The Greatest...

First topic message reminder :

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?

D4thincarnation wrote: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..

Attempting to deliberately misinterpret someone's post like this is utterly pathetic. You yourself are the single biggest culprit for accusing people of taking your words out of context. You seriously need to grow up.

There have been too many changes in boxing to fairly judge all generations by the same yardstick.

Another fighter could come along an surpassed Pacquiao achievement but he would have to a 9 weight world champion and beat a lot of great fighters along the way.

Has Pacquiao beat as many HOF, or has as many wins as other fighters of the past, no, and that when it becomes subjective the weight you put to each achievement.

Guys this is getting silly now, lets all keep it on topic eh?

D4thincarnation wrote:

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

No, you didn't. More lies.

I'm in agreement with the earlier poster who said Pacquiao can't become the greatest. He's barely a champ at both lightweight and light middleweight, and when did he last unify a division? Too many belts, and the way fighters are managed these days they simply don't have enough fights to be able to stake a claim to having done more than guys who fought 100+ fights, guys like Archie Moore, Duran and SRR.

I'm not saying that being a great is purely dependant on fighting a huge number of times, but when there are so many titles available, and yet we still don't see 'champs' face each other...that seriously harms their chances of becoming 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".

The question is this (other question has been well answered).

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?

Please try to answer the second question.

Even if this hypothetical champion beat everyone from 140-154 - would he be the greatest?

oxring wrote: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".

The question is this (other question has been well answered).

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?

Boxing is quite a nostalgic sport with the old guard still defending the fighters of yesteryear. In 50 years time People no.1 fighter could be quite different.

D4thincarnation wrote:There have been too many changes in boxing to fairly judge all generations by the same yardstick.

Another fighter could come along an surpassed Pacquiao achievement but he would have to a 9 weight world champion and beat a lot of great fighters along the way.

Has Pacquiao beat as many HOF, or has as many wins as other fighters of the past, no, and that when it becomes subjective the weight you put to each achievement.

Hypocrite. So it's unfair to judge all generations by the same yardstick...unless it's to praise your pinup. Armstrong holding titles across three weights simultaneously is a much more impressive achievement than beating the likes of David Diaz or Margarito. Pacquiao has ticked the boxes, but the substance is a little lacking above super feather.

D4thincarnation wrote:There have been too many changes in boxing to fairly judge all generations by the same yardstick.

Another fighter could come along an surpassed Pacquiao achievement but he would have to a 9 weight world champion and beat a lot of great fighters along the way..

He'd have to win officially sanctioned world titles in EIGHT weight divisions, bearing in mind that manny has won officially sanctioned titles at SEVEN weight divisions (two at catchweights) and is therefore, technically, a 7 weight champion (if you include catchweights, 5 if not, less if you discount the non credible IBO titles he's won).

He would need to beat Bradley, Judah, Khan and even Marquez at 140. Berto, Mayweather and Pacquiao at 147 and Cotto and Alvarez at 154 to be considered amongst the top ATGs. Problem is at the top level the 2 biggest promoters in the world won't do buisness with each other it makes this next to impossible. Being considered the greatest is all down to personal choice for me it is Robinson but find it hard to discount Ali or Pep for that matter. The best usually took on the best then but theirs to much boardroom politics now.

I take into account multi weight champions if they beat the best opponent at each weight but if they didn't then it become an irrelevant achievement

For instance Armstrong had to beat Ambers, Ross and Sarron for his 3 world titles which in itself is mightily impressive without even considering some of the other guys he beat, he beat something like 13/14 world champions during his career which considering there was only ever 8 champions at a time is very very impressive.

oxring wrote:Please try to answer the second question.

Even if this hypothetical champion beat everyone from 140-154 - would he be the greatest?

That would really depend on the quality of opposition. Fighters like Ali, Hagler, even SRR* (among others) have shown that status and ranking isn't achieved solely by hopping weights.

I say 'even' because he DID weight hop, but not to as extensive a degree as Pacquiao.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I take into account multi weight champions if they beat the best opponent at each weight but if they didn't then it become an irrelevant achievement

For instance Armstrong had to beat Ambers, Ross and Sarron for his 3 world titles which in itself is mightily impressive without even considering some of the other guys he beat, he beat something like 13/14 world champions during his career which considering there was only ever 8 champions at a time is very very impressive.

Do you consider him the greatest?

2.

So Boxer A wins a world title at 140lbs right now against Khan for me to come under consideration for a top ten spot would have to do the following

140lbs- Khan, Bradley, Maidana and Judah
147lbs- Pacquiao and Berto
154lbs- Cotto, Dzinziruk and Angulo
160lbs- Martinez

How highly would someone be rated if he did that, impossible to say until all those fighters have retired, as it stands you have one nailed on hall of famer and one potential, on top of that you have some good but not great champions. Would say your looking at a potential top 30 placing

prettyboy1304 wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I take into account multi weight champions if they beat the best opponent at each weight but if they didn't then it become an irrelevant achievement

For instance Armstrong had to beat Ambers, Ross and Sarron for his 3 world titles which in itself is mightily impressive without even considering some of the other guys he beat, he beat something like 13/14 world champions during his career which considering there was only ever 8 champions at a time is very very impressive.

Do you consider him the greatest?

Have him no higher than fourth but for me is the quintisential multi weight champion alongside Fitzsimmons, Ross and Canzoneri the only four 100% bonafide multi weight world champions in my opinion

The Mighty Atom wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I take into account multi weight champions if they beat the best opponent at each weight but if they didn't then it become an irrelevant achievement

For instance Armstrong had to beat Ambers, Ross and Sarron for his 3 world titles which in itself is mightily impressive without even considering some of the other guys he beat, he beat something like 13/14 world champions during his career which considering there was only ever 8 champions at a time is very very impressive.

Do you consider him the greatest?

Have him no higher than fourth but for me is the quintisential multi weight champion alongside Fitzsimmons, Ross and Canzoneri the only four 100% bonafide multi weight world champions in my opinion

I agree like I said when it comes to this level of fighter it's personal preferrance

It is unfortunately heavily weighted in favour of the older boxers but they fought at times when greatness was all around, how can boxer of today realistically get close to Grebs resume of opponents. It's a shame but it's something the various changes in the sport have spawned.

Pacnuts use weight hopping as a measure of greatness because it suits them, but fighters like Ali, Hagler etc achieved more in 1 division than most do across 2 or 3. Weight hopping for Armstrong was significant because he held 3 titles at a time when only 8 weights existed with one champ per weight. That roughly 40% of the titles available to him he held. Mannys moving up in weight has been impressive when you look at him winning titles across 7 weights and his victories over morales 2, Barrera 1, hatton and Cotto are solid wins. But there are a number of things to take into account, as follows:

1) He won titles at 105lb as a boy, turning pro at 15. Most western fighters were still amateurs at that age. At 15 I weighed about 8.5 stone, I'm 2 years younger than manny and now weigh 11.5, so he's followed a typical maturation.

2) Winning a title at 145lb and 151lb has to be viewed with an asterisk, as no such weight classes exist.

3) In this era there are such a plethora of 'world titles' that picking one up is not so difficult. The fact that David Diaz can be recognised as a world champ highlights this, the fact that manny took Diaz' title and never defended it cheapens his accomplishments at 135. Likewise beating an unranked, inactive margarito at a catchweight of 151lb for a vacant strap which he'll never defend also only makes manny a lmw champ on the technicality that the WBC are disreputable enough to record him as one.

4) Winning the IBO title? Are we recognising that now as well? Because that's all he won at 140lb. And he never won an officially sanctioned strap at all at featherweight. Yes he beat MAB, the lineal and Ring titlist, but those are not official world titles and that makes manny a 7, not an 8, weight champ.

The point of these points is that if you use weight hopping as your biggest criteria for measuring greatness then it is easily picked apart under close scrutiny. The facts are manny has been recognised as a champ at SEVEN weights. Two of those titles were won at catchweights and must be viewed with an asterisk. One was the IBO title which is not a major world title. That leaves him as a champ in FOUR weight classes, and bearing in mind he only beat Diaz at 135 and only fought there once I don't think we can give him too much credit there. That leaves 3.

In my personal opinion it is fair to say manny has been lineal champ at fly, feather, SFW and 140lb.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It is unfortunately heavily weighted in favour of the older boxers but they fought at times when greatness was all around, how can boxer of today realistically get close to Grebs resume of opponents. It's a shame but it's something the various changes in the sport have spawned.

That's the thing-if a boxer fights a decent opponent every 2-4 fights, those guys who fought a larger number of opponents will generally have faced a larger number of quality opponents. The way a loss is treated as the end of a young fighter's career really kills the chances of guys taking tough fights, and therefore the chance of them beating those same tough opponents is removed from the equation.

There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

Too true Windy....I mean I've never tried to dispute the fact that Duran wasn't an ATG just the fact that he's considered top 10............

Reflects badly on the poster when such a talent and great fighter/champion as Floyd gets disrespected so much....

It's pathetic..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too true Windy....I mean I've never tried to dispute the fact that Duran wasn't an ATG just the fact that he's considered top 10............

Reflects badly on the poster when such a talent and great fighter/champion as Floyd gets disrespected so much....

It's pathetic..

Bingo, Truss.

We all have our opinions, and the forum would be poorer if we didn't. However, to take your view of Duran as an example, you back it up with BOXING opinion, and not some silly and childish philosophy that Duran was a very naughty boy and it's our duty to dislike him.

The whole Manny / Floyd issue has descended into a silly game of ' my dad is bigger than your dad.'

Little wonder that even moderate posters are getting fed up.

Got to agree with both Windy and Truss on this one. Can cope with posters having dislikes of fighters I consider fairly irrational, hell LRR had a stable full of them but when that manifests itself in telling downright lies or statements that fly in the face of everything said poster has said in the past it becomes ridiculous because it is impossible to debate with such a person, which is kind of the point of a forum.

Again, jeff - bingo.

Anyway you old farts whats your opinion on the topic in question?

Ralistically I think the modern environment of boxing (which doesnt look like changing anytime soon) makes it all but impossible to for fighters now to match the records of older era ones.

Based on pure probablity there will be fighters born sometime that are better than Sugar Ray Robinson and would have beaten him but how can they hope to surpass his legacy?

I think all one can do is try to be as flexible thinking as possible and acknowledge the impact the changes in boxing have to this regard. There will never be a surefire way to accurately measure so all one can do is try their best.

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

My issue with Manny is that whilst he is a darned good fighter with an impressive resume, I really think he has overachieved by his remarkable weight jumping.
He may have won titles at eight weights, but I don't think I'd have him in my top ten all time for any one of those weights. He ghosted through divisions that lacked a truly elite fighter. Not his fault, but hey-ho.

Im just uncomfortable with the idea that there can be fighters who emerge who are better than their predecessors but find it literally impossible to overtake them due to circumstances and changes in the sport. I think it undermines the rankings in many ways because it just doesnt allow for a realistic reflection to be painted.

At the end of the day records are only evidence, not proof.

Aren't evidence and proof tantamount to the same thing?

You can't feasibly expect someone to be considered better than someone with a better record though can you? Only in boxing do you find people trying to make excuses for those who's records don't stand comparison with others.
Federer and Sampras are considered the greatest two tennis players, is that because of talent or is it because of the amount they won?

BALTIMORA wrote:Aren't evidence and proof tantamount to the same thing?

Nope very different.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You can't feasibly expect someone to be considered better than someone with a better record though can you? Only in boxing do you find people trying to make excuses for those who's records don't stand comparison with others.
Federer and Sampras are considered the greatest two tennis players, is that because of talent or is it because of the amount they won?

Trust me I understand your argument and I actually follow it myself in general.

However do you not accept the point I am making? By the sheer laws of probablity, if boxing continues as a sport in its current capacity there will eventually be a fighter thats better than Robinson. The fact that this fighter wont have the means to establish himself as better is a fundemental flaw. As things stand SRR will be atop of the pile til the heavens come crashing down. Theres just no way of replacing him.

At least Federer or Sampras have the same means of being appraised. A closer example for me would be Woods/Nicklaus who are generally considered the two greatest golfers. From what I gather Woods is now generally considered the best of all time despite not winning as many majors.

I would be highly reluctant to place one fighter above another if their record was some way behind them but when we are talking about great the margins are often tiny and hard to identify. The margins between Ray Leonard and Ray Robinson for instance.

I also think if you follow the "record" principal too strictly then it can start throwing up scenarios which dont reflect reality particularly well. An example being Hatton considered a top 10 LWW of all time for instance. Clearly there have been more than 10 fighters tht have graced the division that would beat Hatton and a whole host of others that would give him an argument. But because he stayed there long and others did this his claim to being a "greater" lightwelterweight is stronger even in scenarios when he wasnt and the acheivements of other fighters at other weights indicates as such.

Hatton would have a stronger claim to being a great light welterweight than someone who fought there once or twice like say Mayweather because he has a body of work there, that isn't to he would beat him at the weight because think we'd all agree he probably wouldn't. Divisional rankings should be based on what someone did at that weight and fights higher or lower should be discounted, Chavez is realistically one of the all time great lightweights but with only two notable fights at the weight he wont be remembered as such.

For me rankings aren't a ladder system, number one doesn't beat everyone nor does number two beat everyone bar number one, it's just a means of ranking based on achievements, head to heads very rarely come into my consideration. I have Hagler above Hopkins at middleweight but feel Hopkins would have the slight edge in a head to head based on styles. For me the two aren't mutually exclusive.

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

~ Why sir, it has be well established in the vast history of boxing that "the greatest" honorific changes from generation to generation, in short, great shifting sand dunes in a desert of ignorance.

While Mr. Burley has had his few advocates, he is not nearly so rewarded by consensus IBRO and Ring polls with top ratings, but Harry Greb sir, please do remember the name as he and Robinson are far and away the most consistent top ranked winners when it comes to limited two dimensional>>>>one directional only polls.

In the here and the now, Mr. Manny has inserted himself into the fray with the most dynamic career seen in the modern era and has been rewarded by moderns as "The Man" of the moment, the decade, and placing only behind Mr. Robinson for all time. Whether those rankings can stick some 30-40 yrs later remains to be seen.

The ancients of yesteryears simply cannot account for the tastes of fickle moderns who always think they were the first ever to invent the wheel, love, and the left hook.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Hatton would have a stronger claim to being a great light welterweight than someone who fought there once or twice like say Mayweather because he has a body of work there, that isn't to he would beat him at the weight because think we'd all agree he probably wouldn't. Divisional rankings should be based on what someone did at that weight and fights higher or lower should be discounted, Chavez is realistically one of the all time great lightweights but with only two notable fights at the weight he wont be remembered as such.

For me rankings aren't a ladder system, number one doesn't beat everyone nor does number two beat everyone bar number one, it's just a means of ranking based on achievements, head to heads very rarely come into my consideration. I have Hagler above Hopkins at middleweight but feel Hopkins would have the slight edge in a head to head based on styles. For me the two aren't mutually exclusive.

For the majority of cases this principle works fine and doesnt throw up anything too outlandish but then there is always something like Ottke being considered arguably the second best SMW ever ahead of a host of fighters that are superior. Its pretty repugnant to see him ranked above fighters like Jones or Toney based on longetiviy more than anything else.

Im not neccessarily advocaating that a fighter that fights once in a division can then lay claim to being the best or greatest in it based on what he did at other weights, but its not always a black and white issue. Theres plenty of grey areas. There is scope for allowing for things like percieved ability and talent and other such subjective elements.

It's not based purely on longevity, Ottke for instance has no big wins and would rank lower than Kessler, Froch, Bute and Ward without taking into account the divisions whole history.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's not based purely on longevity, Ottke for instance has no big wins and would rank lower than Kessler, Froch, Bute and Ward without taking into account the divisions whole history.

As it stands now I would say most establishments have Ottke ahead of the Super 6ers. When the dust settles on their careers it may well change.

But that aside I have seen enough lists which have him second above the likes of Joney,Toney,Eubank etc largely based on the pricipal of longetivity, reign, number of defences etc which push him ahead of more superior fighters that have less extensive records there.

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

It is widely recognized and accepted that Pacquiao has achieved more than Mayweather, and it is accepted by most the boxing world that Mayweather is to blame for the fight with Pacquiao falling through.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

It is widely recognized and accepted that Pacquiao has achieved more than Mayweather, and it is accepted by most the boxing world that Mayweather is to blame for the fight with Pacquiao falling through.

Enough of the lies D4. You are well aware that if Manny had accepted the tests the fight would have happened and Manny would either be an ex fighter or making a comeback.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

It is widely recognized and accepted that Pacquiao has achieved more than Mayweather, and it is accepted by most the boxing world that Mayweather is to blame for the fight with Pacquiao falling through.

Just more lies

Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Wow. I agree with every word.

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Just more lies

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

It is widely recognized and accepted that Pacquiao has achieved more than Mayweather, and it is accepted by most the boxing world that Mayweather is to blame for the fight with Pacquiao falling through.

Enough of the lies D4. You are well aware that if Manny had accepted the tests the fight would have happened and Manny would either be an ex fighter or making a comeback.

If you believe that you will believe anything. Mayweather record of not taking the big fights speaks for itself.

Floyd has nightmares about losing to Manny.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There is a world of difference between being a ' belt holder ' and a champion.

A ' belt holder ' can pick up his trinkets by means of strategic matchmaking, can claim as low as a 25% share of a world title, and then move on to pick up others, seeking out the weaker ' belt holders ' in each division. Pacquiao's spurious title at lightmiddle is the perfect example.

A champion, by contrast, proves himself to be, irrefutably, ' the men ' in a given division, and does so by beating the best available comp on the way up and while he is champion.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, etc., all did this. Greb, for example beat EIGHTEEN world champions, and Armstrong something like fourteen. Robinson is almost universally accepted as the best welter of all time and a top five middle ; Greb is named by many as the greatest middle and is a dead cert as a top five in that division, and Armstrong often figures in the top fives across three divisions.

D4 predicates the very idea that Pacquiao might be the best of all time on the assumption that the fight with his greatest contemporary rival fell through through no fault of his own. This is ignorant. Much as D4 likes to believe that Manny and Floyd are his domain and his alone, he knows PRECISELY ZERO more than the rest of us as to the real reasons Pacquiao v Mayweather has never been made.

It is also ignorant and disrespectful for D4 to play out his little fantasy fairy tale with the ASSUMPTION that Mayweather is trash because he, ( D4 ) is such a fan of Manny. Almost the entire world of boxing regards Mayweather as an equal, near equal, or better than equal competitor for Pacquiao.

As a confirmed neutral I wouldn't try to separate them, but D4's obsessive and nonchalant dismissal of Mayweather is ignorant, ill - informed and immature.

These aren't comic book heroes, but rather flesh and blood athletes, and extremely good ones.

BOTH OF THEM.

It is widely recognized and accepted that Pacquiao has achieved more than Mayweather, and it is accepted by most the boxing world that Mayweather is to blame for the fight with Pacquiao falling through.

Enough of the lies D4. You are well aware that if Manny had accepted the tests the fight would have happened and Manny would either be an ex fighter or making a comeback.

If you believe that you will believe anything. Mayweather record of not taking the big fights speaks for itself.

Floyd has nightmares about losing to Manny.

What big fights?

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Just more lies

So you think he would beat Haye or the Klits?

D4 enought please and keep this on topic.
Comments about Floyd having nightmares about Manny has absolutely nothing to do with this article.

D4thincarnation wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Older fighters are seen through rose tinted glasses, and because they fought every other week that is seen as a plus.

I would go for quality over quantity.

People say this heavyweight era is week but I can guarantee you that Fitz would not have near the heavyweight title if he fought in this era, even with the 4 belts, but look how highly he is rated.

Just more lies

So you think he would beat Haye or the Klits?

Yes every time who have any of them beat to prove they are better than him especially Haye. I'm not fans of any of them.

If JJ is taking Fitz out in two, I don't see how he going to cope with the power of Haye or the Klits.

He would be lucky to last 3 rounds against any of them.

D4thincarnation wrote:If JJ is taking Fitz out in two, I don't see how he going to cope with the power of Haye or the Klits.

He would be lucky to last 3 rounds against any of them.