I am curious about this because of how many posts and posters rank punching power and kos so highly, whereas that doesn't appear to have been the case once upon a time. Would fighters like Conn and Rosenbloom and Loughran be considered great if they weren't already on all the lists?
Another reason I wondered about this has to do with rating the all time top 10 in each division. Take the welterweights as an example; what did your top ten list look like in, say 1975, or in 1988, as compared to now? I would venture to guess that for many iy is barely recognizable as the same list and yet I don't know if I could in all honesty say that any body in the last 30 years accomplished what some of the ex top guys did in their careers.
Have the standards for being a great fighter been tweaked? Do people just want to see their era represented?
Have You Changed How You Evaluate A Boxer's Career?
-
tiredoldngrey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 23 May 2005, 12:36
For every Matador there are 10 bulls, people would rather see the bulls unless the matador is very very good. So I think Punchers get into the mix when they are so good they can not be denied. Also everyone is happy to see two Bulls collide but almost no one wants to see two matadors.
So the bulls live a charmed life and often get over rated.
So the bulls live a charmed life and often get over rated.
-
tiredoldngrey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 23 May 2005, 12:36
That is not where I was trying to get and I apologize for misleading you. Let me try it this way.
In 1975 the top ten welters would've included Robinson, Armstrong, Napoles, Britton, Lewis, McFarland, McClarnin, Ross, Gavilan, Graham, Zivic, Griffith and Rivera (allowing for some ties). Is that a fairly accuirate rendering of the top fighters in that division to that point? It seems to be that the names on there speak for themselves and if they are unfamiliar toi you one glance at their record will tell you why that man's name is on that list.
How would the list look if compiled today? Anybody care to offer a replacement and who he would replace and why? I'll guess that 5-6 names change on that list and I cannot figure out how to justify any of the expected changes. There seems to be a situation where by tacit consent various attributes and conditions are eiither weighted or ignored; for instance, it seems sometimes in modern boxing that winning by decision is almost as bad as losing. I hope that clears things up but I fear I lost focus on the idea entirely. Sorry.
In 1975 the top ten welters would've included Robinson, Armstrong, Napoles, Britton, Lewis, McFarland, McClarnin, Ross, Gavilan, Graham, Zivic, Griffith and Rivera (allowing for some ties). Is that a fairly accuirate rendering of the top fighters in that division to that point? It seems to be that the names on there speak for themselves and if they are unfamiliar toi you one glance at their record will tell you why that man's name is on that list.
How would the list look if compiled today? Anybody care to offer a replacement and who he would replace and why? I'll guess that 5-6 names change on that list and I cannot figure out how to justify any of the expected changes. There seems to be a situation where by tacit consent various attributes and conditions are eiither weighted or ignored; for instance, it seems sometimes in modern boxing that winning by decision is almost as bad as losing. I hope that clears things up but I fear I lost focus on the idea entirely. Sorry.