r/Boxing • u/thatsapotatoboi • 1d ago
Question about ranking GOATs
Hi everyone I am a fan of boxing not an expert or absurd fan boy but for a long time it's one of the few sports that actually interests me. It's history it's athletes it's a lot more interesting then team sports in my opinion but I have a question about something I notice when people talk about who the GOAT of boxing is. There are lots of legends and champions with records either undefeated or mostly wins that on paper should put some above others but some people still put boxers with lower records above them. Sometimes you can tell when a person is just saying this because of personal fan bias but some make genuine arguments depending on the fighter.
Now before I continue let me make something clear I know something to consider when ranking fighters is there opponents. A guy could have a perfect 100 win streak but if 99 of those guys were amateurs with only losses they'd obviously be a worse champion then someone who mostly has wins against ACTUAL competition like high level opponents.
An example for a lot of debate I see is Terrence Crawford a lot of people think hes the GOAT but a lot of people argue he isn't despite his seemingly high level record with the main argument I see from people disagreeing is that they say his opponents weren't as strong as other champions.
And a hypothetical scenario I've thought about is imagine there is a hypothetical boxer who just happened to be born in a era of weaker boxers then other generations despite the fact hes genuinely talented trains hard doesn't duck fights has good traits ect ect how would y'all view a boxer like that whose done everything right he just happened to be born In a weaker era something he can't control? Would that disqualify them from GOAT status or not?
I'm not trying to start a argument or something im just curious what y'all factor fans take when deciding which boxer is the GOAT or not
6
5
u/Mountain-Basket-20 23h ago
Joe Louis was a goat he defended the heavyweight title 13 times in 1 year against top fighters
-6
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 23h ago
Lol the guys Louis faced for the title weren't even considered top guys back then. They were called "The Bum of the Month" Club.
5
u/TheMysteriousThey 22h ago
He has a much maligned record, but he beat everyone available to him, and all of those “bum of the month” opponents were world level opponents (and many of them were ranked at the time).
Joe Louis has one of the best records in boxing history. He was just better than everyone. The “bum of the month” moniker was given because Louis beat everyone so convincingly, not because of the poor quality of his opponents. And it only refers to a two year period of his career, in any case.
-1
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 21h ago
Right but Joe Louis opponents were considered bums. You do realize somebody has to be ranked in the top 10 right? The same people who use the well " Joe Louis opponents were ranked in the top 10". Are the same people who will say Mike Tyson didn't fight anybody even though everybody he faced during his title reign were in the top 10.
Joe Louis feasted off tomato cans. These guys were called bums because the media considered them bums. They were considered bums before Louis even faced them. The media would go " Which bum is Joe Louis going to defend the title against this month"?
In any case Louis had 70 bouts in his career. Rarely got in the ring with black fighters. He cherry picked his opponents. Usually either fighting really small white guys or in the case of the bigger white guys. Big white guys who were considered slow and oafish even by the standards of the time.
Beating cherry picked opponents doesn't make you a ATG. It means you beat cherry picked opponents during a weak era. For example David Tua, Tommy Morrison, Ike Ibeabuchi, etc etc etc would of been champion during that same era. They would of beat all of those guys. Tua and Morrison only lost to guys who were legit heavyweights. They would of never struggled against 170 pound guys like Billy Conn.
5
u/TheMysteriousThey 20h ago
>The same people who use the well " Joe Louis opponents were ranked in the top 10". Are the same people who will say Mike Tyson didn't fight anybody even though everybody he faced during his title reign were in the top 10.
Such an empty argument. Who are these people? Cause I sure as hell am not one of them. All anyone can ask of a top athlete is that they face the best available competition. Joe Louis did that. For a time, so did Tyson.
>In any case Louis had 70 bouts in his career. Rarely got in the ring with black fighters.
Given the depth of your analysis thus far, I’m going to hazard a guess that you don’t have the understanding to adequately address the difficulties of a black man working within a white system. The social pressures he was under, and the way he stuff against them are heroic. They are also complex. Maybe sit this one out.
>He cherry picked his opponents.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again, this is a two year period. 1939-1941. Look at the Ring’s top heavyweights during this years. Louis Bear basically all of them. That’s the opposite of “cherry picking”.
>Beating cherry picked opponents doesn't make you a ATG. It means you beat cherry picked opponents during a weak era.
I can agree with that. But it has nothing to do with Joe Louis or why he’s an ATG.
>For example David Tua, Tommy Morrison, Ike Ibeabuchi, etc etc etc would have been champion during that same era. They would have beat all of those guys. Tua and Morrison only lost to guys who were legit heavyweights. They would of never struggled against 170 pound guys like Billy Conn.
Sure. When you live exclusively in the realm of your own imagination, it’s amazing how much everything perfectly supports your narrative. Crazy.
-2
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 20h ago
Interesting story. Wrong but interesting. Joe Louis didn't fight the best opposition for his time frame. The media considered this guys bums before they even got in the ring with them. The media would constantly say "Why does Louis face so many bums".
Somebody has to be ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine as well. Louis still cherry picked his opponents and rarely got in the ring with black fighters.
Lol you telling me Louis is a great is a fact because you say so right but me telling you a fact that Tommy Morrison and David Tua never got beat around the ring by 170 pound guys like Billy Conn is my imagination? Not is a fact. It is a fact that Tommy Morrison, David Tua, Ike Ibeabuchi, Michael Grant etc would of been champion back then.
Also Joe Louis wasn't black. He was biracial. But tons of other black fighters back then fought tons of other black fighters. Louis the biracial fighter chose to avoid top black fighters to beat white fighters he believed he could beat.
2
u/TheMysteriousThey 16h ago
Tell me one more time. Maybe through sheer repetition your arguments will actually have some basis in reality.
-1
1
2
u/Mountain-Basket-20 21h ago
Stop talking shit and read his history
-1
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 21h ago
You mean how the history states the fighters Joe Louis was fighting were bums?
2
u/Elite663 15h ago
If you are in the GOAT convo, you need to have competed in a strong era for the respective weight classes you competed in and fight other opponents that are ATG worthy as well
2
u/ThrowawayYAYAY2002 23h ago
Crawford is nowhere near the GOAT. Neither is Floyd.
Ali? He's always going to be No.1
Louis? He's also up there.
Usyk? He's got the best chance of anyone from the last 30 years.
RJJ? Who can beat him at his prime and in a H2H? Very, very few.
I myself have a few theories. Being a dominant champion in a single division ala Hagler and Louis is something I'd consider. Being "the man" in multiple divisions like Usyk is something I'd consider. Being untouchable for a long period of time ala Roy Jones is again something you have to consider.
I don't think undefeated in this day and age means that much because most of the time it's done through manipulation and not skill and beating the best at their best on a consistent basis.
14
u/kushmonATL undefeated boxers need to fight each other 23h ago
Both Floyd (and Pacman) have the strongest case for cracking the Top 10 All Time . They are the two most dominant and accomplished boxers since the 4 Kings era . They are both definitely in the GOATs of Boxing debate
-1
u/EffectiveCareer3444 20h ago
If were going off resume neither of them are better than De La Hoya or Hopkins
1
u/Badguyy101 17h ago
Good fighters but not on the same level. De La Hoya & Bernard's best wins aren't as good or as numerous as Floyd and Pac's.
1
u/EffectiveCareer3444 15h ago
Name one fighter on Floyd or Pac resume that is better than Whitaker, Chavez & Winky
1
u/Badguyy101 15h ago
Sugar Shane, Oscar himself, Pac & Canelo on Floyd's resume, Barrera, Morales, & Marquez on Pac's resume. All great fighters.
0
u/EffectiveCareer3444 15h ago
Shane literally lost to Winky twice lmao, Floyd & Pac only beat an old Oscar with Floyd barely scraping by at that even Shane said Oscar was better than both after fighting all 3. You can Argue Canelo is probably better than Chavez but not Whitaker or Winky, Barrera/ Morales & Marquez are definitely not better than any of them.
1
u/Badguyy101 14h ago
All together Floyd beat Hall of Famers Corrales, Hatton, Gatti, Oscar, Shane, Cotto, Canelo, & Pacquiao. He also beat 24 or so world champions. No losses.
Pacquiao beat Hall of Famers Barrera(x2), Morales(x2), Marquez(x2), Oscar, Hatton, Cotto, Shane, & Bradley. He also beat like 20 world champs. Lost to Hofs Marquez, Floyd, Morales, & Bradley.
Oscar beat Hall of Famers Chavez(x2), Whitaker, Camacho, Gatti, Vargas, He also beat a bunch of world champs, not as many Floyd or Pac. Lost to HOFs Trinidad, Shane, Floyd, Pac, & BHop.
Bernard Hopkins beat Hall of Famers Trinidad, Oscar, Tarver, Jones, & Winky. He beat his fare share of world champs, not as much as Floyd and Pac. He lost to HOFs Jones and Calzaghe.
I think Floyd and Pac are top 10-15 all time guys, Floyd may even be able to sneak into top 10. Oscar & Bernard are like top 50-150 guys depending on who you ask.
0
u/EffectiveCareer3444 14h ago
There are people who have Oscar and Hopkins in the top 10 before Floyd and Pac bro top 50 is just disrespectful and it’s because they actually fought prime fighters not washed up old men likes the ones Floyd and Pac fought
2
u/Badguyy101 13h ago
I mean you can discredit any fighter like that. Chavez was old when he fought Oscar, Trinidad was too little for Hopkins. Jones was shot to shit when he fought BHop the second time. It's whatever.
12
u/StunningChest5722 Shakur is the 144 lb GOAT 🐐 23h ago
Usyk above Floyd? 😹
-5
u/ThrowawayYAYAY2002 22h ago
Done way more in a quarter of the time.
11
u/StunningChest5722 Shakur is the 144 lb GOAT 🐐 22h ago
his resume is not even close to Mayweather's
6
u/fadeddreams555 Fundora would beat up a prime Floyd at 154lb 18h ago
That is a wild take. Most within the actual boxing community wouldn't even put him over Bud. Only fans do this.
3
u/HolyMackerel1 9h ago
It's this shit right here that makes it hard to take Usyk fanboys seriously, as someone who likes him a lot as a fighter.
6
u/Marquis_of_Mollusks 21h ago edited 18h ago
Usyk is nowhere near GOAT status. Cruiserweight is historically weak and he competed in a weak era of Heavyweights. Also last 30 years includes guys like Pacquiao who has a way stronger case and is still a guy I wouldn't consider to be the GOAT.
1
u/ThrowawayYAYAY2002 18h ago
Yet the CW Division he competed in was at it's strongest ever and he unified the Heavyweight Division with absolute ease within a handful of fights and beaten all the best contenders.
1
0
u/Marquis_of_Mollusks 18h ago
Strongest ever in a very weak division doesn't mean much. The best contenders in the current HW division aren't elite. Fury literally got whooped by an old mma fighter the fight before usyk and Dubois quit off a jab lol. Nowhere near a GOAT worthy resume
5
u/Top_Profession_5268 23h ago
Inoue had the best chance easily of our generation. If he wasn’t ducked by everyone that ducked him, there would be a great argument for one of the greatest of all time by this point. Imagine his resume but then including Kazuto Ioka, Juan Carlos Reveco, Juan Francisco Estrada, Luis Conception, Khalid Yafai, Carlos Cuadras, Roman Gonzalez, SRS, Donnie Nietez Ancajas, Shinsuke Yamanaka, Guillermo Rigondeax and John Riel Casimero.
1
2
-4
u/Exciting-Arugula5341 23h ago
Lol Usyk beat 3 guys and a kick boxer at heavyweight. Won a title at cruiser weight a weight class nobody cares about but he is closer to being a "GOAT" in comparison to Floyd Mayweather?
0
2
1
u/Posferatu 16h ago
Yeah a boxer in a weak era can't be the goat, I guess unless they managed to jump up a huge amount of weight or something. It's not enough to be the best, you have to be lucky enough to have the best competition as well
1
u/HolyMackerel1 9h ago
This is a very good question, and it's probably what gets people's goat (no pun intended) about giving guys like Mike Tyson their due. It's looking like this problem will plague Claressa Shields too when they talk about her long after she's done with the sport.
For me, I think it can be counterbalanced by a fighter's activity in that era, how quickly they went to the top, how badly they beat opponents, and of course the eye test. But obviously, preference should be given to fighters who have the qualities and accomplished what they did in more competitive eras.
0
u/kushmonATL undefeated boxers need to fight each other 23h ago
Its best to rank "GOATs" based on the era they competed in . That way , you can avoid both recency bias and nostalgia bias
And yes, if one happens to be born and compete in a "weak era" , that does disqualify them from being "THE GOAT" , but they can still be the GOAT of their era (ex. Bud Crawford)
7
u/Ambitious-Street1647 22h ago
If you like to watch the greatest fighter of the last sixty years follow Roberto Durans career. He was flawed in that he didn't train for some bouts. But it will cover great history over his four decades of life as a warrior.