COMMENTARY | One of the most common, but utterly pointless debates in boxing is the “all-time” discussion. Every boxing message board and social media group dedicated to the sport will eventually broach the subject. Even before the internet began attracting the attention of fight fans, there’s no doubt that boxing aficionados everywhere, whether in groups of two or twenty, would eventually go there.
Is so and so an all-time great? Could he measure up to the greats of the past? Can athletes these days measure up to their predecessors? Fans of all sports tend to speculate about these types of things, but boxing, as one on one combat, lends itself to these questions more so than other sports.
At this particular point in history, fans and media have singled out Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao as the two greats of this era and, of course, that designation brings up the question of whether either fighter belongs on the list of all-time greats and whether they could’ve competed with the best fighters of the past.
The answer to both questions is a curt, completely unsatisfactory “who knows?”
Fighters of the past fought much more often and, therefore, developed all of the tricks of the trade that go along with being a battle-hardened veteran. What Bernard Hopkins does today to befuddle his opponents used to be fairly commonplace. Quality trainers were plentiful and at all levels of the game. Fighters became well-versed in the art of prizefighting through these hardcore trainers and/or through actually learning the hard way-via years of hands-on practice in the ring.
These days, the fighters are much better athletes, but lack in some of the fundamental skills that the old school pugs used to command. This has to do with a much sparser fighting schedule and the shrinking number of quality trainers on the scene.
Take a fighter from today and put him in the 50’s. Surround him with good trainers and seasoned opposition and he would likely develop into a hardcore, all-around quality fighter. Conversely, take one of the top fighters of the 50’s and bring him to the present. Give him a twice-a-year-fight schedule, stuff his bank account with money, and let him pretty much run his own training camp. What you’ll likely get is a talented fighter with some glaring technical weaknesses whose resolve is a bit softer than before.
Like anything else, fighters are a product of their time. You could no more compare Manny Pacquiao to Sugar Ray Robinson than you could speculate about how Mark McGwire would’ve performed in baseball’s “dead ball” era. If Henry Armstrong had a deeper resume than Floyd Mayweather, it’s because Armstrong was a product of his time and fought much more frequently. We’re talking about the same sport, but two very different business models that have forced its athletes into much different circumstances.
Pacquiao has many technical flaws that could’ve been easily picked apart by the well-schooled old timers, but who says that Manny wouldn’t eventually learn to correct those mistakes and dominate? Floyd Mayweather has been untouchable in this era because of his old school tricks of the trade and overall ring smarts, but who says that he wouldn’t be picked apart by those who are just as well-schooled, but infinitely tougher?
Unless a magical time machine is invented, all of these legend vs. legend bouts are pure fantasy– Much like the mythical pound-for-pound list, which asks for similar logic-bending suppositions and leaps of faith. Why can’t fans and media just be happy in the here and now?
Mayweather and Pacquiao are both great. Comparing one with the other is fair game; comparing them to ghosts is not.
