Your personal opinion re: the "best of" and "worst of" boxing "assessors".

[BoxBuzz]

Who do you most agree with, or imagine to have the very best and worst ability to assess a fighters chances/skills/abilities/talents etc?

You know....your "go to" person to quote, or the person you wait to hear from to help "orient" your opinion on fighters? And the ones you almost always laugh off.
I know that most of us go our own way quite often.....but we probably all have the folks we take seriously and those we tend to lampoon.

I'm curious as to who we look to as educated, most clueless, most consistent, most inconsistent etc.

Are their certain "positions" that lend themselves to this art more deftly?

Do Trainers have the best viewpoint?
Boxers themselves?
Judges?
Refs?
Highly excitable fans?
Color Commentators?
Announcers?
Managers?
Hot Dog Vendors?
Contributors to the BoxRec History Forum?


Just stirrin the pot, chewin on a straw on the porch.....and having too much time on my hands.

[BitPlayer]

Some MMA fans online have the worst knowledge for how much they think they know about boxing.

The guys I like are more the ones that justify their opinions well, rather than just ones I agree with.

[Kalan]

Who do you most agree with, or imagine to have the very best and worst ability to assess a fighters chances/skills/abilities/talents etc?

The very best are top trainers who have boxed at a high level themselves and the very best boxers - so long as they're fans of the sport and follow other boxers... They know who has real good skills and they know what they're looking at... They can separate charisma, glamor and showmanship from craft... They know what boxers will match up well or won't.

Another criteria is the objectivity and intellect to separate themselves emotionally from color, nationality, personal relationship, generational bias, and other factors that may cause you to like one boxer more than another.

Trainers and boxers for whom boxing is strictly their job -- and they don't enjoy watching boxing and don't like to evaluate another boxers skills, aren't going to be any better than the average fan or the average boxing writer...

Boxing writers who never boxed are generally the worst analysts... Dan Rafael is typical of the boxing scribe who doesn't have a clue... He insisted that Hopkins would easily outbox Kovalev when there was no way on God's green earth that was ever going to happen... After the fight he didn't concede a thing... He insisted Hopkins "staggered" Kovalev in the 12th and had him going - and would have won had he been more aggressive from the start.

People like that just dig their heels in and never give an inch regardless of how often they're wrong.

[Counter-puncher]

People like that just dig their heels in and never give an inch regardless of how often they're wrong.

yeah, 'those' people, eh?

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Boxing fans and people in boxing are the worst, nay, dumbest assessors I can recall in pro sports not that I bother much with pro sports any more.

If they knew what they were talking about, they'd be multi millionaires, not the derelicts dragged out like loony Atlas and the like, but some of them have personality that dumb fans relate to. On an individual basis, there are a few who have the balance and boxing nuance to understand that Conor was always gonna hit TUE with no problems whatsoever. It ain't like the boy wonder ever had a good defense, it's solid for a boxer, but not exceptional because he always needs his own drug testing agency, commission, officials, ref for the win, and the subservient idolaters like Kellerman or punch drunk stats to shape the dialogue for the viewers.

That's why boxing has been a dying sport. The public at large may not understand much of boxing, but they know a good viewing spectacle of a legit fight vs the stink of too many modern American boxers. Be more honest for American fighters hiring a clown, or better yet the ring gals to run around shaking pillow slips of marshmallows that would at least provide some comic relief of a pillow fight.

[APerno]

Do Trainers have the best viewpoint?
Boxers themselves?
Judges?
Refs?
Highly excitable fans?
Color Commentators?
Announcers?
Managers?
Hot Dog Vendors?
Contributors to the BoxRec History Forum?

Just stirrin the pot, chewin on a straw on the porch.....and having too much time on my hands.

It really depends on who is talking.

Trainers: trainers should be a good source, so long as they aren't looking for a quick payday; most have had some ring experience and hopefully have day to day contact with the fighter.

The fighter himself: the fighter is likely to deceive himself just out of the sheer need for confidence.

Refs: refs probably shouldn't know much about any particular fighter or at least not have an opinion; their job is to manage a fight; per-fight assessment of a fighter would likely lead to some kind of bias.

Highly excitable fan: here is our go to guy . . . for getting beer spilled on you.

Announcers/Color Commentators: again who is speaking matters much; within this group the gap between the knowledgeable and the ignorant is most wide.

Managers: managers really aren't motivated to properly assess their fighters; the lure of the payday can cause them to overestimate their fighters.

Hot Dog vendors: I haven't seen a hot dog vendor at a prize fight in two decade, but I'll bet 60 years ago there were hot dog vendors who could watch a kid for four rounds and know everything there is to know.

Us: Really depends on who is speaking.

Why not "promoters"?

Promoters/match-makers: I suspect promoters would be a good source; they are motivated to create competitive matches (when it suits them, and mismatches when it doesn't) and that necessitates the ability to assess the fighters they are matching.

I would argue that a promoter might be the best source for assessing a fighter (so long as he isn't motivated, for one of a thousand reasons, to lie.)

[Kalan]

Trainers: trainers should be a good source, so long as they aren't looking for a quick payday; most have had some ring experience and hopefully have day to day contact with the fighter ..... The fighter himself: the fighter is likely to deceive himself just out of the sheer need for confidence ..... Refs: refs probably shouldn't know much about any particular fighter or at least not have an opinion; their job is to manage a fight; per-fight assessment of a fighter would likely lead to some kind of bias ..... Highly excitable fan: here is our go to guy . . . for getting beer spilled on you ..... Announcers/Color Commentators: again who is speaking matters much; within this group the gap between the knowledgeable and the ignorant is most wide ..... Managers: managers really aren't motivated to properly assess their fighters; the lure of the payday can cause them to overestimate their fighters ..... Hot Dog vendors: I haven't seen a hot dog vendor at a prize fight in two decade, but I'll bet 60 years ago there were hot dog vendors who could watch a kid for four rounds and know everything there is to know ...... Us: Really depends on who is speaking ..... Why not "promoters"? Promoters/match-makers: I suspect promoters would be a good source; they are motivated to create competitive matches (when it suits them, and mismatches when it doesn't) and that necessitates the ability to assess the fighters they are matching .....I would argue that a promoter might be the best source for assessing a fighter (so long as he isn't motivated, for one of a thousand reasons, to lie.)

APerno, I assume that you'd ask a trainer about a match his boxers AREN'T involved in.... If he's a former top professional boxer and an excellent trainer he should have a leg up on everybody else because he's always looking for flaws and know all the fixes.... He's also looking to move his boxers toward World Title Fights and has to constantly assess other boxers because that's his job... He's absolutely the best possible source because everything he does from day to day is all about assessing boxers... He generally has more years in the game and more experience than the average boxer.... He may know a thing or 2 that many boxers in their 20's and 30's haven't learned yet.

I also assume you're asking a world ranked boxer about a fight or fighter with whom he's NOT connected.... If he's an extremely good boxer he's always thinking about scientific technique and doing strategic analysis... He's always assessing opponent's weaknesses and how to exploit them round by round -- as well as evaluating their strengths and how to impede them, because that's his job... He's the best possible source other than a top trainer.

WTF do announcers and color commentators know about anything??? They never fought.... "Expert" commentators know something because they generally fought...

WTF do managers know about anything??? They have to confer with the chief trainer to get the vaguest idea.

Judges generally know shitt... Look at their doofus scorecards ..... WTF do referees know unless they fought??? The only thing they know is how to yell "Break, stop punching... let go of his head... get off his neck... watch your head I'm warning you... keep it clean fellas... watch the elbows... stop wrestling now I'm warning you and TIME!!! You, go to that corner."

Hot dog vendors know less than shitt and have no reason to know anything....

WTF would promoters know??? They generally never fought or trained fighters. They're the blind leading the blind. You go to a blind person if you have something written in braille that you can't read. You don't ask him to run quickly to the concession stand and grab some hotdogs because the main event is starting in 2 minutes. Asking a promoter about a boxer's ability is like asking BuzzBox to perform heart surgery on an orangutan...

[APerno]

APerno, I assume that you'd ask a trainer about a match his boxers AREN'T involved in.... If he's a former top professional boxer and an excellent trainer he should have a leg up on everybody else because he's always looking for flaws and know all the fixes.... He's also looking to move his boxers toward World Title Fights and has to constantly assess other boxers because that's his job... He's absolutely the best possible source because everything he does from day to day is all about assessing boxers... He generally has more years in the game and more experience than the average boxer.... He may know a thing or 2 that many boxers in their 20's and 30's haven't learned yet.

I also assume you're asking a world ranked boxer about a fight or fighter with whom he's NOT connected.... If he's an extremely good boxer he's always thinking about scientific technique and doing strategic analysis... He's always assessing opponent's weaknesses and how to exploit them round by round -- as well as evaluating their strengths and how to impede them, because that's his job... He's the best possible source other than a top trainer.

I agree with you regarding trainers so long as they have the fighters best interest at heart, some don't.

Look at what the Duvas did with Johnny Bumphus, it was obvious he was a finished fighter but they fed him to Honeyghan just to get one more payday out of him anyway; he was a shot fighter whose legs were completely gone and should never have been in that fight. I feel certain the Duvas could assess a fighter as well as anyone, and yet they didn't give a damn.

Yes, trainers are a great source of information but are no more honest than any manager or promoter (and that is not saying much.) I realize that the Duvas were acting as all three with Bumphus.

As far as 'other fighters' go I feel their judgment (regarding an opponent) will be just as bias; driven by the same need to feel confident.

With promoters, I am thinking of the promoter as a "match-maker" Back in the day the major venues had their own experts whose sole job was to make (great) matches e.g. Frank Flournoy, MSG circa 1922; these guys, I believe would make the best assessors (often times they are the promoter as well.)

And as far as hot dog vendors go, where is your sense of romance sir? - Can't you see some old broken down featherweight from the 20s hacking out a living in the 50s? The quiet little guy with the hot dogs, that only the regulars know about, who can watch a fight for four rounds and know more than anyone else in the house. Never underestimate the hot dog vendor, you may not know who he was.

[Kalan]

Well..... A broken down featherweight wouldn't be a good boxer to ask anyway... You'd maybe ask Roy Jones... Bernard Hopkins... Michael Spinks... Carl Froch... Badou Jack...Eric Morel... Robert Garcia... Keith Thurman... about any top boxer you think is somewhat analytical -- and wasn't a crackhead or had any other problems mentally or physically... You wouldn't take his opinion and run with it....but there's information there that you haven't considered... You can work it into your assessment of each boxer and match-up analysis.

You wouldn't ask the Duva's. WTF would they know?? If you ask a trainer who’s never boxed you might ask Adam Booth.. Shane McGuigan.. Abel Sanchez, or Virgil Hunter because they’ve picked up so much from boxers that they really know fighters… But I prefer boxers who actually fought like John David Jackson who I used to like a lot but now I hate the bastard... Robert Garcia is a good one... Emmanuel Steward never fought as a pro, but he usually had a good idea how a match-up was going to work for each fighter... He sometimes messed up royally so you couldn’t take his view to the bank.

As much as you think you know about Boxing, listening to knowledgeable opinions about how a matchup breaks down is worthwhile... Cuz they’ll have a slightly different slant than you.

[BoxBuzz]

Kalan, Perno.....I appreciate your answers.....and I think both of you did a fine and credible job of "assessing the assessors".

However with that said, and IN MY OPINION, based on this sample survey... it appears that out of folks who have a great skill for "assessing assesors" only about 50% can parlay that skill and actually perform the task of "excellence in assessments" regarding boxers.

I won't say which one of you is on which side of the 50% mark that I am handing out today.

But I do agree with many of both your points on this subject in general.

An interested and effective and honest trainer should be a good benchmark setter.......as should an interested, effective and honest "matchmaker"....or promoter if you will. They may well lead the pack. And quite often....they are former boxers themselves....which in my opinion is another feather in the cap you might want to look for, when sorting the wheat from the chaff.


Another sure fire way to tell, is if they are a contributor to this forum, and within their moniker they happen to be sporting the intials B.B.

What? That last statement is Not scientific enough for you?

[Kalan]

Dundee was great with people and had a lot of insider connections... Everybody liked him... He kept the trains moving on time and made sure everybody had their shitt together... He was a leader... But he wasn't a particularly good analyzer of styles and match-ups... It was evident that Buster Douglas was falling through his ass training for Evander Holyfield... He was really fat and out of shape and went right back to being the old unmotivated, lazy ass Buster Douglas.

They asked Dundee who wins... He replied something like this... "Holyfield is getting knocked out... This kid Douglas is a big, strong kid who can move really well and box... He's what? 6'4" X 240? .... Holyfield is a Cruiserweight. It's a mismatch."

I thought "Whoooaaa... Did I just hear that from Angelo Dundee???" ... He wasn't clueless, but he obviously wasn't keeping up with what these guys were doing in training camp. You wouldn't pick Douglas anyway based on his history.

It reminds me of when reporters asked Joe Louis who was going to win the Patterson-Cooper fight... Louis said.. "Cooper... Patterson can't stand up." .... I wasn't shocked by that. Louis was one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, but he wasn't an analytical guy... Patterson caught wind of what Louis said and wasn't happy about it.. He knew Louis well.

"I can't stand up?? What about Cooper?? He's been down more than a 10 dollar hooker....at least I get up.. Louis has been down a lot too... You can tell Joe I said that.. Cooper is getting knocked flat -- if I lose this one I'll quit."

[APerno]

Dundee was great with people and had a lot of insider connections... Everybody liked him... He kept the trains moving on time and made sure everybody had their shitt together... He was a leader... But he wasn't a particularly good analyzer of styles and match-ups... It was evident that Buster Douglas was falling through his ass training for Evander Holyfield... He was really fat and out of shape and went right back to being the old unmotivated, lazy ass Buster Douglas.

They asked Dundee who wins... He replied something like this... "Holyfield is getting knocked out... This kid Douglas is a big, strong kid who can move really well and box... He's what? 6'4" X 240? .... Holyfield is a Cruiserweight. It's a mismatch."

I thought "Whoooaaa... Did I just hear that from Angelo Dundee???" ... He wasn't clueless, but he obviously wasn't keeping up with what these guys were doing in training camp. You wouldn't pick Douglas anyway based on his history.

It reminds me of when reporters asked Joe Louis who was going to win the Patterson-Cooper fight... Louis said.. "Cooper... Patterson can't stand up." .... I wasn't shocked by that. Louis was one of the greatest Heavyweights ever, but he wasn't an analytical guy... Patterson caught wind of what Louis said and wasn't happy about it.. He knew Louis well.

"I can't stand up?? What about Cooper?? He's been down more than a 10 dollar hooker....at least I get up.. Louis has been down a lot too... You can tell Joe I said that.. Cooper is getting knocked flat -- if I lose this one I'll quit."

Patterson said "more than a ten dollar hooker" ? - doesn't sound like him; I thought he was a practicing Catholic or something actually committed like that. Just doesn't sound like Patterson.

I think Dundee is over rated, but that may be because he is rated as a lesser-god by (too) many.

[Kalan]

Even a good Catholic man like Patterson was around very rough talking people in the fight game... You're constantly hearing bad language and you get used to it... Even when chief seconds know the camera are rolling during a televised fight you constantly hear blue language from them... Even Emmanuel Steward said MFer on the air when he got angry, and he normally was above that kind of language... They're not thinking about the public... They're trying to win.

Though I doubt Patterson ever used the F word he was constantly around people who did... I wonder if it ever slipped out of his mouth accidentally... But using a descriptive phrase you've heard other people use in a moment of irritation is something even a good Catholic might do on occasion...

[lazboy]

Agree with some of the other comments on here. Some.

It’s got to be the trainers and the promoters/matchmakers although everyone can be crap at their job. Recently, even though I’m no longer a fan, golden boy and co, Oscar and Hopkins have matched Canelo with YouTube highlight reel performances. Matching him with Liam Smith, Khan, Kirkland. Styles make fights, they knew it and they ended in spectacular Kos being wary to delay his fight with Golovkin and also match him with a shot Chavez. They know their boy Canelo.

Of course there are intelligent fans and also promoters trainers would have an agenda so getting truth knowledge out of them would be difficult. In terms of intelligent fans. My opinion is you have had to have boxed at some point in your life. Actually boxed. Boxed as in sparred multiple times forget about am or pro record. If you don’t have this experience talking about it with all the stats, nutrion, athletic ability, comparing size can only get you so far.

[jas80s]

Agree with some of the other comments on here. Some.

It’s got to be the trainers and the promoters/matchmakers although everyone can be crap at their job. Recently, even though I’m no longer a fan, golden boy and co, Oscar and Hopkins have matched Canelo with YouTube highlight reel performances. Matching him with Liam Smith, Khan, Kirkland. Styles make fights, they knew it and they ended in spectacular Kos being wary to delay his fight with Golovkin and also match him with a shot Chavez. They know their boy Canelo.

Of course there are intelligent fans and also promoters trainers would have an agenda so getting truth knowledge out of them would be difficult. In terms of intelligent fans. My opinion is you have had to have boxed at some point in your life. Actually boxed. Boxed as in sparred multiple times forget about am or pro record. If you don’t have this experience talking about it with all the stats, nutrion, athletic ability, comparing size can only get you so far.

Ring experience can provide insight certainly, but even ring experience can differ greatly from fighter to fighter. After all, every fighter carries their own attributes and styles into the ring that would impact their experience and shape their views of how fights should and do ultimately go down. Basically, what I am suggesting is that a fighter might tend to see fights in very rigid ways due to the very experience of fighting themselves. Most fighters tend to like fighters who fight in their style and you have to believe that colors their opinions. It isn't always true of course, just saying sometimes the experience is a double edged sword.

Humans can learn a tremendous amount from observing and taking in the experiences of others. Moreover, a lack of actual ring experience can even provide a little clinical distance that would allow one to be more dispassionate in their assessments. I don't know though, all I know is just about everyone knows more than me, so I'll listen to any of it.

But personally, I really like to listen to analysts like Bernstein, Kellerman, and Merchant.

[lazboy]

Agree with some of the other comments on here. Some.

It’s got to be the trainers and the promoters/matchmakers although everyone can be crap at their job. Recently, even though I’m no longer a fan, golden boy and co, Oscar and Hopkins have matched Canelo with YouTube highlight reel performances. Matching him with Liam Smith, Khan, Kirkland. Styles make fights, they knew it and they ended in spectacular Kos being wary to delay his fight with Golovkin and also match him with a shot Chavez. They know their boy Canelo.

Of course there are intelligent fans and also promoters trainers would have an agenda so getting truth knowledge out of them would be difficult. In terms of intelligent fans. My opinion is you have had to have boxed at some point in your life. Actually boxed. Boxed as in sparred multiple times forget about am or pro record. If you don’t have this experience talking about it with all the stats, nutrion, athletic ability, comparing size can only get you so far.

Ring experience can provide insight certainly, but even ring experience can differ greatly from fighter to fighter. After all, every fighter carries their own attributes and styles into the ring that would impact their experience and shape their views of how fights should and do ultimately go down. Basically, what I am suggesting is that a fighter might tend to see fights in very rigid ways due to the very experience of fighting themselves. Most fighters tend to like fighters who fight in their style and you have to believe that colors their opinions. It isn't always true of course, just saying sometimes the experience is a double edged sword.

Humans can learn a tremendous amount from observing and taking in the experiences of others. Moreover, a lack of actual ring experience can even provide a little clinical distance that would allow one to be more dispassionate in their assessments. I don't know though, all I know is just about everyone knows more than me, so I'll listen to any of it.

But personally, I really like to listen to analysts like Bernstein, Kellerman, and Merchant.

Fair points. I also like merchant and Bernstein. In terms of clinical distance and being dispassionate it definitely could give one a less clouded view. I agree re: some fighters and trainers views. terrible trainers exist. I really have zero respect for the role of boxing trainer unless I can see that they are....good. I’ve seen trainers, more personal fitness trainers than boxing attempting to teach boxing and you can imagine the results.

However, if I could pick the brain of a good trainer about a division or their fighter I’d listen.. It would make sense that they would know about their fighters and other fighters. But how would you find out what a trainer really thought as they would be pushing an agenda....promoting their fighter. And...right now I can only think of a few “good” trainers off the top of my head.

[Ambling Alp II]

Maybe a retired trainer who has no horses in the race would be the best.
Merchant made good points but goes off on those weird tangents. I've heard him go on about the Knights of the Round Table and the Spanish Armada.
Kellerman and Bernstien were good; don't agree with everything they have said but nobody agrees all of the time.

[Kalan]

Ring experience can provide insight certainly, but even ring experience can differ greatly from fighter to fighter. After all, every fighter carries their own attributes and styles into the ring that would impact their experience and shape their views of how fights should and do ultimately go down. Basically, what I am suggesting is that a fighter might tend to see fights in very rigid ways due to the very experience of fighting themselves. Most fighters tend to like fighters who fight in their style and you have to believe that colors their opinions. It isn't always true of course, just saying sometimes the experience is a double edged sword.

Humans can learn a tremendous amount from observing and taking in the experiences of others. Moreover, a lack of actual ring experience can even provide a little clinical distance that would allow one to be more dispassionate in their assessments. I don't know though, all I know is just about everyone knows more than me, so I'll listen to any of it.

But personally, I really like to listen to analysts like Bernstein, Kellerman, and Merchant

The problem with those 3 analysts is, they carry a lot of biases and they know next to nothing… I listened to Bernstein do the Russell-Gonzalez Featherweight Title Fight... It was evident Russell is 3 X the boxer Gonzalez is, but Bernstein leaned hard towards Gonzalez until it was totally obvious to anyone that he was getting murdered...

Kellerman kept saying Conor wouldn’t land a single punch on Mayweather and that has to be the dumbest statement ever made... Merchant never liked Hopkins. To start the Hopkins-De La Hoya fight he said, “De La Hoya is beating Hopkins to the punch.” Expert commentator, Steward, corrected him saying, “I don’t see where Oscar is landing much of anything.”

Ring experience does differ greatly among fighters… Many fighters are tough guys who do more brawling than boxing… As soon as they move up in class they get trashed because they haven’t learned their trade… Just as doctors make horrific mistakes in surgery or diagnosis of ailments, boxers make horrific mistakes as well – but the boxer pays for them not the patient.

You wouldn’t ask a boxer who doesn’t have good professional skills to assess a particular match-up. You’re guess is as good as his. Any reasonably intelligent person can see if a boxer is comfortable and relaxed with his stance, footwork and guard… and if he moves well, gets in and out well, changes direction well, and uses the ring well… and if he feints and delivers punches smoothly, sharply, accurately, and effortlessly... and if he defends himself well.

Many non-boxers who’ve watched many fights can also tell if a boxer’s stance and guard look tight, not well balanced, and maybe a little vulnerable... if his footwork looks less than precise and smooth, maybe even sloppy... If his feints look exaggerated instead of subtle... if he’s holding his gloves too close to his face, his shoulders are hunched, he loads his punches and is basically a free swinging brawler. And if he’s taking too many punches on his gloves and not parrying, slipping, ducking, rolling and countering many of them – because maybe he’s very weak in those skills.

What many very experienced spectators can do is take the weaknesses of one boxer and assess how they might be exploited by the strengths of his upcoming opponent and vice-versa – and come up with a probable winner.

The thing that a very good boxer or excellent trainer can do for you – if he’s not a friend or associate of one of the boxers, because if he is, he’s not going to tell you what he really thinks, nor would it be wise for him to do so – is give you a much more nuanced breakdown of each boxer’s skills. He sees a lot of things you don’t see or can’t see, and he’ll most likely assess how the match-up plays out and nail the winner more often than you will.

But a talking head, promoter, matchmaker, hotdog vendor, manager, adviser, strength trainer, or fight doctor, won't have a better idea who'll win a fight than a fairly astute fan who's been watching boxing for 10 years or more.