BoxRec

Exactly, a boxer from the 70s like Foreman could never compete in the modern era against modern Heavyweights.

King Carlos wrote:How is that a good list? Like you said, elite track and field athletes today are running 9.58, whereas Jesse Owens was running 10.3 seconds. Therefore, Danny Garcia>Ray Robinson in boxing.

no.

man wrote:

King Carlos wrote:How is that a good list? Like you said, elite track and field athletes today are running 9.58, whereas Jesse Owens was running 10.3 seconds. Therefore, Danny Garcia>Ray Robinson in boxing.

no.

Dude, they didn't even have computers then. Now we have super computers on our phones. Clearly the world has evolved.

Heavyweight - Ali
Cruiserweight - Holyfield
Super Middleweight - Roy Jones Jr.

I don't believe that I know enough about the others divisions to have a credible opinion.

Fury would beat Ali as he is too big for him

Any boxing list on it without may weather is not a real list

ikorolev wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

ikorolev wrote:There is no such thing as the "best ever". It is even more imaginary than best p4p.

You can't compare fighters from 70s with current boxers who are bigger and use better PED technologies.

sure you can compare them. they are bigger like you said more athletic and therefore better, simple.

ped wouldnt not make a prime mike tyson out of joe frazier. tyson > frazier

genetics become better over time, thats why elite 100 m sprinter were running 10-11 secondes back in the days and today 9:58

That's exactly why you can't compare them. When put in the ring, modern top boxers will almost always be better than boxers from 50th or 70th, so some kind of relativity needs to be introduced the same way as in p4p lists.

no.

p4p lists is ultimatly who the best is. and if over centurys boxers become better, than the p4p lists will have mostly new boxers in it, cause they the best. very simple.

mullenman wrote:Fury would beat Ali as he is too big for him

Any boxing list on it without may weather is not a real list

fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

but if we go p4p, meaning same height, same weight, that ali beats fury all the way, cause he is way more athletic, way more fast, way more skilled than fury.

therefore p4p ali > fury

also i dont like comparing heavyweights from today with those from back than, cause most top heavyweights from the past would be more cruiserweights than heavyweights compared to the tall big guys from today.

Chepppaaa wrote:

mullenman wrote:Fury would beat Ali as he is too big for him

Any boxing list on it without may weather is not a real list

fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

but if we go p4p, meaning same height, same weight, that ali beats fury all the way, cause he is way more athletic, way more fast, way more skilled than fury.

therefore p4p ali > fury

also i dont like comparing heavyweights from today with those from back than, cause most top heavyweights from the past would be more cruiserweights than heavyweights compared to the tall big guys from today.

Then you are talking mythical people. Someone that doesn't exist.

The comment was correct Fury would beat Ali. Size, reach etc.

This is the reason P4P lists only really make any sort of sense when comparing resume's. It's the only way you can make any sort of realistic judgement. Even then it is highly subjective.

Just because we have computers today and people are running a fraction of a second faster than Jesse Owens, I don't see how we get to Tyson Fury beating Ali and Danny Garcia beating Robinson. Quite a stretch.

My list...Considering what weight they did their best work at: (IMO)

HW - 1. Clay/Ali; 2. Louis; 3. Foreman

CW - 1. Holyfield; 2. DeLeon; 3. Haye

LHW - 1. Charles; 2. Moore; 3. Tunney

SMW - 1. RJJ; 2. Calzaghe; 3. Ward

MW - 1. Greb; 2. Monzon; 3. Hagler

LMW - 1. Hearns; 2. McCallum; 3. Norris

WW - 1. SRR; 2. SRL; 3. Langford

SLW - 1. Chavez; 2. Whitaker; 3. Ross

LW - 1. Armstrong; 2. Gans; 3. Duran

SFW - 1. Mayweather Jr.; 2. Arguello; 3. Pacquiao

FW - 1. Saddler; 2. Pep; 3. Sanchez

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

mullenman wrote:Fury would beat Ali as he is too big for him

Any boxing list on it without may weather is not a real list

fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

but if we go p4p, meaning same height, same weight, that ali beats fury all the way, cause he is way more athletic, way more fast, way more skilled than fury.

therefore p4p ali > fury

also i dont like comparing heavyweights from today with those from back than, cause most top heavyweights from the past would be more cruiserweights than heavyweights compared to the tall big guys from today.

Then you are talking mythical people. Someone that doesn't exist.

The comment was correct Fury would beat Ali. Size, reach etc.

This is the reason P4P lists only really make any sort of sense when comparing resume's. It's the only way you can make any sort of realistic judgement. Even then it is highly subjective.

p4p actualy makes sense.

cause when you are able to compare the 2 fighters, no matter who and only compare theirskills and what they can and what they cant do, than you get a prety good judgemant of who would win in a fight. is this 100 % certain, surely not, but like most things in life, nothing is realy 100 %....i am good with 70-90 %

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

but if we go p4p, meaning same height, same weight, that ali beats fury all the way, cause he is way more athletic, way more fast, way more skilled than fury.

therefore p4p ali > fury

also i dont like comparing heavyweights from today with those from back than, cause most top heavyweights from the past would be more cruiserweights than heavyweights compared to the tall big guys from today.

Then you are talking mythical people. Someone that doesn't exist.

The comment was correct Fury would beat Ali. Size, reach etc.

This is the reason P4P lists only really make any sort of sense when comparing resume's. It's the only way you can make any sort of realistic judgement. Even then it is highly subjective.

p4p actualy makes sense.

cause when you are able to compare the 2 fighters, no matter who and only compare theirskills and what they can and what they cant do, than you get a prety good judgemant of who would win in a fight. is this 100 % certain, surely not, but like most things in life, nothing is realy 100 %....i am good with 70-90 %

If someone is 6ft 4 and you make them 6ft 8 then the attributes they have at 6ft 4 don't equate to what they'd be at 6ft 8. It's a totally different person.

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Then you are talking mythical people. Someone that doesn't exist.

The comment was correct Fury would beat Ali. Size, reach etc.

This is the reason P4P lists only really make any sort of sense when comparing resume's. It's the only way you can make any sort of realistic judgement. Even then it is highly subjective.

p4p actualy makes sense.

cause when you are able to compare the 2 fighters, no matter who and only compare theirskills and what they can and what they cant do, than you get a prety good judgemant of who would win in a fight. is this 100 % certain, surely not, but like most things in life, nothing is realy 100 %....i am good with 70-90 %

If someone is 6ft 4 and you make them 6ft 8 then the attributes they have at 6ft 4 don't equate to what they'd be at 6ft 8. It's a totally different person.

its complicted....one word. fantasy. you'll have to adjust.

I agree athletes evolve, but boxing is just different. Boxing is the oldest modern sport except for wrestling.. Boxing is about much more than strength, size and speed. Boxing is more about technique and timing than it has to do with size and speed. Plus the gap of evolution is much smaller when it comes to comparing it to other sports because there are weight classes. A great fighter is a great fighter and would have been in any era. Fighting is just different and I don't buy that because other sports have evolved that boxing has evolved the same way at the same pace, boxing is a much older sport with a much richer history than other sports. There were guy like Charlie Burley, Ray Robinson, Pep etc.. that were using techniques that a lot of fighters don't use today and todays fighters would be much better if they used those techniques. I believe that their technique would be more beneficial to them than PEDs and modern training.. Those fighters were prepared to go 15 rounds, they were still in unbelievable shape.

NateJR wrote:I agree athletes evolve, but boxing is just different. Boxing is the oldest modern sport except for wrestling.. Boxing is about much more than strength, size and speed. Boxing is more about technique and timing than it has to do with size and speed. Plus the gap of evolution is much smaller when it comes to comparing it to other sports because there are weight classes. A great fighter is a great fighter and would have been in any era. Fighting is just different and I don't buy that because other sports have evolved that boxing has evolved the same way at the same pace, boxing is a much older sport with a much richer history than other sports. There were guy like Charlie Burley, Ray Robinson, Pep etc.. that were using techniques that a lot of fighters don't use and todays fighters would be much better if they used that techniques, all the PEDs in the world can't beat great technique when it comes to boxing.

you know why robinson is so damn great.

he was ahead of his time. he was as athletic or even more athletic than all the top elite boxers 1990+, but with old school technic, finest footwork etc. he isnt the second best boxer ever for no reason. canelo and pacquiao would get their ass kicked by him.

Chepppaaa wrote:

NateJR wrote:I agree athletes evolve, but boxing is just different. Boxing is the oldest modern sport except for wrestling.. Boxing is about much more than strength, size and speed. Boxing is more about technique and timing than it has to do with size and speed. Plus the gap of evolution is much smaller when it comes to comparing it to other sports because there are weight classes. A great fighter is a great fighter and would have been in any era. Fighting is just different and I don't buy that because other sports have evolved that boxing has evolved the same way at the same pace, boxing is a much older sport with a much richer history than other sports. There were guy like Charlie Burley, Ray Robinson, Pep etc.. that were using techniques that a lot of fighters don't use and todays fighters would be much better if they used that techniques, all the PEDs in the world can't beat great technique when it comes to boxing.

you know why robinson is so damn great.

he was ahead of his time. he was as athletic or even more athletic than all the top elite boxers 1990+, but with old school technic, finest footwork etc. he isnt the second best boxer ever for no reason. canelo and pacquiao would get their ass kicked by him.

Yet he was beaten not once, not twice, not five, not ten times but 19 times. He weren't as great as people make him out to be quite clearly.

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

NateJR wrote:I agree athletes evolve, but boxing is just different. Boxing is the oldest modern sport except for wrestling.. Boxing is about much more than strength, size and speed. Boxing is more about technique and timing than it has to do with size and speed. Plus the gap of evolution is much smaller when it comes to comparing it to other sports because there are weight classes. A great fighter is a great fighter and would have been in any era. Fighting is just different and I don't buy that because other sports have evolved that boxing has evolved the same way at the same pace, boxing is a much older sport with a much richer history than other sports. There were guy like Charlie Burley, Ray Robinson, Pep etc.. that were using techniques that a lot of fighters don't use and todays fighters would be much better if they used that techniques, all the PEDs in the world can't beat great technique when it comes to boxing.

you know why robinson is so damn great.

he was ahead of his time. he was as athletic or even more athletic than all the top elite boxers 1990+, but with old school technic, finest footwork etc. he isnt the second best boxer ever for no reason. canelo and pacquiao would get their ass kicked by him.

Yet he was beaten not once, not twice, not five, not ten times but 19 times. He weren't as great as people make him out to be quite clearly.

during his younger years and prime he was something around 128 wins 1 losses 2 draws

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

you know why robinson is so damn great.

he was ahead of his time. he was as athletic or even more athletic than all the top elite boxers 1990+, but with old school technic, finest footwork etc. he isnt the second best boxer ever for no reason. canelo and pacquiao would get their ass kicked by him.

Yet he was beaten not once, not twice, not five, not ten times but 19 times. He weren't as great as people make him out to be quite clearly.

during his younger years and prime he was something around 100 wins 2 losses

Plus 6 draws.

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Yet he was beaten not once, not twice, not five, not ten times but 19 times. He weren't as great as people make him out to be quite clearly.

during his younger years and prime he was something around 100 wins 2 losses

Plus 6 draws.

no 2

in 51 his record was 128 1 2

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

during his younger years and prime he was something around 100 wins 2 losses

Plus 6 draws.

no 2

19 defeats, 6 draws, which means he failed to win 1 in every 7 fights. - FACT however you try to interpret it.

Ian1973 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Plus 6 draws.

no 2

19 defeats, 6 draws, which means he failed to win 1 in every 7 fights. - FACT however you try to interpret it.

during his younger years and prime he was 128 1 2

overall 173 19 6

so he is no good because he lost often when he was older and out of his prime, so in your logic roy jones jr isnt good, cause he had a lot of losses, also after his prime.

King Carlos wrote:

man wrote:

King Carlos wrote:How is that a good list? Like you said, elite track and field athletes today are running 9.58, whereas Jesse Owens was running 10.3 seconds. Therefore, Danny Garcia>Ray Robinson in boxing.

no.

Dude, they didn't even have computers then. Now we have super computers on our phones. Clearly the world has evolved.

danny garcia can have twelve iPhones
and sugar ray will still find the number
of each.

Chepppaaa wrote:fury would beat ali in terms of size etc.

there are many ways in which fury
beats ali. boxing is not among them.

It is a stupid question due to professionalism. .

Ronaldo and Messi are three leagues different than Pele and Maradona. .

It's a debate that has no answer

mullenman wrote:It is a stupid question due to professionalism. .

Ronaldo and Messi are three leagues different than Pele and Maradona. .

It's a debate that has no answer

it has 1 answer.

ronaldo and messi are better than pele and maradona.