The Greatest...

OK.

There was a post from D4 saying that if Khan became a 5-weight world champ he'd be the greatest Briton ever. I agree he'd be up there - but IMO Fitzsimmons, Lewis and Wilde are still ahead of him.

SRR is almost universally accepted to be the greatest fighter of all time. Or Burley. Or Langford. Or Jackson (just for Dave). Or Ali.

Other sports still allow modern fighters to achieve "greatness" - Tendulkar, Federer for example. But can a modern day boxer become accepted to be "the greatest".

2 questions:

1. Could Manny become "the greatest"? Who (ideal world) does he need to beat?

2. We have an undefeated world champion called 606face. 606face has just won a title at 140 - but reckons he can be effective all the way to light middle - he ways 152 on fight night and rehydrates well. Who in the current scene does 606face need to beat to be "the greatest". Even if he beats everyone - could he still become no.1?

1) In terms of achievements Manny is the greatest, hard to judge fighters fairly from different eras because of changes in the sport and standard baseline comparison.

2) Not sure what you are asking here?????????

It's an easy thing to say on the face of it but the talent pool at the highest level is fairly thin at the moment and in the current climate of fighting just two or three times a year I don't think a fighter can build up a record that compares to the past. It's fairly unique to boxing in that aspect, in all other sports they compete more regularly than they did in the past with Tennis being a prime example, there seems to be a high level tournament almost every other week which wasn't the case in previous times.

I have no bias towards the old time fighters as many would probably perceive but while the likes of Pacquiao are as talented as their counterparts from previous eras he doesn't have enough top draw wins to compete against the likes of Robinson, Greb, Charles, Ali amongst others.

It may seem unfair to mark down modern fighters because of this but how can you realistically rate Pacquiao as high as Greb when his overall level of opposition is lower?

Take for instance the light heavyweights and specifically Tunney, Charles and Jones, on the face of it they are reasonably level talent wise but look at their comparitive opposition and it's not even close. Jones I believe beat two potential hall of famers in Toney and Hopkins whereas Charles beat something like eight and Tunney beat five, for my money regardless of talent I know who i'm going to be ranking higher.

Would Federer have beaten Sampras? Who knows but what we do know is that Federer has won more grand slam titles than Sampras, does that prove he's better on it's own? I personally don't think so, i'm not too up on Tennis so can't really comment but surely being the best during a stronger era means more than being the best during a weaker era.

1)to become the greatest he needs to beat Floyd and Marquez again for me
2)depends on how good the level of fighters are for example Joe Calzaghe beat everyone but by no means is the greatest

D4thincarnation wrote:1) In terms of achievements Manny is the greatest, hard to judge fighters fairly from different eras because of changes in the sport and standard baseline comparison.

2) Not sure what you are asking here?????????

Depends on what achievements your basing that assumption on, different people would favour Armstrong being a simultaneous three weight world champion others would favour the sheer level of quality Greb beat, others would favour Fitzsimmons being the first three weight world champion and others would favour something completely different. What one person thinks isn't necessarily what everyone thinks which is why I think standard of opposition should be the determining factor.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's an easy thing to say on the face of it but the talent pool at the highest level is fairly thin at the moment and in the current climate of fighting just two or three times a year I don't think a fighter can build up a record that compares to the past. It's fairly unique to boxing in that aspect, in all other sports they compete more regularly than they did in the past with Tennis being a prime example, there seems to be a high level tournament almost every other week which wasn't the case in previous times.

I have no bias towards the old time fighters as many would probably perceive but while the likes of Pacquiao are as talented as their counterparts from previous eras he doesn't have enough top draw wins to compete against the likes of Robinson, Greb, Charles, Ali amongst others.

It may seem unfair to mark down modern fighters because of this but how can you realistically rate Pacquiao as high as Greb when his overall level of opposition is lower?

Take for instance the light heavyweights and specifically Tunney, Charles and Jones, on the face of it they are reasonably level talent wise but look at their comparitive opposition and it's not even close. Jones I believe beat two potential hall of famers in Toney and Hopkins whereas Charles beat something like eight and Tunney beat five, for my money regardless of talent I know who i'm going to be ranking higher.

Would Federer have beaten Sampras? Who knows but what we do know is that Federer has won more grand slam titles than Sampras, does that prove he's better on it's own? I personally don't think so, i'm not too up on Tennis so can't really comment but surely being the best during a stronger era means more than being the best during a weaker era.

Federer did beat Sampras.

Pacquiao achievements are stunning, and his displays in the ring have been breathtaking. Hard to judge fighters from different eras fairly but when the arguments about the greatest ever begins Pacquiao name will be amongst the likes of Greb, SRR and Armstrong.

Manny could never be the greatest...I guess you guys are young and ignorant.....

Just stop it.....

Leonard beat Hearns, Benitez Duran and Hagler...all of whom are better than anything Manny has fought..

He's not in most top 5 lists..

Just stop it..

Federer won his first grand slam in 2003 whereas Sampras won his last won in 2002 so any head to head between the two isn't a fair indicator.

To you D4 Pacquiaos achievements are spectacular but to others they may not be, basing it on opposition faced I feel he falls short of the top top level but others may see it differently. The beauty of a debate like this is the difference of opinions.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Federer won his first grand slam in 2003 whereas Sampras won his last won in 2002 so any head to head between the two isn't a fair indicator.

To you D4 Pacquiaos achievements are spectacular but to others they may not be, basing it on opposition faced I feel he falls short of the top top level but others may see it differently. The beauty of a debate like this is the difference of opinions.

I think it was in 2002 so it is fair.

Pacquiao came through arguably the toughest featherweight/superfeather division in history. Morales, Barerra and Marquez all legends and all beating by Pacquiao.

So Sampras at the tail end of his career?

Think Saddler and Pep may argue about that especially as great as Morales, Barerra and Marquez are they don't feature in many top 15's for the division let alone top tens.

Morales, Barerra, Cotto and Marquez are Pacquiao's elite level opposition and like Truss has said that doesn't compare to Leonards, with wins over four higher rated guys.

Lets not let this descend into a debate about one boxer though, there are hundreds of others out there.

I think you become a a great fighter by beating great fighters. Then the manner you beat them, the weight divisions where you won titles and how far out of you comfort zone that is. defences of titles, unifying titles or cleaning house.

D4, I disagree with your opinions.

Second point is - if there were a hypothetical undefeated boxer out there - what would he have to do to become "the greatest"

Can't you ban this guy Oxring...He's obviously ill and needs help.....

Manny is better than Ali, Leonard, Robbo etc...............Mayweather is a ducker..

Past comical now...it's getting tiresome.

At the current time Oxy I don't see the level of opposition possible for someone to do it, would potentially have to something ridiculous like go from Welterweight up to Heavyweight even then not sure that would out do Fitzsimmons beating Dempsey, Corbett then Gardner for instance. It's difficult to say with any real conviction because how someone like Cotto will be viewed in 20 odd years is difficult let alone those on a lower level.

Too many titles about.........Too much money to be made whilst avoiding the cream.........

Too much Catchweight now ....leading to holllow victories.

Too little interest in the great sport which has been ruined by politics..

Floyd is the only one with a chance of smashing the top 10 as he's been unbeaten for god knows how long....

oxring wrote:Second point is - if there were a hypothetical undefeated boxer out there - what would he have to do to become "the greatest"

He would need to beat other great fighters and have longevity at the top level.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Sampras at the tail end of his career?

Think Saddler and Pep may argue about that especially as great as Morales, Barerra and Marquez are they don't feature in many top 15's for the division let alone top tens.

Morales, Barerra, Cotto and Marquez are Pacquiao's elite level opposition and like Truss has said that doesn't compare to Leonards, with wins over four higher rated guys.

Lets not let this descend into a debate about one boxer though, there are hundreds of others out there.

Sampras still had some grand slams left in him and it was 2001, when Federer was nowhere near his peak playing on Sampras's favourite surface.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=S402

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:D4, I disagree with your opinions.

What do you think you need to do to become a great fighter then?

Barrera, Morales, Cotto. Oscar were nowhere near there peak form....

Duran, Hearns and Benitez were in their peak .............

Take a hike.

The Mighty Atom wrote:At the current time Oxy I don't see the level of opposition possible for someone to do it, would potentially have to something ridiculous like go from Welterweight up to Heavyweight even then not sure that would out do Fitzsimmons beating Dempsey, Corbett then Gardner for instance. It's difficult to say with any real conviction because how someone like Cotto will be viewed in 20 odd years is difficult let alone those on a lower level.

I don't like this fact...but I'm tempted to agree.

Its awful - this must be the only sport where someone is starting to "lace up a pair" and they realise that they CANNOT EVER be the best EVER.

As I said - even if Khan wins from LWW to SMW - I don't see that above Lewis, Fitz or Wilde.

You need defining fights...............

Unbeaten Hatton, Oscar at 154, showing the rest how to beat Marquez....

Eleven years at the top UNBEATEN....

Several ring titles and lot's of titles at different weights......

That's what I think you need..

Moving on from Tennis where anyone with half a brain could realise that Sampras was no where near his best in 2001.

That's the ludicrous thing Truss, who else in the past 30 years can claim victories over genuine all time great talent like Duran, Hearns, Benitez and Hagler? Yet can figure anywhere between about 3 to 12 depending on who's viewpoint you take, have him at around 7/8 myself and think the IBRO's ranking of 12 is far too low.

Leonard's my number 4........He comes just behind Armstrong.....

Fact is Atom he beat all time legends in their pomps.....

Why I rate your Turpin higher than most on here..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You need defining fights...............

Unbeaten Hatton, Oscar at 154, showing the rest how to beat Marquez....

Eleven years at the top UNBEATEN....

Several ring titles and lot's of titles at different weights......

That's what I think you need..

Very funny Truss, what is your real opinion?

My real opinion is Mayweather is a top 10 alltimer...........

Sorry mate but your guy has had his butt handed to him....beat faded greats and needed to use catchweight to gain an advantage...

Just think like Terry Norris who did the same thing..Curry, Leonard, Brown, Taylor etc....

It doesn't cut the legend mustard.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My real opinion is Mayweather is a top 10 alltimer...........

Sorry mate but your guy has had his butt handed to him....beat faded greats and needed to use catchweight to gain an advantage...

Just think like Terry Norris who did the same thing..Curry, Leonard, Brown, Taylor etc....

It doesn't cut the legend mustard.

Based on being Mayweather.

How do you judge that?

Is it something objective?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My real opinion is Mayweather is a top 10 alltimer...........

Sorry mate but your guy has had his butt handed to him....beat faded greats and needed to use catchweight to gain an advantage...

Just think like Terry Norris who did the same thing..Curry, Leonard, Brown, Taylor etc....

It doesn't cut the legend mustard.

I don't want to get too pro-Manny, for fear of it hijacking what was a decent thread...

But in fairness, other than Marquez 3 - Manny has fought everyone. And has AT LEAST 8 victories over ATGs. Floyd has 2-4.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Leonard's my number 4........He comes just behind Armstrong.....

Fact is Atom he beat all time legends in their pomps.....

Why I rate your Turpin higher than most on here..

That's a fair enough ranking, tempted to post my top ten but feel it will make certain posters explode but here goes anyway

1. Robinson
2. Ali
3. Greb
4. Armstrong
5. Fitzsimmons
6. Duran (don't go all d4 on me Truss)
7. Jofre
8. Leonard
9. Charles
10. Pep

Near misses: Louis, B. Leonard, Gans, Chavez, Ross, Tunney and Moore

Personally don't see any of those guys budging any time soon, Pacquiao or Mayweather could potentially get to around 15 but that would require a lot more of them

oxring wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My real opinion is Mayweather is a top 10 alltimer...........

Sorry mate but your guy has had his butt handed to him....beat faded greats and needed to use catchweight to gain an advantage...

Just think like Terry Norris who did the same thing..Curry, Leonard, Brown, Taylor etc....

It doesn't cut the legend mustard.

I don't want to get too pro-Manny, for fear of it hijacking what was a decent thread...

But in fairness, other than Marquez 3 - Manny has fought everyone. And has AT LEAST 8 victories over ATGs. Floyd has 2-4.

My rules for judging a fighters greatness can be applied to all fighters from all generations.

Truss's rule is beating an unbeaten Hatton and Oscar at 154lbs, you can see how some people can see that as laughable.

D4 that's his opinion and he's entitled to base it on whatever he sees fit much like you are, I disagree with both but can at least acknowledge my way isn't the only way

Alltime greats mean nothing if they are past it......

Dumb argument..

I've got berbick higher than Witherspoon because he's 1-0 over Witherspoon in legends!!

Do me a favor.

I don't mind this guy bigging up Manny but what I find abhorrent is the total lack of respect for a guy who is one of the best fighters I've ever seen..and I've seen alot and who has had a wonderful career..

You really are a disgrace..

I'm not explaining myself to you..kid

The Mighty Atom wrote:D4 that's his opinion and he's entitled to base it on whatever he sees fit much like you are, I disagree with both but can at least acknowledge my way isn't the only way

It would also mean there is only one great fighter in the history of boxing, and you and I know that isn't his view.

Are you really that dumb D4, he clearly didn't say you can only become great by doing those two things rather he defines them as great moments.

He knows what I meant....He's just looking to cause trouble.

Cheap thrills and all that..

Anyway moving on with the actual debate

I asked this question:

What do you think you need to do to become a great fighter then?

And Truss answered with this:

You need defining fights...............

Unbeaten Hatton, Oscar at 154, showing the rest how to beat Marquez....

Eleven years at the top UNBEATEN....

Several ring titles and lot's of titles at different weights......

That's what I think you need..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He knows what I meant....He's just looking to cause trouble.

Cheap thrills and all that..

Clarify you point then.

What do you need to become a great fighter?

Why do you feel the need to ruin every single thread on here?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can't you ban this guy Oxring...He's obviously ill and needs help.....

Manny is better than Ali, Leonard, Robbo etc...............Mayweather is a ducker..

Past comical now...it's getting tiresome.

I second this.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Why do you feel the need to ruin every single thread on here?

It is a simple question, a question that the OP asked.

From Truss's response I can either infer that Mayweather is the only great fighter or anyone that has a defining fight is a great fighter.

You know as well as me what he meant so just reel it in

The Mighty Atom wrote:You know as well as me what he meant so just reel it in

What did he mean, maybe it going over my head.

It is a simple question,
_____________________________________________________

So was why is it OK for Manny to fight Maruez at 147 but not for Floyd to do the same. About five people asked you this earlier with no response from you. A failure to answer a simple question is a glass house you really don't want to throw too many stones in now is it.

I can't be bothered playing your silly little games, your probably irked by the fact we all agree on one thing

rowley wrote:It is a simple question,
_____________________________________________________

So was why is it OK for Manny to fight Maruez at 147 but not for Floyd to do the same. About five people asked you this earlier with no response from you. A failure to answer a simple question is a glass house you really don't want to throw too many stones in now is it.

I answered that question, but lets not get too far of topic.

Two questions were asked by oxxy, 1) what does Pacquiao have to do to become the greatest. And a more vague question on a fictional fighter and what he would need to become no.1

Takes two to tango.

Anyway, on subject. As time goes by the subject of greatest will constantly rage. There were days when Dempsey and Jeffries were leading contender for greatest heavyweight, but others have come along and proven you can take the crown of greatest if you're good enough.

Can a current fighter become the GOAT? Honestly? I don't think so. Too many belts, too much talk and not enough busy fighters. They'd need to be supernatural and go through some talent packed divisions several times over.

Bit hypocritical don't you think telling others not to go off topic, no wonder everyone is sick to death of you

For the record Pacquiao can't do anything that would make him the greatest, he's doesn't come into consideration for my top 20 as of yet

D4thincarnation wrote:1) In terms of achievements Manny is the greatest, hard to judge fighters fairly from different eras because of changes in the sport and standard baseline comparison.

2) Not sure what you are asking here?????????

In terms of achievements manny is the greatest? Depends how you measure achievements. D4 is happy to regard a win over an unranked inactive fighter at 151lb as manny being a LMW champion, or defeating a bum like David Diaz and never defending the title giving him 135lb credentials, but those of us that aren't having a homo-erotic love-in with manny see things differently. Fighters like Armstrong acclomplished more across various weight divisions, holding 3 titles at once when there were only the 8 classic divisions is far more of an achievement that collecting trinkets in an era where there are 12lb separating 4 weight classes (BW - SFW).

IMO it's impossible for manny to ever be regarded as the GOAT, he will of course be an ATG based on his achievements. The latter part of his career has been tarnished a bit with the fighting of in-house stiffs and refusal to submit to random drug testing. Mannys place is already secure in the ATG top 20, the only way he can improve upon it is by defeating mayweather and/or martinez.

For khan to become a 5 weight champ he'd have to win title as high as 168lb. that will NEVER happen. He doesn't have the physicality and has been ko'd at lightweight and badly wobbled at light welter. The maximum for khan will be winning titles at 140, 147 and 154, but again that depends on how much credence you give modern day trinkets - khan can do it if he's cleverly managed, whether he can do it fighting the best I have my doubts as there's too many flaws in his game. I expect Bradley to beat him.