Comments on: Judging Boxers Historically: Are We Looking at It Wrong?

By: stryker

stryker — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:22:25 +0000

bravooo! great article. very scholarly. a very level headed observation.

By: Measuring Pacquiao among boxing’s all-time greats « loQal – Sports and Fitness

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:04:55 +0000

[...] following Pacquiao’s successful title defense versus welterweight Joshua Clottey, Levinson establishes that there are inherent flaws in judging boxers [...]

By: Kickbox 07

Kickbox 07 — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:11:59 +0000

What are you smoking Dude? Cotto, Clottey, Hatton, Dela Hoya, Marquez, Morales, Barrer… Not all of them are top-rank boxers yet all of them are supposed to be bigger than Pacquiao at the time they face. Wake up Man! you’re almost snooozing as you typed your comment.

By: solid pac

solid pac — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:12:51 +0000

manny pacquiao’s boxing achievements should get him at the top 3 boxers of all time. his record of 7 diff weigth div titles speaks for it’s self. his tenacity in every fight makes boxing an exciting to watch.

By: Dark Moon

Dark Moon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:47:05 +0000

Good article Scott.

I really think much like what you had written here, for a long time. As a young boxing fan, I can’t really tell how dominant are the greats that our historians had listed. There’s not much available videos of their fights (except for duran and his contemporaries). It’s hard to validate the judgment of our historians. We only relied on their accounts. I guess it’s time to re-assess the ATG list.

By: Dark Moon

Dark Moon — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:40:37 +0000

Good article Scott. I really think much like what you had written here for a long time. As a young boxing fan, I can’t really tell how dominant are the greats that our historians had listed. There’s not much available videos of their fights (except for uran

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:28:09 +0000

Amen. Outstanding article!

By: fanny

fanny — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:17:22 +0000

Pacquaio is not American but its okay to us fans he is our greatest.

By: r.a.w.

r.a.w. — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:04:56 +0000

Of late, Manny has fought a bunch of stiffs and recently defeated fighters. How those fighters held a title is a testament to boxing’s ridiculous ratings system. I like Manny, and have rooted for him a long time, but he’s the product of very careful match making. I’m still waiting for him to take on a real challenge. Once he fights the best and defends those titles against non-Top Rank opponents, we can talk about historical placement. But truthfully, all this talk about greatest of all time is subjective. The only thing that fighters of today should worry about is being the best in their own time.

By: Edgar A de Dios

Edgar A de Dios — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:06:47 +0000

There is no fair comparison on the criteria being used by our boxing historians in America. But we should not also forget that there may also be some greater boxing historians outside of the Americas.
Many outside of the US consider our present crop of boxers more well-trained than the boxers of yore. Take for instance the existing nutrition standards, the training methods, and the level of competition. These present historians outside the US are taking these into consideration plus the fact that training periods now are much longer. Further, because of the bigger purses our present boxers have tried to develop themselves more as incentives become very enormous.
Thus, Manny Pacquiao who has fought the best in all divisions, and dominated them so badly should not be overlooked by our US historians. Seven titles in seven different divisions is by all means already shocking.
In the case of Pacquiao, he is already one of the best if not the best boxer of all time. He has beaten future HOF boxers who are mostly bigger than him, and that’s something that should not be overlooked.