FLOYD PATTERSON
He had tremendous appeal. He was a guy people wanted to see succeed, & they would always be willing to to pay to see him try.
At the first Ali- Frazier he got the loudest & longest ovation of the night.
He wasn't even their.
Who is Boxrec. most popular fighter from the past.
-
bill.lockhart
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 249
- Joined: 01 Nov 2005, 11:40
Favourite Fighter
My favourite fighter to-day, is Arturo Gatti
I think I can rate him as a fighter of the past because he sure battles like the old time greats. No fan ever walked away from a Gatti fight feeling they didn't get their moneys worth. It doesn't hurt that he's Canadian either.
I think I can rate him as a fighter of the past because he sure battles like the old time greats. No fan ever walked away from a Gatti fight feeling they didn't get their moneys worth. It doesn't hurt that he's Canadian either.
re
>>>>I'm not knocking anyone's choices but could people who have chosen people who they couldn't have seen all their fights or were not born when they fought, why they have chosen them. Barry why for example have you chosen alot of the guys on your list? And I'm not starting trouble!!!<<<
Well I am sure that it differs for everyone, but for me I like a fighter not only for what they accomplish in the ring, but how they are out of the ring. I find that I sometimes, not always, come to respect fighters that I have not seen, but instead spent hours and hours reading about from various sources. Watching the fights, which I love more than anything, is not a personal kind of thing. Watching fights is shared with not only the broadcasters, but all the people around whereas when reading about a fight, well that is just between me and the writer. Some writers are a lot better than others and reporting a fight in newspapers back around Langford and McGovern's time, well the writers cover the fights round by round and so in-depth are the reports that the reader is given a very, very good impression as to what the fight was like.
It would be hard for someone who has never watched fights to get a grip on what any fight would be like if they had only read about, but people like us, who pretty live boxing, well we have the "boxing sense" from all the boxing that we have watched to help us understand the language of an early boxing writer. There are several things to watch out for when reading newspaper accounts. Like was a certain writer a bias spectator who had an agenda for a certain fighter, or was the writer a fair and honest recorder of history. That is something that you learn spending years and years reading various papers and each paper use to have their own boxing writer, some papers had several boxing writers and some writers were better than other writers. Some paid extra attention to detail, while others were just interested in getting the basics and still others could use 500+ words for each round they described. Which with the experience and time a person learns who the better writers are.
There are way too many to name, but writers like Robert Edgren and George Siler could describe a fight just about as good as someone could watch it. A lot of the top writers were also looked upon to referee bouts. One of my favorite British writers of that early era was also a very renowned referee in Great Britain, J. Frank Bradley and he could really describe the contents of a fight when he reported.
Well I have went on bit of a rant here, but I think that it is pretty important to say a bit about what sets reading early 20th century accounts apart from reading a couple of paragraphs of today, which seems to be the extent of what some writers today express. Of course there is nothing that can give you impressions in the same manner that film and television can, but if a person is willing to put in the time, he can learn all he needs to know about a fighter without ever seeing the fighter engage in any bouts.
It takes a hell of a lot of time, but in the end, if you enjoy reading, then reading very detailed accounts of fights as well as articles and interviews about a fighter’s life will give you all the information you need and with the “boxing sense,” that us hardcore fans have, a person can visualize a particular fighter and what that fighter fought like. I’ll try to give a good example of what I am talking about.
One written fight account that probably has affected me more than any other that I can ever recall reading was the report for the August 8, 1974 bout of Danny Lopez vs. Masano Toyoshima which was printed in Boxing Illustrated, probably in the October, or November 1974 issue of BI. Anyway, before reading the account I knew very much about Danny Lopez, but I had never seen him fight with my eyes. I had only read articles, interviews and fight reports at that point. After I had finished reading the rather small recap report of the Lopez-Toyoshima bout I was as excited as if I had witnessed the bout. My pulse was up and my heart was racing…just from reading the account. Like I said, I had never watched Lopez at that point, but I knew what kind of fighter he was and how he fought and I pictured the bout in my head and after I did watch Lopez fight, he fought exactly as I had imagined. Now of course had I not previously read much about Lopez then it would be virtually impossible to imagine the least bit what he was like, but do to the fact that I had read a lot about him I was able to visualize the bout from the short, but very descriptive account in Boxing Illustrated, but due to the written research I had done prior I knew what Lopez was like in the ring.
The same thing goes for any other fighter as well. I have never watched “Barbados” Joe Walcott fight, but I know exactly what he was like in the ring because of all the written research that I have done and all the very detailed articles that I have read about him and like I said earlier, all of the research that I have done on Walcott for instance, is very personable as it has been between just me, Walcott and the writer. That’s about the best that I can do in trying to explain. Anything in particular that needs to be better explained?
Well I am sure that it differs for everyone, but for me I like a fighter not only for what they accomplish in the ring, but how they are out of the ring. I find that I sometimes, not always, come to respect fighters that I have not seen, but instead spent hours and hours reading about from various sources. Watching the fights, which I love more than anything, is not a personal kind of thing. Watching fights is shared with not only the broadcasters, but all the people around whereas when reading about a fight, well that is just between me and the writer. Some writers are a lot better than others and reporting a fight in newspapers back around Langford and McGovern's time, well the writers cover the fights round by round and so in-depth are the reports that the reader is given a very, very good impression as to what the fight was like.
It would be hard for someone who has never watched fights to get a grip on what any fight would be like if they had only read about, but people like us, who pretty live boxing, well we have the "boxing sense" from all the boxing that we have watched to help us understand the language of an early boxing writer. There are several things to watch out for when reading newspaper accounts. Like was a certain writer a bias spectator who had an agenda for a certain fighter, or was the writer a fair and honest recorder of history. That is something that you learn spending years and years reading various papers and each paper use to have their own boxing writer, some papers had several boxing writers and some writers were better than other writers. Some paid extra attention to detail, while others were just interested in getting the basics and still others could use 500+ words for each round they described. Which with the experience and time a person learns who the better writers are.
There are way too many to name, but writers like Robert Edgren and George Siler could describe a fight just about as good as someone could watch it. A lot of the top writers were also looked upon to referee bouts. One of my favorite British writers of that early era was also a very renowned referee in Great Britain, J. Frank Bradley and he could really describe the contents of a fight when he reported.
Well I have went on bit of a rant here, but I think that it is pretty important to say a bit about what sets reading early 20th century accounts apart from reading a couple of paragraphs of today, which seems to be the extent of what some writers today express. Of course there is nothing that can give you impressions in the same manner that film and television can, but if a person is willing to put in the time, he can learn all he needs to know about a fighter without ever seeing the fighter engage in any bouts.
It takes a hell of a lot of time, but in the end, if you enjoy reading, then reading very detailed accounts of fights as well as articles and interviews about a fighter’s life will give you all the information you need and with the “boxing sense,” that us hardcore fans have, a person can visualize a particular fighter and what that fighter fought like. I’ll try to give a good example of what I am talking about.
One written fight account that probably has affected me more than any other that I can ever recall reading was the report for the August 8, 1974 bout of Danny Lopez vs. Masano Toyoshima which was printed in Boxing Illustrated, probably in the October, or November 1974 issue of BI. Anyway, before reading the account I knew very much about Danny Lopez, but I had never seen him fight with my eyes. I had only read articles, interviews and fight reports at that point. After I had finished reading the rather small recap report of the Lopez-Toyoshima bout I was as excited as if I had witnessed the bout. My pulse was up and my heart was racing…just from reading the account. Like I said, I had never watched Lopez at that point, but I knew what kind of fighter he was and how he fought and I pictured the bout in my head and after I did watch Lopez fight, he fought exactly as I had imagined. Now of course had I not previously read much about Lopez then it would be virtually impossible to imagine the least bit what he was like, but do to the fact that I had read a lot about him I was able to visualize the bout from the short, but very descriptive account in Boxing Illustrated, but due to the written research I had done prior I knew what Lopez was like in the ring.
The same thing goes for any other fighter as well. I have never watched “Barbados” Joe Walcott fight, but I know exactly what he was like in the ring because of all the written research that I have done and all the very detailed articles that I have read about him and like I said earlier, all of the research that I have done on Walcott for instance, is very personable as it has been between just me, Walcott and the writer. That’s about the best that I can do in trying to explain. Anything in particular that needs to be better explained?
Excellent mate! 
For me I need to watch fighters over a few years rather than reading about them to get to like them which is why my choice's are modern fighters. But as you say reading does account for choice. Thats why I like Ali. Not just because of his fights but because of all the other stuff that you see and read about him. Thanks again for the info!
For me I need to watch fighters over a few years rather than reading about them to get to like them which is why my choice's are modern fighters. But as you say reading does account for choice. Thats why I like Ali. Not just because of his fights but because of all the other stuff that you see and read about him. Thanks again for the info!re
Ali has been just such a tremendous individual and he has meant a lot for boxing as well as humanitarian efforts. I'll never forget Ali lighting the Olympic Torch in Atlanta. Along with Jim Valvano's heart-wrenching speech during the first ESPY's, Ali lighting the torch are probably my two favorite moments in sports history!
You can hear Valvano's speech at the following address:
http://www.jimmyv.org/rememberingjim/espy.cfm
He died a little less than two months after the speech!
You can hear Valvano's speech at the following address:
http://www.jimmyv.org/rememberingjim/espy.cfm
He died a little less than two months after the speech!
A funny Ali story: Years ago I went to the Spinks -Cooney fight closed circut screening at the old Chicago theatre with a couple buddies. One of the guys was real big, former colleage football lineman. Standing in the lobby before the fight having a beer . We were shooting the breeze before the main event. We hear alot of ruckus coming down the stairs from the balcony, its Ali with an entourage of about 10 people. He spotted this big friend of mine and jogged up to him and began his playful shadowboxing routine the two of them started play slapboxing for a couple minutes right in the lobby of the Chicago theatre. It was classic.Needless to say within minutes almost everyone left their seats and came to the lobby. I dont think anyone saw the fight. Muhhamed did his magic tricks for about a half hour.This buddy of mine is still talking about the time he fought Ali.