Why do people rate old fighters so much?

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 19 Oct 2005, 23:18

Not that I'm saying the older fighters were bad, far from it, but a lot of people seem to have a very high opinion of older fighters when compared to the current crop.

Fighters like Dempsey, Jack Johnson etc are held in almost god-like status as if they would walk through any of todays fighters.

The facts are that todays fights are viewed by millions of people all across the world. Todays fights are analysed in minute details by newspapers, TV reporters and forums like these. The slighest mistake is highlighted and discussed. Fights are sold on video and DVD to be viewed and discussed again and again.

Older fighters didn't have this done to them. Dempsey would fight in front of huge crowds but that was it, no satellite footage beamed across the globe. Of course eye-witness accounts are always blown out of proportion and bits added on over the years to make these guys sound so much better than they really were. Marciano had bad fights but because there isn't much footage of his early fights we only have the views of fans from that era, who like most people would exaggerate.

The fact is ALL fighters have bad fights, the older ones are no different and it makes me laugh when people think fighters like Marciano could beat fighters like Lennx Lewis. Boxing like every other sport has progressed on all matter of fronts, todays fighters are stronger, faster and fitter than the earlier counterparts. Can you imagine a 1940's sprinter competting against one of todays top sprinters? Or a weightlifter? Or a swimmer?

Yes I have my favorites from long ago but I don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses and in many cases I am not deluded enough to let my heart rule my head.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 19 Oct 2005, 23:55

yOU can get perspective on the career of a long ago fighter as his career is ended. You also know the relative historical merit and worth of his opposition; skills proven in bouts with HoF members and guys who are on all the top 100 lists are worth more than skills proven against Merqui Sosa and Richard Frazier.
The old guys had to much more skilled: how can you learn as much in21 fights as in 115? The idea that today's fighters are better is ludicrous. If they were better conditioned why are there so many dogs on tv? Defensive skill today is rudimentary and when else have you seen so many heads whipping back because the chin was in the air? The guys today aren't slick or stylish and they are dull; they are analyzed by a boxing ignorant media and even the greatest part of the boxing in crowd has precious liitle knowledge of the technical side of the game. Most trainers seem to have started in karate and watching ther training videos is laughable

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 20 Oct 2005, 00:16

tiredoldngrey wrote:yOU can get perspective on the career of a long ago fighter as his career is ended. You also know the relative historical merit and worth of his opposition; skills proven in bouts with HoF members and guys who are on all the top 100 lists are worth more than skills proven against Merqui Sosa and Richard Frazier.
The old guys had to much more skilled: how can you learn as much in 21 fights as in 115? The idea that today's fighters are better is ludicrous. If they were better conditioned why are there so many dogs on tv? Defensive skill today is rudimentary and when else have you seen so many heads whipping back because the chin was in the air? The guys today aren't slick or stylish and they are dull; they are analyzed by a boxing ignorant media and even the greatest part of the boxing in crowd has precious liitle knowledge of the technical side of the game. Most trainers seem to have started in karate and watching ther training videos is laughable

I didn't say they were any less skilled, just that some people over estimate the older fighters. Of course you are going to have more experiance fighting more but that isn't enough. There are plenty of fighters today who have had 80+ fights, some 100+ but that doesn't mean they are any good, and they would still be beat by any half decent newcomer they fought.

I see James J. Jeffres name mentioned in peoples top 10 or top 20 lists yet he only had 21 fights, winning 19. Yet the Jeffries fans make him sound like he could hold his own against anyone.

People make their opinions on todays fighters because we see them all the time. We don't have that luxury with the old timers. Joe Louis was ko'ed early in his career, had his bum of the month campaign and was given some very close fights, being floored in some. He was giving a boxing lesson by the much smaller and lighter Farr yet Louis is rated by many as the number one heavyweight ever. I'm not saying Louis was a bad fighter, not at all, but over-rated yes.

I'm betting if you watched the young Dempseys early fights it wouldn't be at all skillful, in fact it would probably be quite laughable as he ran across the ring throwing punches from all areas and then clubbing the guy as he tried to stand up again. Yet again Dempsey is rated very highly by some although he beat the very average Willard, was nearly blown away by Firpo and was beaten by, albeit by the very good Tunney.

To say modern fighters have no defensive skills is not right. There are plenty of good examples of good defensive fighters...Pernell Whittaker for one and there are plenty of others.

Yes todays fighters are not all in great shape but again neither were all the old timers either. Again we do not have the footage of all the old fighters to see this first hand like we can today.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Oct 2005, 00:19

I agree with tiredoldngrey's post 100%.

Plus, the older fighters fought in a time where there were gyms all over the place. Thus, the greatest fighters who became champions in the past came from a much larger pool of fighters than today's fighters do. Boxing is not mainstream anymore and many of the old great trainers who trained multiple fighters and multiple styles are no longer active. How can one be as great when they do less actual fighting than they used to? The reason people argue about fighters so much and so many "upsets" take place today is because the top fighters don't fight enough to get an accurate read on their skills. For example, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has not fought a serious fighter since JLC in late 2002. Could any champion of the past duck any legit opposition for 3 years and still expect to be champion? Could he even be a Top 10 contender? Those are some of the main differences as the bogus titles have sapped a lot of the life out of the sport and corroded the quality of the fighter that wins the belts.

Plus, for every fighter who was not filmed a lot, you can read round-by round accounts of many fights and get a more accurate read on the fighter than by watching him a few times. It just takes time and dedication to research the fight accounts.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 20 Oct 2005, 00:37

dnahar32 wrote:I agree with tiredoldngrey's post 100%.

Plus, the older fighters fought in a time where there were gyms all over the place. Thus, the greatest fighters who became champions in the past came from a much larger pool of fighters than today's fighters do. Boxing is not mainstream anymore and many of the old great trainers who trained multiple fighters and multiple styles are no longer active. How can one be as great when they do less actual fighting than they used to? The reason people argue about fighters so much and so many "upsets" take place today is because the top fighters don't fight enough to get an accurate read on their skills. For example, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has not fought a serious fighter since JLC in late 2002. Could any champion of the past duck any legit opposition for 3 years and still expect to be champion? Could he even be a Top 10 contender? Those are some of the main differences as the bogus titles have sapped a lot of the life out of the sport and corroded the quality of the fighter that wins the belts.

Plus, for every fighter who was not filmed a lot, you can read round-by round accounts of many fights and get a more accurate read on the fighter than by watching him a few times. It just takes time and dedication to research the fight accounts.

Thats my point though, you will not get an accurate opinion of a fighter by reading a fight report. You cannot recreate a fight on paper and if the reporter is biased he will always make the fighter sound much better than he really was. But people make huge judgements on older fighters when, in most cases, they have NEVER seen one single fight. They read the old boxing books, read other peoples posts on forums and listen to trainers on tv and make their mind up without ever seeing the fighter in action.

Marciano fought most of his fights in his home town, and guess what, the local papers raved about him and glossed over the bad bits. Plus there is very little footage to see for yourself so you get other peoples opinions, when they haven't probably seen any fights either.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Oct 2005, 01:04

Controversial wrote:
dnahar32 wrote:I agree with tiredoldngrey's post 100%.

Plus, the older fighters fought in a time where there were gyms all over the place. Thus, the greatest fighters who became champions in the past came from a much larger pool of fighters than today's fighters do. Boxing is not mainstream anymore and many of the old great trainers who trained multiple fighters and multiple styles are no longer active. How can one be as great when they do less actual fighting than they used to? The reason people argue about fighters so much and so many "upsets" take place today is because the top fighters don't fight enough to get an accurate read on their skills. For example, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has not fought a serious fighter since JLC in late 2002. Could any champion of the past duck any legit opposition for 3 years and still expect to be champion? Could he even be a Top 10 contender? Those are some of the main differences as the bogus titles have sapped a lot of the life out of the sport and corroded the quality of the fighter that wins the belts.

Plus, for every fighter who was not filmed a lot, you can read round-by round accounts of many fights and get a more accurate read on the fighter than by watching him a few times. It just takes time and dedication to research the fight accounts.
Thats my point though, you will not get an accurate opinion of a fighter by reading a fight report. You cannot recreate a fight on paper and if the reporter is biased he will always make the fighter sound much better than he really was. But people make huge judgements on older fighters when, in most cases, they have NEVER seen one single fight. They read the old boxing books, read other peoples posts on forums and listen to trainers on tv and make their mind up without ever seeing the fighter in action.

Marciano fought most of his fights in his home town, and guess what, the local papers raved about him and glossed over the bad bits. Plus there is very little footage to see for yourself so you get other peoples opinions, when they haven't probably seen any fights either.

I disagree. Reading fight reports is like politics, you have to keep an open mind. If a local paper has a preconceived favorite, look for the bias in the report. And then compare it to an AP or UPI report or another paper and see where they match up. Better yet, find the paper that doesn't have a hometown fighter involved. For the major fights, many top newspapers would send reporters ringside and you could compare scorecards and fight reports from many sources. Remember, in the world before TV, fight fans would line up to read the reports straight from the presses so many of these fight summaries were quite objective outside of the hometown paper. Admittedly, this takes some work but if you look at the Harry Greb record on BoxRec, you will see how the newspaper accounts prepare such a good portrayal of him in the ring even though no films of Greb fights exist to this point. The same can be said of many fighters. The round-by-round of Corbett-Sullivan in the New Orleans paper literally takes a full page in very small font and goes through all 75 rounds, literally punch for punch. I've read round-by-round reports of 10+ Ketchel fights and have a very balanced opinion of him after doing this.

Do you have access to NY Times microfilm? Newspaperarchive.com? Have you researched past fight reports at a local library or university? Try it if you haven't and then see if you change your mind. It will broaden your mind as a boxing fan.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Oct 2005, 06:12

Controversial, you are absolutely right. Alot of the old time fighters are romantized to the point of sounding superhuman. Some of them may at least be almost as good as advertised, like Joe Louis, and others are blown way out of porportion like Johnson and Marciano.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 20 Oct 2005, 06:29

ketchel ko'd the much larger jack o'brien.he went toe to toe with sam langford.was quoted by fleischer as the greatest middleweight ever(list included greb and robinson).i'd take his greatness over marshall every day of the week.

oh and which part of his record is not impressive?the 50ko's in 53 wins?winning the title at 21?regaining the championship(the first to do so,i'd love this fight to be available on film)fighting heavies?
then which part of marshalls record is more impressive?the amount of times he was on the canvas?

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 20 Oct 2005, 12:40

firstly look at marshalls and charles weight.hardly any difference.secondly the argument works the other way,ketchel held back as to not show his full hand against langford.or just maybe they fought each other on the level.jack o'brien had over 150 fights was the heavier man and had been stopped just once.ketchel fought coloured fighters so why berate him for the era at least he didn't draw the color line to protect himself.victories over the likes of papke are good wins as well,as is thomas.he met a few fighters common to langford and did a better job.nobody disputes langfords greatness.
i'd take nat fleischers opinion over yours, as you think lloyd marshall is better than stanley ketchel.lol.

oh,BTW its disgraceful to put campas's record as comparison to ketchels.ketchel beat top men hof's.knocked out heavies as well.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 20 Oct 2005, 15:07

Decagon wrote:Most of the fighters Ketchell beat were no better than Campas.

OK I'll bite. How do you know that? Do you have the "Complete collection of Stanley Ketchel's Victims" on DVD?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Oct 2005, 15:20

Usually the people who accuse others of looking at 'old timers' through 'rose-tinted specs' are the ones who haven't bothered or been able to read up and study these 'oldtimers'. Its easy to praise fighters that are around today but it takes some work and dedication to read up on and get fights of fighters of the past.
Those that don't bother about the 'old timers' don't know what they're missing though.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Oct 2005, 15:21

Decagon wrote:Most of the fighters Ketchell beat were no better than Campas.

Spoken like a true novice on boxing.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Oct 2005, 18:19

Ill make this short, ive stated my defense to this topic many a time, im sure some people were will back me up on that..

anyway, i judge fighters on talent and quality of fighters and accomplishments... i find fighters of today to be much bigger and much slower. often not as talented as they are strong.

fighters of the past, IMO all fought much more talented fighters, and were much more talented themselves. i think a fighter like braddock who beats a fighter like baer, is more impressive then if like valuev were to beat any heavyweight today. i think boxing today has fallen to the lighterweights to carry the torch..prodominatly the middleweights and light welterweights, IMO.

when i look at a fighter like dempsey or like louis, i am infinatley more impressed by them than a fighter like lennox lewis. even if lennox had a longer run at the title, i still think he is overrrated.. only because i dont think that 90% of the guys he fought as champ were "good" fighters... no HOF cept for holyfield, and tyson. and lets not forget how over the hill tyson was. and that i swear holyfield beat lewis in that fight.

but then u look at a lighter fighter like marciano.. he fought plenty of HOF fighters, and people mock his fighting accomplishments because of how "bad" his comp was. they forget he fought plenty of HOF such as-

joe louis (yeah over the hill, but good enough to challenger for the title)
ezzard charles- great fighter
archie moore- WASNT past his prime dont let anyone fool you into thinking he was just because he was old.
jersey joe- SAME deal.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 20 Oct 2005, 18:20

forgot to keep that short, but i could have wrote so much more...

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Oct 2005, 20:25

Usually the people who accuse others of looking at 'old timers' through 'rose-tinted specs' are the ones who haven't bothered or been able to read up and study these 'oldtimers'.

there is nothing wrong with appreciating and paying proper respect to "old timers", but just because someone is of the opinion that a more modern fighter would have beaten them does not mean they are being direspectful. I love watching my Marciano tapes, and marveling at his guts and tenacity. But i'm not going to be so jaded by hero worship that I Im going to make him out to be something more than he actually was. I couldnt honestly see any of the fighters he fought giving someone like Frazier much of a problem. George Foreman probably would have commited murder had he fought Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore. Larry Holmes may have spoken too harshly when he made his infamous comments about the rock; but truthfully I cant imagine a scenerio where the Rock could win a fight with him. Holmes was bigger, faster, stronger, younger and more moblie than Charles,Moore or Walcott. If they gave Marciano all he could handle its frightning to think what Holmes would have done to him.

wlvrne · Post by **wlvrne** » 20 Oct 2005, 20:45

Oh please, someone turn this topic away from Holmes.
How about the legendary Jake LaMotta against Bernard Hopkins at Middle weight?

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Oct 2005, 20:54

Ok wlvrne. Great fight by the way. laMotta at his best would have been very tough for Hopkins to beat. LaMotta was relentless and I dont think he would have fell for Hopkins mind games. Lamotta would have pressured him from the start bullying him to the ropes and keeping him pinned there most of the time. laMotta was no ko artist but he was perhaps one of the physically strongest middleweights of all time. Hopkins would have to gain LaMottas respect, and i'm not sure if hopskins punched hard enough to keep LaMotta off him. Nor is he fleet footed enough to keep Lamotta from cutting off the ring. this would be a very grueling fight and could go either way, Hopkins boxing skill is that good. But i guess LaMotta would win most of the time they fought by UD or split decision.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 20 Oct 2005, 20:59

Theone, you hit the nail on the head. I've got the outmost respect for Marciano, Louis, Walcott, Moore, Charles, Baer, and even Braddock etc, but some of the arguments I hear on this particular topic are so absurd it would be like my insisting that Marvin Hagler would beat and possibly knockout Mormeck at cruiserweight. And if anyone disagreed I could just go on about how great Hagler was, his boxing skills, durability, ringsmarts etc and how the 25-30 lb weight advantage of Mormeck would mean nothing to a great fighter like Marvelous Marvin.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 20 Oct 2005, 22:07

dnahar32 wrote:
Controversial wrote:
dnahar32 wrote:I agree with tiredoldngrey's post 100%.

Plus, the older fighters fought in a time where there were gyms all over the place. Thus, the greatest fighters who became champions in the past came from a much larger pool of fighters than today's fighters do. Boxing is not mainstream anymore and many of the old great trainers who trained multiple fighters and multiple styles are no longer active. How can one be as great when they do less actual fighting than they used to? The reason people argue about fighters so much and so many "upsets" take place today is because the top fighters don't fight enough to get an accurate read on their skills. For example, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has not fought a serious fighter since JLC in late 2002. Could any champion of the past duck any legit opposition for 3 years and still expect to be champion? Could he even be a Top 10 contender? Those are some of the main differences as the bogus titles have sapped a lot of the life out of the sport and corroded the quality of the fighter that wins the belts.

Plus, for every fighter who was not filmed a lot, you can read round-by round accounts of many fights and get a more accurate read on the fighter than by watching him a few times. It just takes time and dedication to research the fight accounts.
Thats my point though, you will not get an accurate opinion of a fighter by reading a fight report. You cannot recreate a fight on paper and if the reporter is biased he will always make the fighter sound much better than he really was. But people make huge judgements on older fighters when, in most cases, they have NEVER seen one single fight. They read the old boxing books, read other peoples posts on forums and listen to trainers on tv and make their mind up without ever seeing the fighter in action.

Marciano fought most of his fights in his home town, and guess what, the local papers raved about him and glossed over the bad bits. Plus there is very little footage to see for yourself so you get other peoples opinions, when they haven't probably seen any fights either.
I disagree. Reading fight reports is like politics, you have to keep an open mind. If a local paper has a preconceived favorite, look for the bias in the report. And then compare it to an AP or UPI report or another paper and see where they match up. Better yet, find the paper that doesn't have a hometown fighter involved. For the major fights, many top newspapers would send reporters ringside and you could compare scorecards and fight reports from many sources. Remember, in the world before TV, fight fans would line up to read the reports straight from the presses so many of these fight summaries were quite objective outside of the hometown paper. Admittedly, this takes some work but if you look at the Harry Greb record on BoxRec, you will see how the newspaper accounts prepare such a good portrayal of him in the ring even though no films of Greb fights exist to this point. The same can be said of many fighters. The round-by-round of Corbett-Sullivan in the New Orleans paper literally takes a full page in very small font and goes through all 75 rounds, literally punch for punch. I've read round-by-round reports of 10+ Ketchel fights and have a very balanced opinion of him after doing this.

Do you have access to NY Times microfilm? Newspaperarchive.com? Have you researched past fight reports at a local library or university? Try it if you haven't and then see if you change your mind. It will broaden your mind as a boxing fan.

I appreciate you and others may take the time to fully research the older fights, reading the old reports etc... but how many fans actually go to that trouble? You get young boxing fans who have seen a few clips on Marciano, read a few magazines about him and all of a sudden they are experts on his abilities to compete today. The same can be said for many of the older 'big name' fighters.

I think this happens because people continue to assume to 'good old days' were better. Maybe in some ways they were, a lot less titles and weights and more opposition challenging for the title. But to say todays fighters are less skilful is ridiculous.

For every crap fighter about today there was a crap fighter too in the 'good old days'. There always appears to be some misconception that all the older fighters were in great shape and skillful but that just is the case.

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 20 Oct 2005, 22:42

I believe we rate them so high because they actually fought good and consistent opposition. Many old champs fought true contenders not like today. Before being world champ actually meant something and being a top 10 contender was actually an accomplishment in itself.

theone · Post by **theone** » 20 Oct 2005, 22:57

I believe we rate them so high because they actually fought good and consistent opposition.

That is too general of a statement. Some of them did, alot of them didnt. just like more modern day fighters.

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 20 Oct 2005, 23:12

Controversial wrote:
dnahar32 wrote:
Controversial wrote: Thats my point though, you will not get an accurate opinion of a fighter by reading a fight report. You cannot recreate a fight on paper and if the reporter is biased he will always make the fighter sound much better than he really was. But people make huge judgements on older fighters when, in most cases, they have NEVER seen one single fight. They read the old boxing books, read other peoples posts on forums and listen to trainers on tv and make their mind up without ever seeing the fighter in action.

Marciano fought most of his fights in his home town, and guess what, the local papers raved about him and glossed over the bad bits. Plus there is very little footage to see for yourself so you get other peoples opinions, when they haven't probably seen any fights either.
I disagree. Reading fight reports is like politics, you have to keep an open mind. If a local paper has a preconceived favorite, look for the bias in the report. And then compare it to an AP or UPI report or another paper and see where they match up. Better yet, find the paper that doesn't have a hometown fighter involved. For the major fights, many top newspapers would send reporters ringside and you could compare scorecards and fight reports from many sources. Remember, in the world before TV, fight fans would line up to read the reports straight from the presses so many of these fight summaries were quite objective outside of the hometown paper. Admittedly, this takes some work but if you look at the Harry Greb record on BoxRec, you will see how the newspaper accounts prepare such a good portrayal of him in the ring even though no films of Greb fights exist to this point. The same can be said of many fighters. The round-by-round of Corbett-Sullivan in the New Orleans paper literally takes a full page in very small font and goes through all 75 rounds, literally punch for punch. I've read round-by-round reports of 10+ Ketchel fights and have a very balanced opinion of him after doing this.

Do you have access to NY Times microfilm? Newspaperarchive.com? Have you researched past fight reports at a local library or university? Try it if you haven't and then see if you change your mind. It will broaden your mind as a boxing fan.
I appreciate you and others may take the time to fully research the older fights, reading the old reports etc... but how many fans actually go to that trouble? You get young boxing fans who have seen a few clips on Marciano, read a few magazines about him and all of a sudden they are experts on his abilities to compete today. The same can be said for many of the older 'big name' fighters.

I think this happens because people continue to assume to 'good old days' were better. Maybe in some ways they were, a lot less titles and weights and more opposition challenging for the title. But to say todays fighters are less skilful is ridiculous.

For every crap fighter about today there was a crap fighter too in the 'good old days'. There always appears to be some misconception that all the older fighters were in great shape and skillful but that just is the case.

The reason this forum is pretty good is because most of the people who talk about the old timers on this board have studied up on them. I find it disrespectful if people use just a bit of information and make unfounded generalizations of the past. If you or anyone else doesn't know about a fighter, don't comment. Plain and simple. But for the people that have looked into the old-timers, don't dismiss their opinions either. If they give their reasons why someone was great, how can anyone dismiss them without studying them? Controversial, this was a great idea to start a thread on and I respect your willingness to consider other views.

And no, not every champion or decent fighter from the past was great. But the objective posters on this board know that. You don't see too many threads proclaiming the greatness of Rube Ferns (welterweight champ), Johnny Jadick (jr welterweight champ) or Jimmy Goodrich (lightweight champ). But the handful of big names that are bandied about were legitimately great.

But what is annoying is that when comparisons are made, all the comparisons are made to today's conditions. For example, take Stanley Ketchel. His fights with Papke, Stone, and others were 20 round fights. So when people downgrade Ketchel to praise some other middleweight, do they consider how the modern fighter might have done stamina-wise having to go 20 rounds rather than 12? No. Do they factor in the modern fighter having to make weight ringside like the older fighters did rather than add upwards of 10% of their body weight between weigh-in and the fight? No. Do they factor in that these fighters were strong using natural methods rather than muscle supplements that are essentially shortcuts? No. Give me the fighter that spends hours and hours catching medicine balls and chopping wood than some of the nutritionally balanced fighters of today who cut dangerous amounts of weight in short periods. One should consider these things when making the comparisons and it makes you appreciate the skills of these older fighters in general even more. And good arguments can be made even for Marciano vs. Holmes and others if you consider all the factors.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 21 Oct 2005, 00:31

dnahar32 wrote:
Controversial wrote:
dnahar32 wrote: I disagree. Reading fight reports is like politics, you have to keep an open mind. If a local paper has a preconceived favorite, look for the bias in the report. And then compare it to an AP or UPI report or another paper and see where they match up. Better yet, find the paper that doesn't have a hometown fighter involved. For the major fights, many top newspapers would send reporters ringside and you could compare scorecards and fight reports from many sources. Remember, in the world before TV, fight fans would line up to read the reports straight from the presses so many of these fight summaries were quite objective outside of the hometown paper. Admittedly, this takes some work but if you look at the Harry Greb record on BoxRec, you will see how the newspaper accounts prepare such a good portrayal of him in the ring even though no films of Greb fights exist to this point. The same can be said of many fighters. The round-by-round of Corbett-Sullivan in the New Orleans paper literally takes a full page in very small font and goes through all 75 rounds, literally punch for punch. I've read round-by-round reports of 10+ Ketchel fights and have a very balanced opinion of him after doing this.

Do you have access to NY Times microfilm? Newspaperarchive.com? Have you researched past fight reports at a local library or university? Try it if you haven't and then see if you change your mind. It will broaden your mind as a boxing fan.
I appreciate you and others may take the time to fully research the older fights, reading the old reports etc... but how many fans actually go to that trouble? You get young boxing fans who have seen a few clips on Marciano, read a few magazines about him and all of a sudden they are experts on his abilities to compete today. The same can be said for many of the older 'big name' fighters.

I think this happens because people continue to assume to 'good old days' were better. Maybe in some ways they were, a lot less titles and weights and more opposition challenging for the title. But to say todays fighters are less skilful is ridiculous.

For every crap fighter about today there was a crap fighter too in the 'good old days'. There always appears to be some misconception that all the older fighters were in great shape and skillful but that just is the case.
The reason this forum is pretty good is because most of the people who talk about the old timers on this board have studied up on them. I find it disrespectful if people use just a bit of information and make unfounded generalizations of the past. If you or anyone else doesn't know about a fighter, don't comment. Plain and simple. But for the people that have looked into the old-timers, don't dismiss their opinions either. If they give their reasons why someone was great, how can anyone dismiss them without studying them? Controversial, this was a great idea to start a thread on and I respect your willingness to consider other views.

And no, not every champion or decent fighter from the past was great. But the objective posters on this board know that. You don't see too many threads proclaiming the greatness of Rube Ferns (welterweight champ), Johnny Jadick (jr welterweight champ) or Jimmy Goodrich (lightweight champ). But the handful of big names that are bandied about were legitimately great.

But what is annoying is that when comparisons are made, all the comparisons are made to today's conditions. For example, take Stanley Ketchel. His fights with Papke, Stone, and others were 20 round fights. So when people downgrade Ketchel to praise some other middleweight, do they consider how the modern fighter might have done stamina-wise having to go 20 rounds rather than 12? No. Do they factor in the modern fighter having to make weight ringside like the older fighters did rather than add upwards of 10% of their body weight between weigh-in and the fight? No. Do they factor in that these fighters were strong using natural methods rather than muscle supplements that are essentially shortcuts? No. Give me the fighter that spends hours and hours catching medicine balls and chopping wood than some of the nutritionally balanced fighters of today who cut dangerous amounts of weight in short periods. One should consider these things when making the comparisons and it makes you appreciate the skills of these older fighters in general even more. And good arguments can be made even for Marciano vs. Holmes and others if you consider all the factors.

I'm not disagreeing with you bud, the old timers had a much harder time of things than todays fighters. I think the money fighters earn today takes away a lot of their hunger and desire to want to fight regular or take any un-necessary chances. Why should they when they are millionaires after one big fight? Older fighters didn't earn much and, in most cases, had to fight their hearts out because they had to.......But that doesn't mean they all were good, like a lot of fans seem to think.

I know of boxing fans who make outrageous claims about fighters and I know full well they haven't seen ONE of their fights. They make judgements on hearsay and the opinions of others. I bet there are plenty of people on this forum who make their top 10 lists with fighters included that they have seen a couple of clips of.

I for one won't comment on things I don't know anything about. If I want to find out I will research it and then comment. But of course everyones opinions differ and its just as well otherwise forums like these wouldn't exist.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 21 Oct 2005, 01:50

..briefly:

Louis was not all that much bigger than tommy farr and farr did not give him a boxing lesson. with an injured right hand from a very early round, louis jabbed the tough farr's face into stitches. when farr walked back to his corner after one round he asked, seriously, if his face had been caved in. controversial may be thinking of billy conn.....it's easy for those who weren't around to get fighters of the past eras mixed up. (oh yes...louis knocked out conn...some people seem to forget that.)

holmes was bigger and probably stronger than charles, but in no way was he more mobile...nor anywhere near AS mobile.

lloyd marshall was a great fighter. as pointed out, though, he wasn't much smaller than charles and when he beat charles ezzard was in the army and couldn't train properly. it was in that same year that charles lost to jimmy bivins..another great. charles reversed his losses to both of these fighters.

a truly gifted fighter is a gifted fighter in any era. but a gifted fighter still in his twenties and early thirties and with 60///70///80 fights against the best in his era is smarter through sheer experience than a gifted fighter with 25///30///40 fights.

when ray robinson, kid gavilan, archie moore (still in his thirties), as examples, climbed into the ring there was nothing the other guy did that they hadn't seen before.

finis

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 21 Oct 2005, 05:06

Decagon wrote:Give me a fighter like Floyd Mayweather or Kostya Tszyu, who'll train as hard as the old guys, but still has access to modern supplements and training methods over a talentless bralwer like Ketchell. There were some incredibly good fighters in the early 1900s, like Johnson, Langford and Dempsey, but Ketchell simply wasn't one of them. He was overrated because he was popular, just as Greb was underrated because no one liked him.

A lot of people don't understand what the newspaper business was like back then. The whole goal was to sell papers, not be honest or forthcoming. I'll trust the UP, the AP and the New York Times to give accurate accounts of fights, but magazines like Ring magazine were little more than tabloids back then.

In the same issue where Nat Fleischer was calling Stanley Ketchell the greatest middleweight of all time, some other writer was calling Jim Londos the greatest wrestler of all time, above legitimate athletes like Frank Gotch and Ed Lewis. It wasn't until half a decade before Fleischer's death that Ring magazine stopped covering professional wrestling as if it were a legitimate sport. I love reading old magazines and old newspaper reports - especially of California boxers - but you have to realize that Fleischer is not a reliable source.

fleischer knew his boxing,and had the advantage over you of actually seeing these fighters in action.if you trust the new york times i suggest you get hold of a copy of their reports on ketchel-o'brien 1 and ketchel-papke 3,they paint a far different picture of the michigan assassin than you.jack o'brien was a fabulous boxer and imo someone who was a talentless brawler just would not have been able to catch up with him.
you probably believe campas would have licked jack as well.

ketchel must have been very good at what he did.to argue otherwise shows you to be ignorant.if someone like julian jackson could be succesful now then i'm pretty sure ketchel who hit as hard,was more durable,threw more punches and carried his power late would be more so.

Why do people rate old fighters so much?

Why do people rate old fighters so much?

legends