Manny Pacqiuao a Top 25 all time great??

[SCtrojansbaby]

Considering Ruth's era was in the wake of the Black Sox scandal with all the Federal investigations that went with it I'd hazard to say that things were a hell of a lot more closely regulated then than they are now.

Oh, and PEDS didn't exist in the 1920s Einstein.....unless you consider beer and hotdogs "PEDS".

Poet

LOL keep living in your fantasy, EVERYTHING GETS WORSE OVER TIME world

[SCtrojansbaby]

[



Micky Mantle hit the furthest home run in the history of baseball. Ted Williams hit the furthest ever home run in Fenway. Sandy Koufax threw a base ball 100 mph. Bobby Hull had a 100 mph slap shot. The greatest athletes were not all born 20 or 30 years ago.

As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

[JAB5239]

As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

[StarshipTrooper]

If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

Last time I checked people still use the same equations to solve mathematical problems that they used hundreds of years ago.....geometry is NOT a new invention :hahahaha9:

Poet

[studentofthegam]

Well, I can understand why that kind of supreme confidence can give a negative outlook. People like Robinson, Ali and even Floyd Mayweather are special fighters. People don't tend to be fond of that confidence until they are humbled, to a degree.

But I don't think Pacqiauo ties in with that. Although an exceptional fighter, he doesn't have that arrogance, if you will.

There have been exceptional fighters throughout this sport that just won't get the recognition of how great the actually are. Even years and years and years after they retire they still don't get the recognition they might deserve. Look at Gene Tunney for example.

My point being; in 100 years time peoples opinion on Pacqiauo's greatness won't have enhanced. He will be seen as a great fighter if he were to retire today he will never be seen as a Top 10 ATG. No matter how many years pass by.

People like Ray Robinson are put in that leauge because he's that good and achieved that much.

Take what into consideration when it fits my argument? I never once said the fact that Ray Robinson would beat Floyd Mayweather is any reasoning to why he's greater. He's greater because he achieved so much more. My ranking of Robinson over Floyd has nothing to do with any H2H match up.

H2H match up's really don't mean much in terms of greatness. A great fighter can beat another great fighter on a given day. That doesn't mean that they are greater. Hence why resumes and achievements determine greatness.

If that's the case, do you rank Sandy Saddler over Willie Pep? Saddler beat Pep 3 out of 4 times.

Being that its all opinionated people have different views. Lots of people consider Ali the greatest. I cant tell them its insane. When I judge a fighters place in history I cant help but wonder how the H2H match up would come out when its logical (near weight class). Thats just my way of judging. Kobe may surpass MJ in titles and scoring but some intelligent people will still have jordan as the greatest. My point is there is no set way to have an opinion on the greatest in sport. Barry Sanders is the greatest RB I ever saw followed by Jim Brown but neither has accomplished as much as Emmit Smith statistically. Its a matter of taste when no rules are set. I never said you picked SRR solely on that but if you thought Floyd would tear SRR to pieces you'd be a lot less likely to disregard it as a factor. Right or Wrong?

With Pacquiao it goes to show that opinions will vary. You say he wont be remembered like I think he will. Thats just your opinion and my opinion being opposite. The reality of it is we dont know what it will be in 100 years.

[Holtol]

As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

Never mind SCtrojansbaby it was just an attempt to wake you out of your dream.

[SCtrojansbaby]

If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

I have made valid argument that you and others choose to ignore. I will recap

1. Boxers back when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 3-4x as much as Floyd Mayweather because that is what the market dictated. Obviously fighting 3-4x as many fights you will have a better resume.

2. Nutrition Medicine Exercise etc has gotten much much better over the past 60 years and doing all those things much better makes you a better athlete. Athleticism is a really big part of being a boxer generally the guys of today are better athletes and in turn better boxers.

But as I expect you all will continue using your typewriters and listen to your cassettes believing that athletics of totally different eras should be compared and every fighter that I never actually saw fight was greatest ever

[JAB5239]

I have made valid argument that you and others choose to ignore. I will recap

1. Boxers back when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 3-4x as much as Floyd Mayweather because that is what the market dictated. Obviously fighting 3-4x as many fights you will have a better resume.

2. Nutrition Medicine Exercise etc has gotten much much better over the past 60 years and doing all those things much better makes you a better athlete. Athleticism is a really big part of being a boxer generally the guys of today are better athletes and in turn better boxers.

But as I expect you all will continue using your typewriters and listen to your cassettes believing that athletics of totally different eras should be compared and every fighter that I never actually saw fight was greatest ever

SC, all your arguments were countered and you have stopped answering questions and just repeated the same thing over and over. Just move on to something else bro.

[IronDanHamza]

Being that its all opinionated people have different views. Lots of people consider Ali the greatest. I cant tell them its insane. When I judge a fighters place in history I cant help but wonder how the H2H match up would come out when its logical (near weight class). Thats just my way of judging. Kobe may surpass MJ in titles and scoring but some intelligent people will still have jordan as the greatest. My point is there is no set way to have an opinion on the greatest in sport. Barry Sanders is the greatest RB I ever saw followed by Jim Brown but neither has accomplished as much as Emmit Smith statistically. Its a matter of taste when no rules are set. I never said you picked SRR solely on that but if you thought Floyd would tear SRR to pieces you'd be a lot less likely to disregard it as a factor. Right or Wrong?

With Pacquiao it goes to show that opinions will vary. You say he wont be remembered like I think he will. Thats just your opinion and my opinion being opposite. The reality of it is we dont know what it will be in 100 years.

First things first I don't follow those sports you used and secondly it's different sports so let's not relate them.

Someone may say Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter of all time, and although I would strongly disagree with that, it still is a valid and reasonable argument.

Whereas if someone were to say, I don't know, Barney Ross was the greatest of all time..Altough Ross an ATG fighter, there is simply no argument for him being the greatest fighter of all time, none. Even if he had the ability to beat any fighter in his weight class. He just simply hasn't acheived enough to warrant that status. Greatness is based on many things, but not H2H match ups.

Again, if it is, do you rank Saddler higher than Willie Pep? He beat him 3 out of 4 times.

If I thought Floyd Mayweather could beat Ray Robinson with utter ease it still doesn't make him greater than Ray Robinson. Ray Robinson achieved so much more, so much more. That there is just no way or any reasonable argument for him to be ranked higher than him.

[IronDanHamza]

You know what yall are completely inconsistent. If you're gonna tell me how to debate and what the criteria is why do you even respond to me. Its simple, I think both are necessary and you just think one is necessary. Im aware that I cant make your mind up but that doesnt dawn on you for some reason. Why repeat the exact same thing to me. You got a bad taste in your mouth and its making you argue things that we obviously agreed on. There is no crime in thinking Saddler is greater than Pep. He won a lot of fights and whipped Pep. There is room for the opinion that Hopkins is greater than Jones because he split with him and had a great career or better yet has a great career. OPINIONS?

Oooooooook

I'm repeating it because I'm trying to explain to you why it's illogical to base greatness on H2H match up's.

That's the thing, thinking Saddler is greater than Pep is a crime. And that is the point. There is no reasonable or logical argument for Saddler being greater than Pep. Literally, none what so ever. Regardless to the fact he beat him 3 times our of 4.

Hense, why H2H match ups mean nothing when determining a fighters greatness.