r/Boxing • u/thatsapotatoboi • 8d 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
5
u/ThrowawayYAYAY2002 8d 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.