what active fighter could become top10 ATG & how would he ?

[SamWise72]

A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's
no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read.

Then, with the best will in the world, your belief that they are ATG's means little. You're going to have trouble watching Harry Greb, but go back to the 40's, and you can find plenty of complete fights from which to make a judgement. There's no reason why you SHOULD; it's fine to just watch boxing and enjoy it and assess people on where they rank right now, but if you want to make those sorts of judgements, you should go back and learn at least what's out there to learn. I learn all the time in the Boxers of the Past forum, where someone will challenge what I think is a well founded opinion, and refer me to a fight I haven't seen, or pick out things about a boxers performance that I hadn't considered.

[SamWise72]

(Incidentally, I do think there are several active fighters who should be considered ATGs, but the questions was top 10. I assume that's top 10 P4P all time. I don't see anyone currently active who gets that, though Pacquiao might be close if he'd beaten Floyd)

[stevedoc]

floyd could of but for me his avoidence of manny rules him out for me .
if broner beats floyd and manny and clears out the 140 class he could get around the top 10 ( not saying it will happen)

sometimes i think it's nearly impossible for a modern fighter to get rated as ATG no matter what they do , fighters are never going to have 300 fights like harry greb anymore .

so who could go down as a great and what would they have to do ,who would they have to beat to get there ?

Floyd gets penalised for not fighting someone he’d clearly batter yet Broner is coming off a stinker of a performance and is potentially an ATG?

[stevedoc]

floyd could of but for me his avoidence of manny rules him out for me .
if broner beats floyd and manny and clears out the 140 class he could get around the top 10 ( not saying it will happen)

sometimes i think it's nearly impossible for a modern fighter to get rated as ATG no matter what they do , fighters are never going to have 300 fights like harry greb anymore .

so who could go down as a great and what would they have to do ,who would they have to beat to get there ?

Floyd gets penalised for not fighting someone he’d clearly batter yet Broner is coming off a stinker of a performance and is potentially an ATG?

if floyd is so clearly better than manny why wouldn't he fight him , it would of been his easiest $100m . the reason floyd wont go down as a great is that he plays it to safe . and if you read the question it clearly states what would a fighter have to do to be an all time top 10 fighter and if broner beat floyd and manny he will rate very highly .next time read the question before you start typing

[stevedoc]

(Incidentally, I do think there are several active fighters who should be considered ATGs, but the questions was top 10. I assume that's top 10 P4P all time. I don't see anyone currently active who gets that, though Pacquiao might be close if he'd beaten Floyd)

Manny doesn’t have a hope in hell of beating Floyd or making ATG status, he simply isn’t good enough.

floyd will beat canello because he is a slow pressure fighter perfect for floyd to counter just like cotto, hatton,ortiz and just about every fighter floyd fights ,floyd only fights guys that make him look good , as for the floyd vs manny fight not happening because manny lost to bradley the fight should of happened 3 years before that , have you just started watching boxing or you have no understanding of the sport .

[stevedoc]

(Incidentally, I do think there are several active fighters who should be considered ATGs, but the questions was top 10. I assume that's top 10 P4P all time. I don't see anyone currently active who gets that, though Pacquiao might be close if he'd beaten Floyd)

Manny doesn’t have a hope in hell of beating Floyd or making ATG status, he simply isn’t good enough.

floyd will beat canello because he is a slow pressure fighter perfect for floyd to counter just like cotto, hatton,ortiz and just about every fighter floyd fights ,floyd only fights guys that make him look good , as for the floyd vs manny fight not happening because manny lost to bradley the fight should of happened 3 years before that , have you just started watching boxing or you have no understanding of the sport .

ok here's a really simple question for you if broner beat manny then floyd then lucas mattyhesse whould you rate him as a great ? a simple yes or no will survice

[stevedoc]

ok here's a really simple question for you if broner beat manny then floyd then lucas mattyhesse whould you rate him as a great ? a simple yes or no will survice

I hate to answer a question with a question, but if my uncle put on enough weight to grown natural looking tits, epilated his entire body and sprouted a vaginas would you marry him and, if so, would you consider him to be my uncle or my auntie?

No, Broner won’t beat either fighter, he’ll lose an unexpected one before he gets to that level. Plus beating Lucas, as impressive as he’s been THIS PAST YEAR, isn’t enough to net ATG status. What planet are you living on? The planet Here and Now in the galaxy kneejerk judgements?

That painting of a women lactating from her big jugs would make more sense than what you’re saying. Unfortunately, I can’t find a copy online. I’ll get back to you.

just as i thought lots of words with very little being said....

[Lenny]

If Charlie Zelenoff beat both Klitschko's on the same night before inventing a time machine and going back through the ages beating the likes of Louis, Ali, Johnson, Robinson, Greb, Monzon and Richard 'The Secret' Williams, would he be considered an all time great?

[loaded_gloves]

A lot will depend on your own Criteria and Interpretation .

Myself i believe both Klits should be considered ATG's
no point me trying to judge them against guys from the 60's or prior as all i know of them is what ive read.

Then, with the best will in the world, your belief that they are ATG's means little. You're going to have trouble watching Harry Greb, but go back to the 40's, and you can find plenty of complete fights from which to make a judgement. There's no reason why you SHOULD; it's fine to just watch boxing and enjoy it and assess people on where they rank right now, but if you want to make those sorts of judgements, you should go back and learn at least what's out there to learn. I learn all the time in the Boxers of the Past forum, where someone will challenge what I think is a well founded opinion, and refer me to a fight I haven't seen, or pick out things about a boxers performance that I hadn't considered.

Brilliant post, sums it all up.

[loaded_gloves]

the most telling was Manny's inability to get past Bradley and the fact he got chinned by a past his weight and past his prime Marquez.

You're holding Manny's easily beating Tim Bradley against him, simply because of some judging chicanery? That doesn't stand up.

The Marquez fight was a fishy one but whatever, to knock Manny with the Bradley fight seems nonsense.

[loaded_gloves]

If Wlad beats Povetkin, and 1 other serious challenger he's well in the conversation to be top 10.

Why is Povetkin a serious challenger?

He literally hasn't done anything at all.

Is he serious because the WBA supplied him a duplicate belt?

He has nothing at all to make him serious. Wlad hasn't beaten a serious opponent. The serious ones who fought him knocked him out.

[loaded_gloves]

They were both tested and they both failed.

Wlad had the chance to fight through fire and ended up a quivvering semi-conscious wreck on the canvas, several times.

i must of missed vitali quivering on the floor

He said "Wlad". Vitali failed when he fought Lewis.

Not only was Vitali falling apart versus Lewis, let's not forget he sat out three more rounds versus Chris Byrd. Most of his shots sailed over the first competent, clever, tough opponent he fought and Byrd was making him unconfortable the second half of the fight, backing him up. So he quit.

Still, they've both beaten several tons worth of fatties to secure their 'greatness' with people who 'only know what they've read of the 60s fighters'.

Brilliant.

[Deserter]

Byrd was making him unconfortable the second half of the fight, backing him up. So he quit. Brilliant.

That's probably the most incredibly biased interpretation of the Byrd fight I've ever read.

[loaded_gloves]

Riiight, I don't know my arse from my elbow, claims man trying to argue against reality.

The Guardian: "Timothy Bradley beats Manny Pacquiao with controversial split points decision"

ESPN: "Timothy Bradley promised to shock, though the biggest shock in his fight with Manny Pacquiao came from the judges' scorecards. In a fight Pacquiao seemed to have in hand, two judges decided otherwise, giving Bradley a split decision Saturday night and ending the Filipino fighter's remarkable seven-year unbeaten run."

Telegraph: Bob Arum wants investigation into Manny Pacquiao's controversial defeat to Timothy Bradley
Promoter Bob Arum has refused to even consider a rematch agreed between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley until there is an investigation into the scoring of Pacquiao's highly-controversial split-decision defeat

Mail: World's end for Pacquiao as Bradley wins controversial split decision in Las Vegas

BBC: Manny Pacquiao lost his WBO welterweight title to Timothy Bradley after a highly controversial split points decision in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Sun: Timothy Bradley left to defend himself after controversial victory

New York Times: Bradley (29-0) scored a stunning and controversial upset Saturday night over Manny Pacquiao (54-4-2), winning a split decision in the welterweight bout at the MGM Grand

Sorry world media, you are wrong, what you witnessed in person is actually inaccurate, please consult a man calling himself 'dead mouse' who understands the fight better than you ever will, watching a stream from his bedroom, and rewrite history accordingly.

[loaded_gloves]

A lot of backing away here, and clutching at straws. No surprise. You sound like you're hyperventilating as you type.

Boldly dismiss a fight as not controversial, insult the person who says it was, then try laugh off the rather damning evidence showing that the fight was indeed a world wide controversy.

Even you don't believe what you're writing, this is a non-debate.

[SamWise72]

(Incidentally, I do think there are several active fighters who should be considered ATGs, but the questions was top 10. I assume that's top 10 P4P all time. I don't see anyone currently active who gets that, though Pacquiao might be close if he'd beaten Floyd)

Manny doesn’t have a hope in hell of beating Floyd or making ATG status, he simply isn’t good enough.

Most people interested in this don't judge the fighters purely on what they would have done head to head, but on quality of opposition and legacy. Pacquiao's ascent through the weights has been unprecedented even in this age where it's common; if he had also beaten the other serious contender for the best P4P of the generation (and I accept that you think that impossible), then we would be able to make a case for being an absolute top tier ATG on a basis that nobody else could really match. It's a bit like Henry Armstrong; whether you think he could beat other top feathers/lights/welters is important, but equally, nobody else, ever has held even alphabet titles in all those divisions at once, still less THE title.

[stevedoc]

Riiight, I don't know my arse from my elbow, claims man trying to argue against reality.

The Guardian: "Timothy Bradley beats Manny Pacquiao with controversial split points decision"

ESPN: "Timothy Bradley promised to shock, though the biggest shock in his fight with Manny Pacquiao came from the judges' scorecards. In a fight Pacquiao seemed to have in hand, two judges decided otherwise, giving Bradley a split decision Saturday night and ending the Filipino fighter's remarkable seven-year unbeaten run."

Telegraph: Bob Arum wants investigation into Manny Pacquiao's controversial defeat to Timothy Bradley
Promoter Bob Arum has refused to even consider a rematch agreed between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley until there is an investigation into the scoring of Pacquiao's highly-controversial split-decision defeat

Mail: World's end for Pacquiao as Bradley wins controversial split decision in Las Vegas

BBC: Manny Pacquiao lost his WBO welterweight title to Timothy Bradley after a highly controversial split points decision in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Sun: Timothy Bradley left to defend himself after controversial victory

New York Times: Bradley (29-0) scored a stunning and controversial upset Saturday night over Manny Pacquiao (54-4-2), winning a split decision in the welterweight bout at the MGM Grand

Sorry world media, you are wrong, what you witnessed in person is actually inaccurate, please consult a man calling himself 'dead mouse' who understands the fight better than you ever will, watching a stream from his bedroom, and rewrite history accordingly.

this mouse bloke is a complete dickhead ,i wouldn't even bother trying to discuss anything thing with him i think it's a 14 year old kid just trying to troll inbetween wanking off over video's of one direction..

[loaded_gloves]

"I know Dan Flaxen personally"

Well, that's the end of that then.

Tim Bradley's win over Manny Pac wasn't a worldwide controversy that brought boxing into disrepute because, well, 'I know Dan Flaxen personally.'

Unreal.

[stevedoc]

"I know Dan Flaxen personally"

Well, that's the end of that then.

Tim Bradley's win over Manny Pac wasn't a worldwide controversy that brought boxing into disrepute because, well, 'I know Dan Flaxen personally.'

Unreal.

i can't believe how sad some people are ,why would any sane person troll the internet to start arguements with strangers .....what a loser he must be

[hurlock]

Martinez if he went up another weight & won a world title

[SamWise72]

(Incidentally, I do think there are several active fighters who should be considered ATGs, but the questions was top 10. I assume that's top 10 P4P all time. I don't see anyone currently active who gets that, though Pacquiao might be close if he'd beaten Floyd)

Manny doesn’t have a hope in hell of beating Floyd or making ATG status, he simply isn’t good enough.

Most people interested in this don't judge the fighters purely on what they would have done head to head, but on quality of opposition and legacy. Pacquiao's ascent through the weights has been unprecedented even in this age where it's common; if he had also beaten the other serious contender for the best P4P of the generation (and I accept that you think that impossible), then we would be able to make a case for being an absolute top tier ATG on a basis that nobody else could really match. It's a bit like Henry Armstrong; whether you think he could beat other top feathers/lights/welters is important, but equally, nobody else, ever has held even alphabet titles in all those divisions at once, still less THE title.

Manny’s move through the weights wouldn’t have guaranteed a top ten ATG place. The rise through the weights itself isn’t enough due to the proliferation of belts, he didn’t unify and fell short in two of those fights. His welterweight and light-middleweight reigns both saw him play second fiddle to Mayweather, who is head and shoulders above him at both weights. It’s all ifs and buts on the Manny side.

In the real world, his cramps and physical deterioration, for whatever reason, have seen him fall to the wayside in the race for Mayweather. Mayweather is taking on a huge guy, who people have cried out for him to meet, in Las Vegas whereas Manny is taking on a fat lightweight/light-welter in China to expand the boxing market there, in much the way United etc. play meaningless games over there to do the same thing.

It’s not like Armstrong’s case. It is more like SRL and Thomas Hearns, who both faced and defeated better opposition and are higher than Manny in ATG listings worth their salt. So that’s Armstrong, SRL and Hearns out-doing him in terms of moving through the weights, with an argument for Duran also. This means you have four guys who deserve to be ranked higher, and that’s before you even consider one division guys like Hagler and Ali etc.

Manny is fun to watch and all that, but there’s a reason he’s fun to watch and currently coming off two defeats, even if you’re one of those people who cry “Robbery” just because you can’t see how the cards could come out the way they did.[/quote]

It's not EXACTLY like Armstrong's case, but it is just as unprecedented as Armstrong's case. SRL didn't move anywhere near as far as Pacquiao, nor Hearns. Pac has gone up 10 divisions, whereas Leonard went up 5, and Hearns 6. I would agree that Pac hasn't faced the quality of opposition that those two faced, and he still wouldn't have if he beat Floyd, but the combination of that rise and beating Floyd, Morales and Marquez as well as the likes of Hatton and some of the other second tiers would be enough to make it a valid debate, IMO (and that IMO is very important).

I'm not crying robbery or anything else; Manny is 36. It would strengthen him if he had beaten Bradley, but Robinson, Leonard, Ali, Hearns all suffered late career defeats that didn't detract from what they'd already achieved. Do you hold Camacho against Leonard? Berbick and Holmes against Ali? Uriah Grant against Hearns (though Hearns was older)? What Pac DID achieve, combined with a win against Mayweather would, in my opinion, make it valid to include him in a debate about the top 10 all time, though frankly, I probably wouldn't put him in there even then.

[loaded_gloves]

So you've gone from saying Manny lost the fight to Manny did edge it, while also using expressions like "ass clown"?

At least we have Dead Mouse's intellectual level pegged now. Somewhere between YouTube and the school playground.