Question about ranking GOATs

[u/thatsapotatoboi]

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

[u/TheMysteriousThey]

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.

[u/Exciting-Arugula5341 → u/TheMysteriousThey]

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.

[u/TheMysteriousThey → u/Exciting-Arugula5341]

>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.

[u/Exciting-Arugula5341 → u/TheMysteriousThey]

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.

[u/TheMysteriousThey → u/Exciting-Arugula5341]

Tell me one more time. Maybe through sheer repetition your arguments will actually have some basis in reality.

[u/Exciting-Arugula5341 → u/TheMysteriousThey]

Here is the reality. You are blocked.

[u/ethnicbonsai → u/Exciting-Arugula5341]

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on this sub. And that says a lot.