Is Floyd Mayweather a definitive top 20 P4P all timer?

How dare you show actual footage of clearly inferior athletes coming from a time period where athleticism and technique has improved tenfold.

A newspaper clipping, plus Bert Sugar's anecdotes are all you need to determine that this fighter would kick any modern pussy's ass.

 

I mean shit, athletes as a whole are smarter, faster, stronger, quicker are much better trained, but I'll be damned if a early 1900s fighter loses to one of these young whippersnappers on the account of their toughness.

Boxing is by FAR, the sport where it's hardcore following is completely incompetent at capturing the context of fighters and their abilities relative to their era.

 

greb would be worthless as a sparring partner for the likes of margarito. he'd be sent home after one day

 

i dont see why talent should play a factor in ranking without the resume to back it up

 

Because he actually fought the guy not years later we're guessing at what might have happened.

That's the problem with Floyd there's more guessing about how he might have done that how he did against guys.

 

Good point. It's certainly the reason Roy Jones isn't near the top of greatest fighters ever lists. He had the talent but not the wins.

 

Agree

 

So what? I don't work for ESPN

 

That's cause you expect the jobs to come to you. It doesn't work that way. Get off your ass and go apply.

 

Lmao

 

best case scenario is what i described. a boring, lackluser victory that is roundly criticized. worst case is he gets stopped or loses. i dont really see that benefitting his legacy either way.

 

You really think Greb beats Hopkins?

 

Yes he does.

Have you ever seen Hopkins train like this:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IO2dTnFl2Z0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

hopkins may have lost to a white boy, but he aint losing to a blind white boy

 

I don't know what Greb looked like, none of us do... can't see him, nothing exists

THAT SAID, the 1920s is clearly a transitional period, boxing starts to get BETTER in that decade but it is in no way, shape, or form a fully realized product. Tunney, for the time, was advanced... he used his legs more, he had a fairly modern looking jab, etc. ... Jack Sharkey looks far and away the most techinically skilled of the heavyweights of the day, it's not even close, but he was undone at the time by a lack of intangibles (the most underrated aspect of the game) ... Benny Leonard was inventing moves, I mean watch footage of him... his footwork is vastly superior to his counterparts, his use of angles, his counteprunching, simply off the charts compared to his contemporaries... Panama Al Brown also cuts an imposing figure in this time... BUT, these guys STILL look relatively raw compared to guys from even 20 years later... Based on the guys Greb fought that there is footage of, I find it hard to believe he'd do anything but willingly get outclassed against a guy like Bernard Hopkins...

Here is what I DO NOT understand about the "old fighters suck" brigade... the common theme that I see in the viewpoints of jaws/TLC/WBC, etc. is that it all seems to come to a grinding halt around the time of color TV... I don't see anyone here saying "Chad Dawson KO4 Bob Foster because Bob Foster was champion 40 years ago" but you can bet your life you would hear "Chad Dawson KO4 Archie Moore-- look at the footage, LOL, look how primitve they are HAHAHAHA Athletes are so much better, blahblah" ... the difference between Foster and Moore is just a little over 10 years... in 10 years, some massive shift/evolution in talent occured that changed everything? I'm not buying that... A lot of this, a huge part of it, is audio/video quality and technology... If I filmed Dawson/Pascal from a luxury box vantagepoint, with no jump cuts, no alternate angles, using grainy B&W film, the only thing that would give it away as a recent fight would be the ring attire/hairstyles/ring advertisements...

Furthermore, the notion of "athleticism" is profoundly overrated here... this isn't football where the ability to run fast or push around huge amounts of weight is a premium... Great skill, desire, intuitive understanding and instinct for fighting overcomes the ability to run and jump fast... I mean, if you were to pile up videotapes filled with fights where the more athletic guy lost, you'd have a pile as high as the Empire State Building... I see far fewer skillful, instinctive fighters now than I saw 10 years ago... I honestly don't see how someone could watch Tim Bradley and say "yeah, that guy beats Nicolino Locche" ... I don't see it... the difference in skill is preposterously one-sided

It all seems as choosy as anything else... It's as stupid as Tracy Callis, in my opinion... WHere's the cutoff? shouldn't Juan Diaz kill Roberto Duran at 135? after all, Diaz fought only a few years ago while Duran's peak came when a lot of people still didn't have colored TVs... Joe Greene was a 275 pound Defensive Tackle at that time, a laughable idea in the modern NFL (and rightly so, in the case of football) ... To me, the argument seems to be pulled out when it is convenient... in other words, any time a guy like Ezzard Charles or Robinson or Gavilan is brought up, we get the 'oh, bullshit... black and white... there's white guys in the top 10... its so primitive, blahblahblah" but nobody says that bullshit when the fight is in color a mere 10-15 years later, less than half of the time that has passed since a guy like Duran was at his peak

Boxing didn't just suddenly become modern in 1970

It changed drastically between 1920 and 1940, and it changed drastically between 1900 and 1920... but Willie Pep sure as fuck doesn't look primitve to me, Ezzard doesn't, Robinson, Gavilan, Harold Johnson, Joe Brown, Archie, they don't look primitive at all

If you had a color version fo Robinson in 1949 with multiple angles, nobody would say "ah, bullshit, primitive caveman" ...

 

Retarded thread. So is Golota top 20 heavyweight in terms of talent too ?

 

Golota is not near the top of any list other than serial quitters or boxers in dire need of some sun.

 

We should all pay cdogg 10 cents each for posting here. Whenever the forum veers dangerously towards idiocy he'll take 15 minutes out for the cause.

 

Tunney is considered by so many (rightly) to be a, "modern fighter," by virtue of style & skill-set. Greb beats him at least once, quite possibly twice, & gives him his most harrowing, enduring affairs.

To many, Tunney can compete in any age, yet Greb cannot compete. Something isn't adding up.

 

Thanks, Hut

Sadly, the post will be skimmed quickly and I will once again be called Bert Sugar or some other bullshit

 

He looks transitional to me, Ramonza

More modern than Joe Gans/Jim Corbett, etc.? clearly

as modern as Billy Conn, Charles, Bivins, Lloyd Marshall a mere two decades later? no way, I don't see it

 

Fair enough if thats how you see him, CDogg. Im just commenting on the paradox I described in general terms.

BTW, if memory serves, have you said previously Dempsey is effectively modern, a huge leap forward? If so, what would you attribute a trans-fighter like Tunneys utter demoralising of Dempsey to? Purely age?

 

not so much truly modern, but I see he and Leonard as the two most important figures in terms of drastically altering the course of boxing, completely revolutionizing the game... "modern" in the sense that they laid the groundwork for all that came after them... As for Dempsey's 19 rounds to 1 defecit total over their two bouts I attribute it to age and inactivity more than to Tunney's particular talents, though I would concede that based on the types of fighters that troubled Dempsey, that Tunney would have always been difficult for him

 

Top ten for me, maybe top 5.

 

Great fighter but he should have given much more to the sport. He chose to take and give the minimum. I'll always hate him for that.

 

IDK man. In the end, what's the sport gonna give him? It doesn't give much to any boxer. But brain damage. Heck, it's one of the most corrupt sports on the planet, with lousy structure. That's not Floyd's fault.

Dudes undefeated.

No fighter has fought everyone...no fighter.

 

True, but How Many Fighters have Had THE BIGGEST Fight in the History of Boxing Laying @ their Doorstep, yet Shamefully NEGLECTED it???...



REED:Lok:

 

Exactly.

 

yeah, honestly, this fight not happening is a black eye (of arguable size) for both Floyd and the Pac-Man

Duran and Leonard, the two baddest guys around in 1980, fought each other not just because it was a great payday, but because they WANTED it, they wanted to prove who was the best

 

What a joke this is.

What would Mayweather be without the sport? What does he own which he doesn't owe to the sport?

"What's the sport gonna give him?"

What an infuriatingly ignorant question.