

The thread doesn't warrant earnest responses ... it's ludicrous

 

Leonard and Duran are both greater than Floyd, fan boy. Get over it. Floyd is not top 10. That's some ESPN/casual type belief.

And Chavez has NO argument whatsoever for GOAT. Great, great fighter... definitely top 12-20 all time great, but no way in Hell in the GOAT argument. Chavez and Floyd can be argued, since both are top 20-ish type guys. But Duran/Leonard are ranked over both.

Robinson is the solid GOAT front runner, and should rightfully be considered the GOAT. Only other guys in the GOAT conversation besides Walker Smith are Duran, Armstrong, Ali, and Leonard. Louis, Ezzard Charles, and Willy Pepp fall just a bit shy of GOAT conversation, but are all top 10 guys.

Roy has no case as the GTE, HOWEVER, prime-for-prime...he has a solid case as the TBE.

 

You're the fan boy, I give objective measurable criteria. By no measure can Leonard by ranked over Floyd. None. Leonard struggled in his biggest fights...Floyd walked his biggest fights. At an age where Floyd was dominating Canelo, Leonard was being raped by Norris. Can't compare at all.

 

Nah, this thread is genius. I have the most keen boxing insight of everyone on this site not named Ugotabe Kidding.

 

I know it pains you to hear this, but it's a fact that everybody besides you can accept... Ray Leonard accomplished more in 8 years than Floyd did in 20. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but it's true.

 

My feelings are not hurt, I've always been a huge Ray Leonard fan (not the man, but the fighter)...and Ray did indeed accomplish the most in the least amount of time of all fighters I can think of....but Floyd accomplished more overall as he dominated for almost 2 decades.

 

I rank Whitaker ahead of Floyd. And Roy, DESPITE his nearly 15 years of being shot, I still rank ahead of Floyd.

 

If you follow the NBA at all, Leonard vs Floyd is essentially a Jordan vs Duncan argument. Duncan had far better longevity, but there's still no argument for him being ranked ahead of Jordan because Mike was better and accomplished more in a shorter span of time.

 

you would. You hate Floyd. But the fact is that Floyd has accomplished more than Whitaker. I can accept an argument for Roy ahead of Floyd...and it would be clear cut if Roy had retired after Ruiz.

 

I don't know NBA well enough to comment.

Did Duncan win more championships than Jordan? Is Duncan undefeated in NBA championship matches?

 

I don't hate Floyd the fighter at all. It just appears that way because I have always have to keep your obsessive nuthugging in check.

 

I'm far from being an "obsessive nuthugger". I just keep it real where Floyd and other fighters are concerned. I don't follow the typical narrative, rather I evaluate situations as I see them. The narrative from those who claim to be "hardcore fans" is t0 denigrate Floyd for no reason other than the fact that he's contemporary, unlikable and famous. That's just silly. Put his relative resume and accomplishments in any era pre-90s and he's seen as top 5 all time.

 

I think it should be based not just on who a guy beat, but how they beat them and at what point in their career they beat them.

At 147, it's really hard to pick out somebody with a better resume than a prime Leonard, who had his prime cut short due to his eye. And even at that, looking at the names he had there, you just cannot compare that opposition to many. Even a lot of great fighters beat guys that were past their prime and were at times strategically matched.
You can't say that about Leonard.

He is absolutely one of the greatest of all time. At bare MINIMUM, top 10. I personally have him top 5. Love him or hate him, he is simply one of the greatest fighters of all time.

 

Not to mention that Mike took 2 years off... There's a legitimate likelihood he'd have had 8 championships had he not took a break to play baseball.

For me, Leonard is simply a better fighter than Mayweather. Beat better guys in a tougher era.

 

It's silly. Ali is clearly the greatest heavyweight of all time but if the decision had gone the other way in the Doug Jones fight (which could have easily happened without much complaint) he would be ruled out? Na.

 

2 things:

1. Ali didn't officially lose
2. He was considered by most to be "green" at that time

 

Exactly. A guy that never lost should be disqualified from GOAT status, since it proved he was carefully matched

 

"officially" losing means nothing, it's just three people's opinion. Put another three professional judges in there and it is a different result. Whilst I thought Duran beat Leonard close but clear, it was close enough where if you'd had three different judges judging the exact same fight they could possibly have scored it a split decision in Leonard's favour. Then suddenly Leonard is a viable GOAT candidate in your book again despite it being the exact same fight?? Na.