Should a fighter be afforded GOAT consideration if....

...while still in his early 30s (33 to be exact) he was completely dominated and destroyed by another fighter....knocked the fuck out, outboxed, not winning a second of the fight....victim of utter, absolute and complete ownage to the point where you know that if they fought ten times he would never score a victory?

I think not! That dude should never ever be considered the GOAT on any lists. The Greatest of all Tome can never be completely owned by another fighter....this is simple logic.

 

"GOAT" is an acronym for "greatest of all time".

 

If we are talking legit GOAT then yeah, but with the obvious caveat of being a useful fighter. For example, I wouldn't count the Holmes loss against Ali when evaluating his greatness, nor would I pay much attention to the losses SRR accumulated at the end of his career.

 

D'oh, just saw your point about being early 30's, in which case yeah, I'd agree in the case of a dominating points loss or late knockout after taking a pasting, but lots of legitimately great fighters were knocked out in the early rounds as they were starting out (Pacquiao and Armstrong off the top of my head). Don't know if I could hold that against them.

 

I think he could, if he abenge the loss in emphatic fashion not long afterward

I guess youre talking about duran?
Yeah, i dont think he has a case to be the goat

 

Duran is indeed the man I’m speaking of. Only 33 years old when hearns wiped the floor with him. Doesn’t mean that Duran isn’t in the top 10 or even the top 5, but the GOAT can’t have been destroyed by that at that age.

 

It’s tough to compare. Someone like say...Floyd Mayweather....never faced a fighter of Hearns caliber for his 83rd fight, or ever for that matter. Level of resume is more important to me than undefeated records.

 

I would place duran and pbf at around the same rank on a goat list. Duran was more driven to prove his greatness, but he has some bad losses that you cant overlook

 

You can be 33 and fresh or 33 and shot to hell ... 33 by itself doesn't mean a fucking thing

Wonder how 33 year old Floyd Mayweather would've looked in that ring with that Thomas Hearns ... either run and hide or get killed ... and he'd never win in 10 tries either

 

Many great fighters that we rate highly would have been one sidedly beaten by Hearns.

Duran was well removed from his best weight when this fight happened. And maybe Hearns always beats him. But I don’t think the pre-No Más version of Duran gets blown out in 2 rounds.

 

I don<t believe for a second that Duran was past it when he faced Hearns. He was coming off some of the best performances of his career. Hearns was just a total style mismatch for him

 

33 years of age, 20 lbs removed from his strongest weight division, fighting often in an ATG era against an absolute one-off, freak of nature, a man that if God himself designed to beat Duran he could not have done any better.

Floyd is still not as good as Duran.

 

A Roberto Durán thread and Sly hasn't mentioned Kirkland Laing.

 

Can a fighter be considered the GOAT and not hold a single win over another great fighter in that fighter's prime? I think that's the REAL question here.

 

but but but he barely beat a past it DLH who was more interested in his singing carrerr than in boxing

 

As a follow-up... the acronym was founded by one James Todd Smith in the late 90s, better known by his stage name LL Cool J.

 

but to be frank to PBF, the Canelo win could turn out to be that elusive signature win that he lacked. I agree that the Canelo he beat wasn't the finished product, but history might judge it more favorably

 

So, can we agree this is another 'Failstaff' thread?

 

I think it's a reasonable requirement. If a guy has been whitewashed in his prime I doubt I could rank him as the best ever.

 

Please. I’ve made valid points and it’s created good discussion. You’re just jealous.