BoxRec

gilgamesh wrote: No Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler or Harry Greb but Michael Nunn is in there?

DAMNED RIGHT!!! Nunn at his peak was a damned good boxer and puncher and great Middleweight. I certainly thought he beat Graciano Rocchigiani in Germany which would have won him a Light Heavyweight Title.. Nunn was 36-0, #1 P4P and dominating James Toney on the scorecards - but was rapidly running out of gas and got nailed late. Nunn just couldn't make 160 comfortably anymore and he moved up in his next fight. Of Nunn's other 3 losses 2 were split decisions that I believe he won. The Liles fight was close.

Nunn's record in Middleweight Title Defenses is 5-1... Ray Robinson's record in Middleweight Title Defenses is 3-3.. SRR also lost to Ralph Jones who was coming off 5 straight losses.. SRR looked super hittable losing to Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, and Carmen Basilio - Nunn would have beaten SRR easily. Ray never fought a 6'2" super slick southpaw like Nunn who can punch your lights out. Hagler never fought ANY natural Middleweight close to James Toney in skills, toughness, and power. Hagler lost to a Welterweight Leonard who was coming off of a 3-year-layoff. But Leonard REFUSED to fight Michael Nunn. Ray just wouldn't do it. Harry Greb would have been my # 11, but he was a weak hitter with a very low KO ratio. A very tricky, busy, and clever Middleweight though.

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote: No Sugar Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler or Harry Greb but Michael Nunn is in there?

DAMNED RIGHT!!! Nunn at his peak was a damned good boxer and puncher and great Middleweight. I certainly thought he beat Graciano Rocchigiani in Germany which would have won him a Light Heavyweight Title.. Nunn was 36-0, #1 P4P and dominating James Toney on the scorecards - but was rapidly running out of gas and got nailed late. Nunn just couldn't make 160 comfortably anymore and he moved up in his next fight. Of Nunn's other 3 losses 2 were split decisions that I believe he won. The Liles fight was close.

Nunn's record in Middleweight Title Defenses is 5-1... Ray Robinson's record in Middleweight Title Defenses is 3-3.. SRR also lost to Ralph Jones who was coming off 5 straight losses.. SRR looked super hittable losing to Randy Turpin, Gene Fullmer, and Carmen Basilio - Nunn would have beaten SRR easily. Ray never fought a 6'2" super slick southpaw like Nunn who can punch your lights out. Hagler never fought ANY natural Middleweight close to James Toney in skills, toughness, and power. Hagler lost to a Welterweight Leonard who was coming off of a 3-year-layoff. But Leonard REFUSED to fight Michael Nunn. Ray just wouldn't do it. Harry Greb would have been my # 11, but he was a weak hitter with a very low KO ratio. A very tricky, busy, and clever Middleweight though.

Nunn's not even Top 20 at Middleweight all time. I grant you he was a very skilled talent and at his peak looked very good, but there are some many Middleweights with superior resumes it's crazy to have him among the best ever at that weight.

Harry Greb is the #1 Middleweight of all time to me. Knockout power isn't a necessity to be a great fighter. Beating other great fighters is.

gilgamesh wrote: Nunn's not even Top 20 at Middleweight all time. I grant you he was a very skilled talent and at his peak looked very good, but there are some many Middleweights with superior resumes it's crazy to have him among the best ever at that weight. Harry Greb is the #1 Middleweight of all time to me. Knockout power isn't a necessity to be a great fighter. Beating other great fighters is.

Greb was a very great fighter so I could have notched him higher... Nunn was easily Top-10... "Resumes are the product of prejudicial thinking. His record as a Middleweight was 36-1 losing only to James Toney who he was beating handily on the cards when he got nailed for his only KO loss. Nunn would have a better looking resume if Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler agreed to fight him. They didn't because they didn't want their asses kicked.. I go by skills.. How good were his stance and footwork?? How masterful were his jab and other weapons? How good were his counters? How good were his smarts, feinting, connect percentage, and accuracy. How elusive was he? What percentage of his opponents punches landed?

world ranked wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

crusader wrote:1. Hopkins
2. GGG
3. Taylor
4. Martinez
5. Pavlik
6. Abraham

That looks about right.

Taylor lost to the two guys below him in 3 fights and two by KO

My bad.

Kalan wrote:1. GGG.. 2. Hopkins.. 3 Martinez..4 Pavlik.. 5 Abraham..6 Taylor

Historically -- 1. Gennady Golovkin.. 2. Carlos Monzon.. 3. Bernard Hopkins.. 4. Roy Jones.. 5. James Toney.. 6. Mike McCallum.. 7. Michael Nunn.. 8. Mike Gibbons.. 9. Stanley Ketchel.. 10. Mickey Walker

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Kalan wrote:1. GGG.. 2. Hopkins.. 3 Martinez..4 Pavlik.. 5 Abraham..6 Taylor

Historically -- 1. Gennady Golovkin.. 2. Carlos Monzon.. 3. Bernard Hopkins.. 4. Roy Jones.. 5. James Toney.. 6. Mike McCallum.. 7. Michael Nunn.. 8. Mike Gibbons.. 9. Stanley Ketchel.. 10. Mickey Walker

Is that all you got as an argument ?

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Kalan wrote:1. GGG.. 2. Hopkins.. 3 Martinez..4 Pavlik.. 5 Abraham..6 Taylor

Historically -- 1. Gennady Golovkin.. 2. Carlos Monzon.. 3. Bernard Hopkins.. 4. Roy Jones.. 5. James Toney.. 6. Mike McCallum.. 7. Michael Nunn.. 8. Mike Gibbons.. 9. Stanley Ketchel.. 10. Mickey Walker

Is that all you got as an argument ?

That's all anybody needs. That list is completely ridiculous.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Kalan wrote:1. GGG.. 2. Hopkins.. 3 Martinez..4 Pavlik.. 5 Abraham..6 Taylor

Historically -- 1. Gennady Golovkin.. 2. Carlos Monzon.. 3. Bernard Hopkins.. 4. Roy Jones.. 5. James Toney.. 6. Mike McCallum.. 7. Michael Nunn.. 8. Mike Gibbons.. 9. Stanley Ketchel.. 10. Mickey Walker

Is that all you got as an argument ?

No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Is that all you got as an argument ?

No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
Is that all you got as an argument ?

No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

That is your opinion supported by quite a few others, but it doesn't mean that it is correct or you can call another poster not knowledgeable because he has an opposite opinion. Boxers from more than 30 years ago just seem very good but if put in the ring with likes of Golovkin, would be thoroughly defeated. The same way Brazil 3-time world championship team from 60s-70s would be destroyed by current top teams. In all sports having objective criteria like time, length, height, athletes from 30 years ago are nowhere close to current ones.

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

That is your opinion supported by quite a few others, but it doesn't mean that it is correct or you can call another poster not knowledgeable because he has an opposite opinion. Boxers from more than 30 years ago just seem very good but if put in the ring with likes of Golovkin, would be thoroughly defeated. The same way Brazil 3-time world championship team from 60s-70s would be destroyed by current top teams. In all sports having objective criteria like time, length, height, athletes from 30 years ago are nowhere close to current ones.

I do think GGG would be able to compete with just about any Middleweight that ever lived, but I certainly don't think he'd beat 'em all, and even if I did think he'd beat 'em all. Basing your all time list of great fighters on how good you THINK a guy would do rather than on what he's actually done is a really bad idea.

By that logic you could have Deontay Wilder as the #1 all time Heavyweight because he's got a really good looking record, and has knocked out most of his opponents. I mean sure he's only actually beaten One Top 10 contender, but hey he's a modern day Boxer and therefore he's automatically better than the guys from 30 or 40 years ago right?

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

That is your opinion supported by quite a few others, but it doesn't mean that it is correct or you can call another poster not knowledgeable because he has an opposite opinion. Boxers from more than 30 years ago just seem very good but if put in the ring with likes of Golovkin, would be thoroughly defeated. The same way Brazil 3-time world championship team from 60s-70s would be destroyed by current top teams. In all sports having objective criteria like time, length, height, athletes from 30 years ago are nowhere close to current ones.

I do think GGG would be able to compete with just about any Middleweight that ever lived, but I certainly don't think he'd beat 'em all, and even if I did think he'd beat 'em all. Basing your all time list of great fighters on how good you THINK a guy would do rather than on what he's actually done is a really bad idea.

By that logic you could have Deontay Wilder as the #1 all time Heavyweight because he's got a really good looking record, and has knocked out most of his opponents. I mean sure he's only actually beaten One Top 10 contender, but hey he's a modern day Boxer and therefore he's automatically better than the guys from 30 or 40 years ago right?

I am not basing on record at all, just on conditioning and skills. Pele is often called the best soccer player ever, even though he wouldn't look as good against current best defenders. What is being meant is that he is the best ever relative to his time. The same with old time boxers. They were outstanding for their time, in some cases more outstanding than current top boxers, but it is RELATIVE TO TIME. If put in the ring with Golovkin, Mayweather, Ward, etc. they would lose.

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
That is your opinion supported by quite a few others, but it doesn't mean that it is correct or you can call another poster not knowledgeable because he has an opposite opinion. Boxers from more than 30 years ago just seem very good but if put in the ring with likes of Golovkin, would be thoroughly defeated. The same way Brazil 3-time world championship team from 60s-70s would be destroyed by current top teams. In all sports having objective criteria like time, length, height, athletes from 30 years ago are nowhere close to current ones.

I do think GGG would be able to compete with just about any Middleweight that ever lived, but I certainly don't think he'd beat 'em all, and even if I did think he'd beat 'em all. Basing your all time list of great fighters on how good you THINK a guy would do rather than on what he's actually done is a really bad idea.

By that logic you could have Deontay Wilder as the #1 all time Heavyweight because he's got a really good looking record, and has knocked out most of his opponents. I mean sure he's only actually beaten One Top 10 contender, but hey he's a modern day Boxer and therefore he's automatically better than the guys from 30 or 40 years ago right?

I am not basing on record at all, just on conditioning and skills. Pele is often called the best soccer player ever, even though he wouldn't look as good against current best defenders. What is being meant is that he is the best ever relative to his time. The same with old time boxers. They were outstanding for their time, in some cases more outstanding than current top boxers, but it is RELATIVE TO TIME. If put in the ring with Golovkin, Mayweather, Ward, etc. they would lose.

To say that you think All Time Legendary fighters would lose to Golovkin, Mayweather and Ward with certainty is just completely ridiculous.

Iron chinned windmill Harry Greb would have no chance against Golovkin?

Sugar Ray Robinson would lose to Floyd Mayweather?

Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore couldn't beat Andre Ward?

The idea you're proposing here is just insane. I mean I'm not saying the old time fighters would certainly win these fights, but to act as if it's a foregone conclusion they'd lose is so stupid there are no words for it.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I do think GGG would be able to compete with just about any Middleweight that ever lived, but I certainly don't think he'd beat 'em all, and even if I did think he'd beat 'em all. Basing your all time list of great fighters on how good you THINK a guy would do rather than on what he's actually done is a really bad idea.

By that logic you could have Deontay Wilder as the #1 all time Heavyweight because he's got a really good looking record, and has knocked out most of his opponents. I mean sure he's only actually beaten One Top 10 contender, but hey he's a modern day Boxer and therefore he's automatically better than the guys from 30 or 40 years ago right?

I am not basing on record at all, just on conditioning and skills. Pele is often called the best soccer player ever, even though he wouldn't look as good against current best defenders. What is being meant is that he is the best ever relative to his time. The same with old time boxers. They were outstanding for their time, in some cases more outstanding than current top boxers, but it is RELATIVE TO TIME. If put in the ring with Golovkin, Mayweather, Ward, etc. they would lose.

To say that you think All Time Legendary fighters would lose to Golovkin, Mayweather and Ward with certainty is just completely ridiculous.

Iron chinned windmill Harry Greb would have no chance against Golovkin?

Sugar Ray Robinson would lose to Floyd Mayweather?

Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore couldn't beat Andre Ward?

The idea you're proposing here is just insane. I mean I'm not saying the old time fighters would certainly win these fights, but to act as if it's a foregone conclusion they'd lose is so stupid there are no words for it.

Ha-ha-ha ! You think that a boxer who fought 100 years ago has any chances against Golovkin ??? Maybe if he was magically brought into current time, lived and trained here for a few years, he would have such chances. No way he was then in any condition to beat Golovkin.

I'm done. Not worth my time

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I do think GGG would be able to compete with just about any Middleweight that ever lived, but I certainly don't think he'd beat 'em all, and even if I did think he'd beat 'em all. Basing your all time list of great fighters on how good you THINK a guy would do rather than on what he's actually done is a really bad idea.

By that logic you could have Deontay Wilder as the #1 all time Heavyweight because he's got a really good looking record, and has knocked out most of his opponents. I mean sure he's only actually beaten One Top 10 contender, but hey he's a modern day Boxer and therefore he's automatically better than the guys from 30 or 40 years ago right?

I am not basing on record at all, just on conditioning and skills. Pele is often called the best soccer player ever, even though he wouldn't look as good against current best defenders. What is being meant is that he is the best ever relative to his time. The same with old time boxers. They were outstanding for their time, in some cases more outstanding than current top boxers, but it is RELATIVE TO TIME. If put in the ring with Golovkin, Mayweather, Ward, etc. they would lose.

To say that you think All Time Legendary fighters would lose to Golovkin, Mayweather and Ward with certainty is just completely ridiculous.

Iron chinned windmill Harry Greb would have no chance against Golovkin?

Sugar Ray Robinson would lose to Floyd Mayweather?

Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore couldn't beat Andre Ward?

The idea you're proposing here is just insane. I mean I'm not saying the old time fighters would certainly win these fights, but to act as if it's a foregone conclusion they'd lose is so stupid there are no words for it.

but dont you guys think that modern day fighters are better trained, schooled, nutritioned ( dont know the english term, but i think you know what i mean) and so on, than fighters from past generations !

if you compare to lets say soccer, modern day top team such as barca, madrid, munich, manchester or whatever, would steam over allstar teams from lets just say the eighties. same goes for athletics, swimming, bicycling, you name it. just look atvrecords and stuff.

dont you think that a modern day champ like ggg would murder a mw champ from the 1940ies for exsample ?
dont mock me, its a serious question !

gilgamesh wrote:I'm done. Not worth my time

I am sorry that I hurt your feelings/religious beliefs.

Here are world records in 100 meters freestyle:
1920: 1:00.40
2009: 46.91

That's how much stronger and more skillful athletes became in 100 years. That's how much stronger and more skillful Golovkin is than Greb. To not understand that is "ridiculous" and "insane" (words from your post).

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I'm done. Not worth my time

I am sorry that I hurt your feelings/religious beliefs.

Here are world records in 100 meters freestyle:
1920: 1:00.40
2009: 46.91

That's how much stronger and more skillful athletes became in 100 years. That's how much stronger and more skillful Golovkin is than Greb. To not understand that is "ridiculous" and "insane" (words from your post).

Running and Fighting aren't the same thing.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:I'm done. Not worth my time

I am sorry that I hurt your feelings/religious beliefs.

Here are world records in 100 meters freestyle:
1920: 1:00.40
2009: 46.91

That's how much stronger and more skillful athletes became in 100 years. That's how much stronger and more skillful Golovkin is than Greb. To not understand that is "ridiculous" and "insane" (words from your post).

Running and Fighting aren't the same thing.

Stronger and more skillful applies to all sports.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
Is that all you got as an argument ?

No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
No point in bothering. This portion of the forum has virtually no historical knowledge, including you.

What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

Toney might not be a top 40 middle. Definitely not top 20. And while scanning I saw someone mention better training now. That's hilarious.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
What about Kalan ? He clearly has deep historical knowledge.

Based on his list of all time Middleweights he clearly doesn't. 7 or so of the fighters he has are from the last 30 years. The Middleweight division has one of the richest histories of any division in the sport. There are literally dozens of guys that could've and should've been on his list over James Toney, Michael Nunn, Roy Jones and Gennady Golovkin. Golovkin and Toney are 2 of my favorite fighters. GGG is my current favorite, and Toney is one of my all time favorites, but Toney is not a Top 10 all time Middleweight so putting him Top 5 is laughable.

GGG may well wind up being one of the divisions best, and I think he's an amazing talent, but to have him as the #1 Middleweight of all time right now is just absurd.

Toney might not be a top 40 middle. Definitely not top 20. And while scanning I saw someone mention better training now. That's hilarious.

Another guy praying to ancient boxing gods

why is the better training and nutrition and stuff hilarious ?

This guy will beat Golovkin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNE6V_RyBwg

Very scientific training