Is set of definitions of "THE GREATEST EVER" isomorphic to the set of definitions of "Pound 4 Pound #1"?

Let me explain: Some of us here view the term Pound 4 Pound #1 in its most rigid definition - A Fighter who's number 1 if all fighters are all of the weight. And some define it based on recent level of performance.

Now, is "THE GREATEST EVER" the fighter who would be #1 if all known fighters as of this second fight in the same weight and in the same era? Is the greatest of all time a fighter who would be great in any era ever since boxing was invented?

Or, the term "THE GREATEST EVER" also suffers from the subjectivity of people just like the term "P4P #1"?

Do we even have someone who's "THE GREATEST EVER"? Or do we only have the "The Greatest of a Generation"?

Can glove-wearing boxers compete with bare-knuckle-boxers of yesteryears? Would natural selection favor those with hard knuckle bones over those with brittle hands?

Would great fighters of yesteryears be able to avoid being avoided by promoters if they were teleported to the modern times?

The first definition you have is the correct definition for P4P #1 and the second "definition" is what is used to measure it. In theory there may exist a P4P #1 but in practice it is impossible to OBJECTIVELY measure him/her.

You should rephrase this. Can bare-knuckle fighters of the yesteryears compete with glove-wearing boxers of recent times. The answer would be probably no.

THE GREATEST EVER = SUGAR RAY ROBINSON

There you go...that's about as simple of an answer as you can get for your question.



Holla at me when any of today's fighters make it to 100 wins. As far as I know, James Toney is the closest one with 72.

Yori Boy has 92 wins. lol.

I agree...Ray Robinson is the greatest Boxer in the History of the sport.

Buck Smith and Marty Jakubowski each had over 100 wins. You think they are great?

Well could the modern fighters fight 25 or 30 bare knuckle rounds with all the clinching, thumbing, butting & mauling that went with it? Probably not.



Well that would make them greater than Toney.

The fights probably wouldn't last that long. Todays fighters would end them.

This is Harry Greb and he was a guy that wore gloves, after the time of bare knuckle fighting.





Just imagine the bare knuckle fighters. Even C class fighters of today would probably beat the guys back then. Men are built much better, bigger and stronger than the guys from bare knuckle days.

And more than 3 times greater than Tsyzu.

I never said 100 wins makes someone great smarty pants...I said HOLLA AT ME win somebody reaches 100 wins...hell, holla at me when they have 50 wins and THEN we can have a discussion as to whether or not they should even be considered as a replacement for Sugar Ray Robinson as the GREATEST EVER.

Please don't insult my intelligence.

I meant modern fighters that are/were actually good. Surely you don't actually believe that I meant 100 wins equals greatness.

While I agree this you for the most part bro...Greb was known to throw 200 punches in 1 round & trainer on whiskey & whores & in 1922 fought 22 times! Guys like that may have been tougher than todays fighters & Sugar Ray Robinson was the best ever! Greb in top 10 EVER! And the best Middleweight of all time!

Not saying he wasn't great, but men are better these days.

I kind of look at it like this. You have Mario Bros on the old nintendo and then you have some average game on a PS3 right now. Right now, the PS3 game is better, all time Mario Bros beats it every single time. I tend to rate people on how well they were for there time. Todays fighters would destroy a lot of the guys from the real early days, especially the bare knuckle kind of guys.

Great analogy. And I think this applies to the entire history of boxing. In general I believe boxers are constantly getting better through through the decades. Better nutrition, better training techniques, better and more diverse competition.

The argument that modern boxers cant be considered as great simply because they dont fight as often is flawed. Dont forget that they were fighting other guys who were also just as active and thus it would be an even playing field. If the question is whether they were tougher, thats another story.

I'm not one that automatically annoints SSR the greatest ever as so many do. He certainly deserves the honor but I feel there seems to be a bit of nostalgia on his side rather then him being that much better then everybody else. Its become sacriligious to claim anyone other then SSR is #1.

Robinson resume is filled with hallf of famers - solid contenders. Over 200 fights...he is the GREATEST.

I think people are sometimes just sentimental with the old school fighters. A lot of them are greater, but I don't know how people write off guys from today in some fantasy match ups if you take a guy from them and a guy from today as is.
It's simple, humans are improving every time, they have physical advantages, they have better techniques and equipment. It's why you often see world records get broken whether in running, lifting, throwing and so on. It's because men are better today than back then. But like I said, it doesn't make them greater because you judge them on their peers and how advanced they were for their time.

Ya, if the argument is "who was the most dominant of THEIR era?"... then yes I would put SRR at #1. But like you said, in mythical matchups he wouldnt be head and shoulders above his opponents in such a way that he should be #1 on 99.9% of greatest fighter lists.

Agree with you 100% Fitz. As I usually do.

Likewise man, I tend to agree with most of your posts as well.

Not to mention the availability and use of Performance Enhancers...a.k.a. Special Filipino Cabbage Soup.

BIG ole head.

He moves a lot like Vic Darchinyan.

I wonder how well Vic would fair against today's super humans...

It's pretty amazing how far man has evolved in the last 60-70 years...you know? It took millions of years to progress to the point of eating with utensils, and now we got men that could crush them with ease!

At the current rate of evolution, I'm sure my kids will have adapted the ability of flight.

So you are suggesting humans haven't improved from the 1900's? They are as big, as healthy and as strong as man today? Why do we even have doctors then? After all you believe that man is the same back then as it is now.
It's also just a coincidence that records in many sports are smashed today compared to the 1900's. Why did people live less back in those days? Why did people die over things that are things so simple these days? I don't know how anybody can look at anybody with a straight face and say that they are the same.

I'm sure this picture looks familiar to you.



Believe it or not, this actually happens in real life. Just because it has slowed down in physical appearance now, it doesn't mean changes have not occurred.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HaHa! My first thought was...... Which one is Manny Pac?

Definitely! That's what I'm saying!

It took all of those years for man to evolve from the first monkey looking picture, but now in less than 100 years, he's uncomparable.

I'm not sure what your doctor reference is about, as it doesn't seem to apply to what we're talking about...I don't think that man has evolved to the point of not needing doctors, unless you think that he has? In that case, we must be closer to flying than I predicted...I can't wait to be able to run faster than a car...which based on our current level of evolution, will be in about 20 years!

To be honest, I don't even know why I mentioned doctors, lol.

I don't know what's with all the sarcasm then if you agree to an extent. It seems like you think in the last 100 years there has been very little, to no improvement. Why not go and have a look at the average height of men from even the mid 1900's and look now and there will be a difference. Why not have a look at the average life expectancy.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/life-expe...for-humans.html

* Neanderthal, 20
* Neolithic, 20
* Classical Greece, 28
* Classical Rome, 28
* Medieval England, 33
* End of 18th Century, 37
* Early 20th Century, 50
* Circa 1940, 65
* Current (in the West), 77-81

Why has it increased? Wouldn't that be because humans are better and stronger in this day and age? Why are records being broken comfortably in a lot of kind of sports compared to the early 1900's?
Because you don't think there is much of a difference in the last 100 years, I would like to hear your take on this. Thanks.

While it is certainly true that humans have become stronger, faster, and more skilled in recent history, thanks to advances in nutrition, training and technology, it is also a fact that natural and man-made disasters could nearly instantaneously reverse the process.

What we really mean by "The Greatest Ever" is entirely dependent on each individual's subjective opinion. The reason that SRR is considered by so many "The Greatest Ever" is the impact that his total body of work had on those who experienced it and their ability to communicate it in a way that has influenced future generations.

Each individual's opinion of who is "The Greatest Ever" is formed by personal experience, education, and influence. Consensus is developed by individuals who congregate according to similar experience and the ability of certain members of the congregation to educate and/or influence the others.

As "The Greatest Ever" pertains to boxing, it should be noted that it would be more fair and accurate to identify "The Greatest Of The Era". Some may argue that fighters can only be fairly compared to those of their generation. My opinion is that it is very difficult to compare the fighters of today against those of the 15 round championship era. It is equally difficult to compare either of those eras against the era of unlimited rounds determined by knockdowns.

That said, it is always fun to debate about our subjective opinions.

Muhammed Ali is "The Greatest Ever" in my subjective opinion.

Alright, I'll try to answer these honestly and with as little sarcasm as I can muster. lol


Nope. Advances in medicine is the culprit.


You'd have to look at each record to figure that one out. In most cases, you don't have to look further than advances in sports equipment...in others, well, not ALL athletes were allowed to compete as little as 40 years ago...


There has been a TON of changes in the last 100 years, just not to the human body. The claim that humans have somehow genetically evolved into these athletic beasts in less than a century is just plain silly.

In most games, there have been changes that have dramatically affected the way that it is being played. Basketball added the dunk and the three point shot. Football added the forward pass. Technology helped create better equipment. Golf balls that fly further, Tennis balls that create better spin, swim suits that lessen drag...each sport has had technological advances that has changed the game...all but Boxing.

Boxing is the one sport that time forgot. You can point to the gloves, and yeah...the gloves have gotten better. Shit, didn't Reyes just stop using horse hair about 8 years ago? lol

But my point is, a more protective glove does not make you a better fighter. Maybe it gives the brittle hands guy a shot at a longer career, but it won't help him punch any faster or harder. It won't help him move his head, or move his feet. Boxing is not that kind of game. There is no ball to get in the way. It is just two guys in the middle of a ring trying to do harm to each other. That's it man. That's why all of us love it so much. There's very little that science can do to fuck it up.

And THAT'S why debate about fighters from different eras is a very legit and practical discussion...and why Sugar Ray Robinson would STILL own any of these pansy ass mother fuckers trying to retire after only 30 fights!

Human evolution in 100 years?

I dont think so. Noticable changes to the genetic template are going to take alot longer than that.

What i see i see is the evolution of nutrition and sports science. Back then, a great training diet would probably consisted of steak. You can't compare that with modern supplements, and millions upon millions of dollars invested in research. Our understanding of the human body has improved in leaps and bounds, which is not indicative of human evolution.

Your modern elite conditioning coaches of today, in terms of knowledge, are going to shit all over those old trainers.

Are we also going to say that we are currently in a period of de-evolution at the moment because the best heavyweights of the 70's are seemingly of a much higher standard than present? No, that is an indication of other sports poaching the best and fairest for less risky high paying sports

But medicine has still made humans stronger correct?



But the increase in height has increased over the years and that is part of the human body.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...1621836499.html

"In 1913, according to AFL records, Fitzroy and Collingwood played a semi-final "almost evenly matched in height and weight". Both teams were, on average, 175 centimetres and their ruckmen about eight centimetres taller.

Fitzroy won easily. Ninety-one years later, their modern counterparts played off on Thursday night. The result was similar, but not the players' stature. In 2004, the average was 186 centimetres, and the shortest player on each list was three centimetres taller than the average height of 1913. Put another way, a contemporary midfielder such as Michael Voss would be first ruck in the midget teams of a century ago."

"There's been a huge amount of work done on human height," said Dr Janet McCalman, head of the department of history and philosophy of science at Melbourne University. "In a nutshell, people got shorter once they became farmers, very short when they urbanised and industrialised, then grew since the 1840s in the UK and have been growing ever since."

"Industrialisation, after an unhealthy start, forced the human race to grow up. According to British researcher Roderick Floud, British adult males have risen in height from 165 to about 175 centimetres in the 250 years from 1750. In about 1800, heights took a dip as industrial towns became dirty and overcrowded. But the benefits of industrialisation - refrigeration, health care, job security, regular meals - won out."

Those were a couple of quotes, and I think man has changed.



I agree that these changes have happened. But what about simple sports with records being smashed that don't have all these technological advances like running? Look at Usain Bolt for example. What about weight lifters, shot putters, high jumpers who hasn't had a huge change in equipment like boxing. Why do they keep getting better?



Time has forgotten about sprinting, high jump, shot put, discus, long jump as well also. But once again, the athletes keep getting better. Why?



Nobody is suggesting a glove makes someone better. What makes someone better is being healthier, bigger, stronger and faster than the average man 100 years ago. They are educated better, they eat better. They learn with technology and become better than humans from 100 years ago.
Once again here is a Greb video:



You seriously can't tell me that this guy would destroy a top fighter of today.

Another living proof of how men have become bigger and stronger is look how small the heavyweights were back in the early days and how big they are in the last couple of decades. You seriously can't say that man hasn't changed.

What about the average height? Men have gotten bigger. That is human evolution.

I think you guys think a guy must make a big difference in evolution from man to monkey to be considered an evolution, but I still think they have improved in the last century. Even if it isn't so much physical like less or more hair or something.

A lot of modern day fighters piss me off with their fannying about, moaning about pay, refusing to fight one another, ducking fighters, blah, blah, blah....


and as much as I love the old skool mentality, that Greb video made me smile. It looked like a kangaroo sparring, lol.



The thing that made the old school fighters special was their mental toughness. It was harder growing up back then. You had to EARN your money. They were all tough SOB's.


But I agree with Fitz, I'm not saying modern day fighters are better, as it's two different time periods, but a lot of fighters today would pick apart poor old Greb if you stuck them both in a ring.

It's not his fault....he's from the NES Mario borthers time. Today's fighters are from the X-Box and PS3 time. Better graphics, but the Mario Bros is probably still a better game.

Thats diet, as opposed to an actual change in the genome

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/04/usa

" Apart from a few rare races, such as African pygmies who are genetically programmed to have low stature, virtually everyone in the world has the potential to reach the same average height as the Dutch, and that includes the Mexicans, Chinese, Inuit, and other peoples who are not usually noted for their stature. "

Ok fair enough, I may be technically wrong about evolution. But would you technically agree that man is superior to man from 100 years ago? Even if it is due to medicine, education, diet, facilities and so on? My original argument wasn't so much about evolution, it was more that man has improved regardless on the causes.

Yep that's what I was saying. The average fighter today is better than the average fighter back then. But you need to place them for what they did amongst their peers and in their time.
I also like the video game analogy which is why I used it. It works well, lol.

What i would agree with is that humans in developed nations have gotten larger, due to diet as opposed to changes in DNA. And as they have gotten larger, there has been a lag. Ie the first lot of bigger guys had the size, but lacked some of the co-ordination. Now you have huge guys, like your lennox's and klits, who have both size and co-ordination. Valuev being the next version, that has even more size but a nueral system that makes him seem clumsy by comparison. So yes, i think to a certain extent thay have improved on yester year for a variety of reasons.

I'm no creationist, or intelligent design nob either. I agree with you, i'm just disputing evolution as the reason

Absofuckinlutely. Greb was the man & is one of the true greats. He is at the top of the middleweight tree with guys like Hagler & Hopkins.

Strength has nothing to do with life expectancy Fitz. Diet & competant medical diagnisis along with the drugs to treat it are why we live longer.

I certainly would suggest it. Staged sparring for newsreel footage I would wager was very different to actual sparring. Judge Greb on his record & the fighters he fought not on a showpiece newsreel piece.

Greb IMO with the correct diet would outbox any current middleweight IMO. Limitless gas tank, volume punching, guile & actual fighting experience that guys of today have nightmares about would carry him to victory.

Tell me that these two could not cut it today with a serious face?

"News Flash"!

"A neanderthal man will crush a modern day man." - Animal Planet

LOL! I was watching one of those shows about top 10 thingie.

These two runs a lot more than Gayweather. But they really throw some punches!

When I say they are stronger, I mean it as a pretty broad term. As well as what you gathered, as in brute strength. But when I say stronger, I also mean they are stronger health wise, their immune system and so on. They are just stronger people as a whole.
Once again I'm not suggesting that there isn't a guy from years ago that couldn't hang with guys like today, because I certainly am not suggesting that with a guy like Ray Robinson. But as a whole, and the average boxer from both eras. I think today's guys would beat a lot of the guys back then.
But back to the bare knuckle days which is early 1900's and before. I don't think they are strong enough to hang with guys of today. They are probably inferior in just about every way in most areas.

I guess they can't punch too hard to avoid breaking their hands. And some will evolve with harder knuckles and can punch harder. But then again, they will soon face opponents who evolved tough skulls and skins less susceptible to cuts. So, two fighters in that same era will look like ordinary fighting one another.

Torvix one of those guys is the 2nd greatest Lightweight to ever live Benny Leonard.

The reason created this thread is also to answer the question: What rules of which era of boxing will be used?

Yesteryears fighters versus Floyd Mayweather in a bare-knuckle fight?

Even that is debatable. LOL

I forgot to take my drugs! LOL!

I agree, a bare knuckle fight would be a different kettle of fish. And if you got brittle hands, it would be a whole lot worse. I reckon the bare knuckle events probably applied a very loose interpretation and enforcement of rules in comparison to today

If not for doctors, most babies today wouldn't even reach childhood.

Fitz, you're sounding very silly right now. Like one of those Twilight kids that have serious discussions about vampires and werewolves.



Dude, you should've payed attention in science class. Evolution is something that takes place over thousands and millions of years, not less than a century. And DEFINITELY NOT to the extent that you claim.

I already explained the record breaking shit to you...equipment buddy. lol

You can't seem to wrap your brain around that though, so since you mentioned track-and-field I'll use that. Have you ever heard of cinders?...huh...no? I'm sure you've heard of a cinder blocks right? Well picture one of those busted up into a thousand pieces and loosely spread around the track. Kind of like this...


That's what guys like Jesse Owens used to run on. Do you think that athletes of today have a slight advantage running on current surfaces?


That's not to say that Usain Bolt would still not be the fastest if everything is equal...shit, he might be the greatest sprinter ever...but that's not a reflection of the modern times. It would have more to do with him being special. Look at what he does to today's competition. lol If modern times breeds some sort of "super-athlete", wouldn't he have some competition?

Anyway, you already shat on your own argument...




I guess we really don't have much else to discuss.

Nah...just wanted to give the great Yori Boy a shout out and felt like this was a good spot.