What does it take to be #1 ATG?

[Counter-puncher]

did they have peds back then

peds deffo make ppl better

kalan is absolutely confident that Anthony Joshua has never done PED's.

[oogiebe]

Beterbiev's only accomplishments are wins over Cloud and Campillo; he is a total nothing compared to someone like Bobo Olson, who has wins over multiple hall of famers.

The entire reason there is so much disagreement about whether modern fighters deserve #1 all-time status is because some people have no idea how pathetically the resumes of modern fighters like Beterbiev stack-up to the resumes of Robinson's opponents. They just don't understand how super gigantic the gulf is.

Bobo Olsen had no strength and couldn't defend himself well... He got knocked out a lot and knocked out badly... To compare a guy so easy to hit and KO to Beterbiev who has a tremendous chin, defense, and punching power is idiotic..

yeah, really dumb comparison...

kindof like comparing someone like Chris Eubank Jr with the likes of Eder Jofre, Salvador Sanchez and Floyd Mayweather..

Some of the smartest boxers up until the present day: Vasyl Lomachenko, Gene Tunney, Jack Johnson, Salvador Sanchez, Vitali Klitschko, Anthony Joshua, Floyd Mayweather, Gennady Golovkin, Joe Gans, Keith Thurman, Chris Eubank Jr, Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Gary Russell, Jack Blackburn, Willie Pep, Ricardo Lopez, Eder Jofre, Tommy Loughran, Mike Gibbons, David Haye, Jim Corbett, Juan Manuel Marquez, Gustav Scholz, and Max Schmeling

what kind of schmuck would make a comparison like that, eh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes!!!!

[Deleted_Scenes]

IT's true, but this thread is truly opinion. Only ONE person in the forum will crap on this. Guess who? lol! Past generations can't compete with today's athletes in any sport in reality, with few exceptions.

True, but if SRR was fighting today, he'd have access to all of today's science and training methods.

In terms of skill, I'm not sure boxing has moved that far since WW2. Early 20th century, of course the sport was a lot more primitive, but I'd say certain areas like footwork have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

Boxers today just don't fight often enough to learn certain nuances to quite as high a level. That's offset by being more athletic/explosive (although cutting too much can undo a lot of that too).

Anyway, didn't Robinson beat something like 14 fellow hall of famers? That's crazy.

What even are these new training methods that are so advantageous?

I've never seen anyone talking about them actually explain what better stuff they are doing.

Mostly just advances in sports science and nutrition. Things like heart rate, lactate and CO2 monitoring, and even DNA profiling to identify genetic makeup and strengths and weaknesses so that workouts can be tailored to individual athletes for the best results and shortest recovery times. Then nutritional content of meals is precisely calculated based on what that specific athlete needs.

Obviously, sparring is still sparring, and running is still running etc, but exactly how much of what exercise, how long for, and what intensity is what's changed, because today it's possible to know what to do so nothing is wasted.

[BitPlayer]

True, but if SRR was fighting today, he'd have access to all of today's science and training methods.

In terms of skill, I'm not sure boxing has moved that far since WW2. Early 20th century, of course the sport was a lot more primitive, but I'd say certain areas like footwork have actually regressed in the last 30 years.

Boxers today just don't fight often enough to learn certain nuances to quite as high a level. That's offset by being more athletic/explosive (although cutting too much can undo a lot of that too).

Anyway, didn't Robinson beat something like 14 fellow hall of famers? That's crazy.

What even are these new training methods that are so advantageous?

I've never seen anyone talking about them actually explain what better stuff they are doing.

Mostly just advances in sports science and nutrition. Things like heart rate, lactate and CO2 monitoring, and even DNA profiling to identify genetic makeup and strengths and weaknesses so that workouts can be tailored to individual athletes for the best results and shortest recovery times. Then nutritional content of meals is precisely calculated based on what that specific athlete needs.

Obviously, sparring is still sparring, and running is still running etc, but exactly how much of what exercise, how long for, and what intensity is what's changed, because today it's possible to know what to do so nothing is wasted.

I'm pretty doubtfull they seriously do nearly any of this stuff

Heart rate monitoring isn't that good, it's cardiac output that really matters, and heart rate is only part of that, if you have a decent bit of training experience your often better just to do it by feeling. I don't think they are getting blood tests mid training session to measure lactate, and even CO2 monitoring is pretty impractical unless you are just on a treadmill or something. DNA profiling at this level is really just entertainment, the results are pretty meaningless, and it doesn't matter anyway, if your weakness is stamina, because of life history then you should work on stamina, no matter what your DNA predisposition is.

The nutrional content is pretty much guessed it isn't that acurate, think about it, how accurately can it really be measured? And when tons utterly blow up in weight between fights, how much do you really think they stick to these carefully measured out meals?

[BitPlayer]

i agree, which is why i think a lot of the atg stuff is unfair and comes down too heavily to differences in the business of the sport these days

The sport itself, the fans, the methods of delivery have all changed drastically. Sugar Ray Robinson lost almost 10% of his fights. If a guy loses a round today he's been totally exposed as a complete bum who doesn't deserve a paycheck.

Pacquiao lost over 10% of his fights
James Toney lost over 11% of his fights
Roy Jones Jr lost 12% of his fights
Bernard Hopkins lost over 12% of his fights
Oscar De La Hoya lost over 15% of his fights

By whats known, SRR went 40-0, then went 129-1-2 and was 140-4-2 when he was 35, you can't include a load of late carreer losses when comparing a past fighter to a guy in his prime or up and coming

[BitPlayer]

did they have peds back then

peds deffo make ppl better

I'm not willing to rate someone as better because they and thier opponents probably took more PEDs. Taking PEDs isn't an achievement.

[jamamb]

lol wut

duh its not itself an achievement just to put peds in your body, but they can hugely improve performance and are deffo an advantage someone has over someone not using, like it or not. they are very good at translating into greater in ring achievement and performance

was someone saying training or nutrition itself needs to be rated as an achievement

[punchoutsb]

i agree, which is why i think a lot of the atg stuff is unfair and comes down too heavily to differences in the business of the sport these days

The sport itself, the fans, the methods of delivery have all changed drastically. Sugar Ray Robinson lost almost 10% of his fights. If a guy loses a round today he's been totally exposed as a complete bum who doesn't deserve a paycheck.

Pacquiao lost over 10% of his fights
James Toney lost over 11% of his fights
Roy Jones Jr lost 12% of his fights
Bernard Hopkins lost over 12% of his fights
Oscar De La Hoya lost over 15% of his fights

By whats known, SRR went 40-0, then went 129-1-2 and was 140-4-2 when he was 35, you can't include a load of late carreer losses when comparing a past fighter to a guy in his prime or up and coming

I haven't seen Pac, Toney, RJJ, BHop, or ODLH referred to as the greatest of all time.

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

[BitPlayer]

lol wut

duh its not itself an achievement just to put peds in your body, but they can hugely improve performance and are deffo an advantage someone has over someone not using, like it or not. they are very good at translating into greater in ring achievement and performance

was someone saying training or nutrition itself needs to be rated as an achievement

You'd all this improvement would be impossible to ignore, I honestly haven't seen it.

It's just that we think they take a lot more shit now, so head to head they would win, if true, that doesn't make me rate them as any better, it doesn't impress me. It's maybe just an aesthetic judgement, but it's one I have no hesitation making.

But anyway PEDs don't turn you into superman, they're really good for piling on muscle, but there are weight divisions, so only really heavyweights matter for that, and there's a good case that just a ton of muscle isn't as helpful as one might think. Certain ones can help with recovery from sessions, and your CV system (like EPO), but honestly I think the lack of athletic foundation most people have now cancels them out.

[jamamb]

ya, um, peds can do a lot lot more then just help build muscle. they have all sorts of proven performance benefits, which is probably why there so massively wide spread and abundant. all these ped fiascos at the highest levels dont happen for nothing.

and no one said peds make everyone a superman, but to discount the benefits they can predicatbly have is stupid.

[BitPlayer]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

I get what you are saying and pretty much agree there, it's kinda self furfilling too, because people get easilly matched when losses occur they are more meaningfull, and boxers just don't or can't attempt a lot of stuff that what done in the past. But SRR was a bad example, dude was barely beaten for ages.

[oogiebe]

ya, um, peds can do a lot lot more then just help build muscle. they have all sorts of proven performance benefits, which is probably why there so massively wide spread and abundant. all these ped fiascos at the highest levels dont happen for nothing.

and no one said peds make everyone a superman, but to discount the benefits they can predicatbly have is stupid.

THe recuperative effects are the biggest benefit...Remember Aaron Pryer v. Arguello.?

[BitPlayer]

ya, um, peds can do a lot lot more then just help build muscle. they have all sorts of proven performance benefits, which is probably why there so massively wide spread and abundant. all these ped fiascos at the highest levels dont happen for nothing.

and no one said peds make everyone a superman, but to discount the benefits they can predicatbly have is stupid.

I talked about their other benefits. But outside of muscle gain they aren't as powerfull as people think, and I think a lot is cancelled by lower levels of athletic foundations and dedication anyway. And boxing is much more about skill, intelligence and reflexes, none of which PEDs really help

People look at all these records being broken, but a lot of it is just better equipment, and a lot of the people breaking them aren't westerners either.

Like I said if they are making people so much better, why can't we see it?

[ewenhay]

If the best won't fight the best then they can't be considered the best.

Plenty of wins over those considered world class in your era get you ranked highly in any ATG list.

Defending your IBO title once a year against the 10th or 15th ranked opponents won't get you ranked highly.

There are a few fighters from the last decade which history will be kind to, just like there were a few in most of the past decades.

[oogiebe]

If the best won't fight the best then they can't be considered the best.

Plenty of wins over those considered world class in your era get you ranked highly in any ATG list.

Defending your IBO title once a year against the 10th or 15th ranked opponents won't get you ranked highly.

There are a few fighters from the last decade which history will be kind to, just like there were a few in most of the past decades.

Amen brother!

[BitPlayer]

Here are some examples of a day in the life of Fitz and Dempsey

Bob Fitzsimmons
6.30am - Rises, bathes, dresses.
7.00 - Sherry and egg
7.05 to 8.15 - Rides on bicycle (15 Miles)
8.15 - Breakfast
9.30 - Goes 15 miles afoot
11.30 - Has rubdown and rests
1.00pm - Dinner
3.00 - Works in gymnasium
5.00 - Showerbath and rubdown
6.00 - Supper
8.00,9.00,10.00,11.00 - Bed

Jack Dempsey
“Day after day I trained, up at six, then seven to ten miles of jogging followed by a hot and cold shower and a rubdown until breakfast, which consisted of meat and vegetables. After breakfast, a quick nap and then off again, sprinting a few miles. My typical afternoon consisted of exercise and sparring, which could be watched by anyone willing to shell out two bits. Afterwards, more sprinting until dinner. At night everyone settled down to chewing the fat or playing gin rummy. No drugs, no drinks and no women were allowed on camp grounds. Those were the rules.”


I'm not sure that, with the extra recovery from PEDs, current boxers are in general training harder.

[oogiebe]

Here are some examples of a day in the life of Fitz and Dempsey

Bob Fitzsimmons
6.30am - Rises, bathes, dresses.
7.00 - Sherry and egg
7.05 to 8.15 - Rides on bicycle (15 Miles)
8.15 - Breakfast
9.30 - Goes 15 miles afoot
11.30 - Has rubdown and rests
1.00pm - Dinner
3.00 - Works in gymnasium
5.00 - Showerbath and rubdown
6.00 - Supper
8.00,9.00,10.00,11.00 - Bed

Jack Dempsey
“Day after day I trained, up at six, then seven to ten miles of jogging followed by a hot and cold shower and a rubdown until breakfast, which consisted of meat and vegetables. After breakfast, a quick nap and then off again, sprinting a few miles. My typical afternoon consisted of exercise and sparring, which could be watched by anyone willing to shell out two bits. Afterwards, more sprinting until dinner. At night everyone settled down to chewing the fat or playing gin rummy. No drugs, no drinks and no women were allowed on camp grounds. Those were the rules.”


I'm not sure that, with the extra recovery from PEDs, current boxers are in general training harder.

I don't think ANYONE said they train harder...IMO, there are so many more high-tech approaches that are so much more efficient. I believe the old timers worked harder, just not necessarily smarter..."women weaken legs!" Box on!

[BitPlayer]

I don't think ANYONE said they train harder...IMO, there are so many more high-tech approaches that are so much more efficient. I believe the old timers worked harder, just not necessarily smarter..."women weaken legs!" Box on!

Well a few said PEDs mostly helped recovery, so if that's why modern guys are better they must be, else they aren't doing a lot or only compensating for thier recovery being worse than what the old guys could handle.

I get why people think people now have all this clever scientific training, but I'm really not convinced. And I think a lot of the time when they make use fancy tech it's mostly for show.

A lot of high level athletes training is actually surprisingly bad, but they are so talented it matters a lot less. They are already predisposed to the right qualities.

[punchoutsb]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

I get what you are saying and pretty much agree there, it's kinda self furfilling too, because people get easilly matched when losses occur they are more meaningfull, and boxers just don't or can't attempt a lot of stuff that what done in the past. But SRR was a bad example, dude was barely beaten for ages.

I get that, I only used SRR since he is widely considered the greatest. I could have used Greb, Pep, Armstrong, Langford, etc. Any fighter remotely close to ATG status lost, and often lost a lot in comparison to modern fighters. Even out of prime, all fights are considered. Fans today are much less forgiving being so quick to yell "EXPOSED" the minute a fighter loses...or doesn't win as dominantly as the fan expected. And that point was tied in to the changed landscape of boxing where fighters fight so much less. It's going to be VERY hard for a modern fighter to ever be considered the greatest since they will never build up the volume of impressive wins do to changes in the business of boxing, and the amount of time that needs to pass before a fighter is really appreciated.

[oogiebe]

I don't think ANYONE said they train harder...IMO, there are so many more high-tech approaches that are so much more efficient. I believe the old timers worked harder, just not necessarily smarter..."women weaken legs!" Box on!

Well a few said PEDs mostly helped recovery, so if that's why modern guys are better they must be, else they aren't doing a lot or only compensating for thier recovery being worse than what the old guys could handle.

I get why people think people now have all this clever scientific training, but I'm really not convinced. And I think a lot of the time when they make use fancy tech it's mostly for show.

A lot of high level athletes training is actually surprisingly bad, but they are so talented it matters a lot less. They are already predisposed to the right qualities.

You may be right...The high tech folks created an amazing revenue stream in today's sports. When I work out, I swear that I get an overall better result from free-weights then machines no matter what. Today's PED users make an ordinary fighter more competitive. PED's do help recovery. In muscle recovery as well as ability to recover from injuries and of course being hurt in a fight. Ever notice how great fighters go back to basics when they lose? So I say again...you just may be right.

[Lackeos]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

The only past vs present factor that is holding back present day fighters from proving their all-time merit is the lack of ATG opposition to make their name against. Provided that a particular fighter is capable of beating Roberto Duran, they won't be able to get a win against Roberto Duran if there doesn't exist a Roberto Duran in the current era.

In Mayweather's case, he didn't really have a lot of opponents he could have fought who were top 50 all-time (and in their prime). He did fight Pacquiao, he did beat Pacuquiao, but people found the win a lot less impressive than it could have been because he beat the 2015 version of Pacquiao, who was more lackluster than the 2009 version of Pacquiao. See, if Mayweather was concerned about his place in history (he wasn't), he could have fought Pacquiao in 2009, and rematched him in 2010. That would have solved his dilemma of not having a good enough opponent to make his legacy against.

In the past, boxing matchmaking was like a Super Six all year round, every year. If there was a Super Six in every division, and a particular welterweight beat the winner of the WW Super 6, the winner of the LMW Super 6, and the winner of the MW Super 6; he'd be on the fast track to a top 50 all-time ranking. But in the present day, you'd have to move planets to get all of those fighters to agree to that. In the past, the best just automatically fought the best; you didn't have to convince them.

[oogiebe]

My point is, fans are much harsher these days in regards to win loss records and the lack of total contests makes it harder for a modern fighter to reach the sheer volume necessary to be an ATG.

You don't need volume. If Sugar Ray Leonard only beat Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler; then retired 4-0, I would rate him higher than Julio Cesar Chavez.

The only past vs present factor that is holding back present day fighters from proving their all-time merit is the lack of ATG opposition to make their name against. Provided that a particular fighter is capable of beating Roberto Duran, they won't be able to get a win against Roberto Duran if there doesn't exist a Roberto Duran in the current era.

In Mayweather's case, he didn't really have a lot of opponents he could have fought who were top 50 all-time (and in their prime). He did fight Pacquiao, he did beat Pacuquiao, but people found the win a lot less impressive than it could have been because he beat the 2015 version of Pacquiao, who was more lackluster than the 2009 version of Pacquiao. See, if Mayweather was concerned about his place in history (he wasn't), he could have fought Pacquiao in 2009, and rematched him in 2010. That would have solved his dilemma of not having a good enough opponent to make his legacy against.

In the past, boxing matchmaking was like a Super Six all year round, every year. If there was a Super Six in every division, and a particular welterweight beat the winner of the WW Super 6, the winner of the LMW Super 6, and the winner of the MW Super 6; he'd be on the fast track to a top 50 all-time ranking. But in the present day, you'd have to move planets to get all of those fighters to agree to that. In the past, the best just automatically fought the best; you didn't have to convince them.

Outstanding. Every Ali needs his Frazier.

[Lackeos]

Bobo Olsen had no strength and couldn't defend himself well... He got knocked out a lot and knocked out badly... To compare a guy so easy to hit and KO to Beterbiev who has a tremendous chin, defense, and punching power is idiotic.. Bobo was a waif with limpy soft arms and no power... His KO ratio was 40%... Beterbiev's is 100%.

Uh... in his prime, Bobo Olson was only ever knocked out by Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore; both of whom are top 5 p4p all-time, and both of whom have over 100 KO's each. Beterbiev has never fought anyone in the top 5,000 p4p all-time.

It's funny when the only thing you have to criticize a fighter on is fights that he won and knocked his opponent out.... And you call him a total nothing... When you see how easy Robinson was to hit and knockdown... and how badly hurt he was a few times, you can understand why he suffered as he did from the sport.

Or the thing I have to criticize him on (aside from being nowhere close to all-time greatness ability-wise) is the fact that he's never fought anyone good. Literally every boxer, when they make their debut, is undefeated and has no good wins. That's where Beterbiev is right now. Being undefeated doesn't mean sh*t. Darryl Edmund Kho is undefeated. QING CUI is undefeated. Lonnie Hill is undefeated. You don't get regarded as #1 all-time by being undefeated and beating nobody.

[jamamb]

Bobo Olsen had no strength and couldn't defend himself well... He got knocked out a lot and knocked out badly... To compare a guy so easy to hit and KO to Beterbiev who has a tremendous chin, defense, and punching power is idiotic.. Bobo was a waif with limpy soft arms and no power... His KO ratio was 40%... Beterbiev's is 100%.

Uh... in his prime, Bobo Olson was only ever knocked out by Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore; both of whom are top 5 p4p all-time, and both of whom have over 100 KO's each. Beterbiev has never fought anyone in the top 5,000 p4p all-time.

It's funny when the only thing you have to criticize a fighter on is fights that he won and knocked his opponent out.... And you call him a total nothing... When you see how easy Robinson was to hit and knockdown... and how badly hurt he was a few times, you can understand why he suffered as he did from the sport.

Or the thing I have to criticize him on (aside from being nowhere close to all-time greatness ability-wise) is the fact that he's never fought anyone good. Literally every boxer, when they make their debut, is undefeated and has no good wins. That's where Beterbiev is right now. Being undefeated doesn't mean sh*t. Darryl Edmund Kho is undefeated. QING CUI is undefeated. Lonnie Hill is undefeated. You don't get regarded as #1 all-time by being undefeated and beating nobody.

do you think it would be fair to rank pac #1 with this

-retires 70-0
-won all his fights clearly
-started at 106, won world titles in every division from 112 to 168
-beat everyone hes actually faced (floyd, jmm, cotto, etc) plus wins over andre ward (for 168 title), golovkin (160 title) lara-hurd winner, spence,+crawford+thurman (taking all there 0s), mikey garcia, lomachenko, naseem hamed,

[oogiebe]

Bobo Olsen had no strength and couldn't defend himself well... He got knocked out a lot and knocked out badly... To compare a guy so easy to hit and KO to Beterbiev who has a tremendous chin, defense, and punching power is idiotic.. Bobo was a waif with limpy soft arms and no power... His KO ratio was 40%... Beterbiev's is 100%.

Uh... in his prime, Bobo Olson was only ever knocked out by Sugar Ray Robinson and Archie Moore; both of whom are top 5 p4p all-time, and both of whom have over 100 KO's each. Beterbiev has never fought anyone in the top 5,000 p4p all-time.

It's funny when the only thing you have to criticize a fighter on is fights that he won and knocked his opponent out.... And you call him a total nothing... When you see how easy Robinson was to hit and knockdown... and how badly hurt he was a few times, you can understand why he suffered as he did from the sport.

Or the thing I have to criticize him on (aside from being nowhere close to all-time greatness ability-wise) is the fact that he's never fought anyone good. Literally every boxer, when they make their debut, is undefeated and has no good wins. That's where Beterbiev is right now. Being undefeated doesn't mean sh*t. Darryl Edmund Kho is undefeated. QING CUI is undefeated. Lonnie Hill is undefeated. You don't get regarded as #1 all-time by being undefeated and beating nobody.

do you think it would be fair to rank pac #1 with this

-retires 70-0
-won all his fights clearly
-started at 106, won world titles in every division from 112 to 168
-beat everyone hes actually faced (floyd, jmm, cotto, etc) plus wins over andre ward (for 168 title), golovkin (160 title) lara-hurd winner, spence,+crawford+thurman (taking all there 0s), mikey garcia, lomachenko, naseem hamed,

LMFAO!!! um...maybe...