How much do you value quantity?

[margaret thatcher]

How much do you value quantity itself and simply staying busy? Does 1 good win mean more than 10 average ones? What's your thoughts bruhs

I've seen multiple posters simply use number of title defenses in rating fighters, without bothering to mention the level of opposition it was against. Something like 'oh, but so and so had x title defenses and the other guy only had y',

Guys like Wlad and GGG have over 20 title fight wins, but how many really mean that much? Wilder has like 43 wins or something, but how many top 10 fighters did he beat? Like 2 or 3 , and guys like Stiv and Dom are among his best. Whereas a guy like Fury has only won 2 title fights, but those wins surpass anything the others have done I think.

[DrDuke]

Of course, quality is more defining. Wilder's team was cherry picking and eventually Deontay had more troubles, when faced the best. He had a tough bout against Ortiz and eventually lost to Fury. His 10 defences aren't that impressive. Stiverne (in the 2nd bout), Szpilka, Molina, Washington came nearly from nowhere to challenge the World title. What did they do to earn those shots? Wlad was better in the sense, that he at least was beating all the best possible, he just emerged in a weaker era, so Wilder isn't comparable to Wlad. Vitali is comparable though, as he majorly was beating the remains, so to speak, while his brother was beating the best. And Fury, for example, with his wins over Wlad and Wilder is already higher historically, than Wlad himself, I'd say.

[RonnyJ]

Quality is much more important than quantity. 1 fight against 1 prime p4p boxer means more than a lot of boxers whole career.

[gregregegg]

very little, Quality is everything in my eyes. Notice how nearly every boxer gets to 20-0 before taking a real fight. The reality is they could all just go to mexico and knock out 100 people from 18 years old till 20. Glad its not that ridiculous. But yea, wilder and canelos (just examples i dont actuly dislike them) first 25 fights prove less to me than lomas first 2... and he was 1-1 at that point. but losing a close split to a good guy is still better than knocking out a binman.

[paddy chavez]

This is what sometimes pisses me off when some posters go on about an old fighter having 300 fights when 200 of those where against boxers with less than 10 fights in reality the opponents weren't good enough to spar with. Sugar Ray Leonard is a great example of quality over quantity 40 fights without checking but he beat Duran,benitez,Hearns and Hagler all amazing fighters. Even today the p4p argument generally comes down to two fighters lomo and Crawford and I don't think Crawford has beat anybody of note nobody in the top 30 p4p that I can think of whereas lomo has less fights but beat rigo,Gary Russell jr , Walters all better than anyone Crawford has fought.

[RonnyJ]

if you guys aggree that quality is much more important than quantity, how come on barely everybodys p4p atg 10 are just boxers from the past 40s,50s,60s,70s with 20 fights against good opponents and 100 fights against nobodys and 0 boxers from the eras with less fights, but often more quality?

[candyslim]

If Deontay had kept fighting the Washingtons and the Szpilkas, the Arreolae and the DuHaupases of this world then he'd still be champion and perfectly capable of turning those 10 defences into 20.

After the upgrade in competition the going got a lot tougher culminating in the loss to Fury. Would he have beaten a prime Fury in 2015? Would he have beaten Wlad? Shelley didn't think so. Neither do I. Quantity isn't entirely meaningless but it's quality that really counts.

[RonnyJ]

if you ask any expert about the best ever, this is a typical top 10 p4p you will get:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Joe Louis
8. Willie Pepp
9. Roberto Duran
10. Ezzard Charles

most of them have 100-200+ fights, most fights against bad or average boxers.

how come sugar ray leonard is rarly in anybodys top 10, he beat hagler, hearns, duran, he beat 3 legends. harry greb didnt beat 3 legends of the level hagler, hearns, duran. how come pac is never on anybodys top 10? he cimbed like 10 divisions, which is boxing history, legendary, has since over 10 years only been fighting good or very good opponents, beat one legend after the other barrera, morales, marquez, cotto, hoya and than at the end of his career does the unheard being old and beating a young strong puncher. lomachenko has better technique and better footwork than pepp, no boxer ever beat so many top opponents in few fights like him. if you add lomas amateur fights he also would have 300+ fights, just like those old school boxers with those hundreds of paid sparring bouts.

this is how a reasonable top 10 ever should look like:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Roy Jones Jr
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Floyd Mayweather Jr
7. Roberto Duran
8. Mike Tyson
9. Marvin Hagler
10. Vasil Lomachenko

[candyslim]

if you guys aggree that quality is much more important than quantity, how come on barely everybodys p4p atg 10 are just boxers from the past 40s,50s,60s,70s with 20 fights against good opponents and 100 fights against nobodys and 0 boxers from the eras with less fights, but often more quality?

I suggest Ronny that the reason you call those fighters 'nobodies' is because their names mean nothing to you. This is because you are young and will only be familiar with recent fighters and ATG oldies whose names ring-out down the decades. There are hundreds of awesome fighters who were not as great as the Robinsons, the Alis, the Haglers, etc.

If I said to you Jose Napoles, Wilfred Benitez, Sandy Saddler, Wilfredo Gomez, Ruben Olivares, Salvador Sanchez, Tony Zale, Bennie Briscoe you may have heard of one or two and that's being generous. These are your 'nobodies' but they were all very fine fighters and they are just examples that popped into my head. There are loads more where they came from. My point being just because you haven't heard of the opponents of many considered to be p4p greats doesn't mean they weren't a formidable test for those greats.

[RonnyJ]

if you guys aggree that quality is much more important than quantity, how come on barely everybodys p4p atg 10 are just boxers from the past 40s,50s,60s,70s with 20 fights against good opponents and 100 fights against nobodys and 0 boxers from the eras with less fights, but often more quality?

I suggest Ronny that the reason you call those fighters 'nobodies' is because their names mean nothing to you. This is because you are young and will only be familiar with recent fighters and ATG oldies whose names ring-out down the decades. There are hundreds of awesome fighters who were not as great as the Robinsons, the Alis, the Haglers, etc.

If I said to you Jose Napoles, Wifred Benitez, Sandy Saddler, Wilfredo Gomez, Ruben Olivares, Salvador Sanchez, Tony Zale, Bennie Briscoe you may have heard of one or two and that's being generous. These are your 'nobodies' but they were all very fine fighters and they are just examples that popped into my head. There are loads more where they came from. My point being just because you haven't heard of the opponents of many considered to be p4p greats doesn't mean they weren't a formidable test for those greats.

you are wrong, except briscoe i know them all. with nobodys i mean boxers with 2 wins 12 losses 3 draws kind of records and look at henry armstrong or other old legends how many of these paid sparrings they had.

look at old school legends right now and look how many nobodys they fought and yes they also fought a lot of top opponents, but much more nobodys. look at some records and than tell me what you saw.

[RonnyJ]

did you took the time looking at some record candyslim?

[candyslim]

I'm not going to talk about fighters from 100 years ago, I'll stick to what I know, but fighters from the sixties say and probably well before that fought their careers much the same way they do today, only when I was a young boxing fanatic in the seventies the top fighters used to fight each other way more than they do today.

I recently watched an old documentary about Jack Johnson the first black heavyweight champion of the world - how many of todays fighters know what it's like knowing their life can be ended at any time by some asshole who truly hates you and has a gun in his pocket?

I'm wandering from the point. It was explained that boxing was illegal in many states and they had to be a bit smart to get around it. Fights were often held in remote locations or on river barges, that was a favourite although I'm not sure how that was supposed to keep the lawmen away. Probably added another element of difficulty for them. Anyway another practical way of getting around the problem was to label the fight 'an exhibition of the noble art of pugilism' or some similar bollocks so the authorities would say "Oh that's alright then".

And no Ronny I didn't .

[Thomastearns]

Lists are fun but difficult to attach much meaning to as everything is a product of its own time, and it's not always clear what criteria we are using for compilation purposes.

You can't take Dempsey out of his time and you can't take Wilder out of his. You simply can't. Would Wilder beat Dempsey if they could meet? I'd say he should but I can't be certain. Who has the better resume?

We can say that modern boxers tend to fight far far less often than their historical counterparts and that they are far more aware of timing when it comes to matchups.
Careers were shorter too. Heavyweights were usually done by the age of 30.

We can also say training and recovery methods are far superior now than in previous times. Furthermore, generally conditions were far tougher in past days and that should also be taken into account when making judgments. It's easy to denigrate quantity but some credit must be given for stepping in again and again.

Robinson and Ali even went on tours!

For sure Ray Leonard was easy a great, but let's not forget the dubious win over Hagler and the even more dubious draw in the second Hearns fight.

No worries, I still love you Ray.

[Enlightened-One]

It’s good for champions or marquee names to keep busy. To face as many challengers as possible.

There are times where all fighters have to face subpar opposition (i.e. , late replacements, to clear ring rust, making a comeback, venturing into a new weight class, lack of better alternatives, enforced mandatory challengers etc.).

I guess the question is… did any of these fighters “duck” (or not face) any of their world-rated peers?

In response to the first post in this thread, I’d argue that the Klitschko brothers both faced the best of their respective eras.

In stark contrast, for GGG (probably due to a combination of his poor management team, K2, Universum & HBO) there were many top-tier fighters competing from 154lbs to 175lbs that he could have faced but his team chose not to.

This isn’t a criticism of Gennadiy, because he has now rid himself of all those parties and has taken control over his own career (and now he’s on the receiving end of many opportunities).

Also, people need to remember that boxing is known as the “theatre of the unexpected”, whereby upsets happen. And a fighters’ legacy can be evaluated based on how they maintained their discipline, drive and ambition against perceived “lesser” opposition.

[Heretic]

It is all about quality for me.

Quantity is still in a way proof of ones quality. Styles makes fights and all that. Taking on all comers even if they are not historically great does give credibility to a boxer.

Lets look for Wlad as an example. Dominating guys like Chagaev, Thompson, Haye, Povetkin, Ibragimov, Chambers, Pulev and Byrd is pretty damn strong resume. Even if many of the guys will not be remembered as great opponents in the future. I bet that the younger folk will look at the record of someone like Haye and think he was not much of a boxer. We who were watching that era know that on hes best Haye was great. He could have beat anyone on hes night. But the future fans will look at the record and think that dude who got beaten by cruiserweight Bellew was not much of a scalp.

Even now some people say that Fury has overtaken Wlad. The guy has two good wins. Old Klitchko and Wilder who will be moved to the paper champions folder pretty soon. That is just crazy talk

[RonnyJ]

I'm not going to talk about fighters from 100 years ago, I'll stick to what I know, but fighters from the sixties say and probably well before that fought their careers much the same way they do today, only when I was a young boxing fanatic in the seventies the top fighters used to fight each other way more than they do today.

I recently watched an old documentary about Jack Johnson the first black heavyweight champion of the world - how many of todays fighters know what it's like knowing their life can be ended at any time by some asshole who truly hates you and has a gun in his pocket?

I'm wandering from the point. It was explained that boxing was illegal in many states and they had to be a bit smart to get around it. Fights were often held in remote locations or on river barges, that was a favourite although I'm not sure how that was supposed to keep the lawmen away. Probably added another element of difficulty for them. Anyway another practical way of getting around the problem was to label the fight 'an exhibition of the noble art of pugilism' or some similar bollocks so the authorities would say "Oh that's alright then".

And no Ronny I didn't .

You should take the time. But do what u want.

The difficulties in the past were gigantic. War, rasicm, poverty etc..

Well, 60s was ali, 70s duran, 80s leonard, i got all 3 inside the top 10 ever, so no, i am not a hater of boxers of the past.

[RonnyJ]

It is all about quality for me.

Quantity is still in a way proof of ones quality. Styles makes fights and all that. Taking on all comers even if they are not historically great does give credibility to a boxer.

Lets look for Wlad as an example. Dominating guys like Chagaev, Thompson, Haye, Povetkin, Ibragimov, Chambers, Pulev and Byrd is pretty damn strong resume. Even if many of the guys will not be remembered as great opponents in the future. I bet that the younger folk will look at the record of someone like Haye and think he was not much of a boxer. We who were watching that era know that on hes best Haye was great. He could have beat anyone on hes night. But the future fans will look at the record and think that dude who got beaten by cruiserweight Bellew was not much of a scalp.

Even now some people say that Fury has overtaken Wlad. The guy has two good wins. Old Klitchko and Wilder who will be moved to the paper champions folder pretty soon. That is just crazy talk

Good post

[RonnyJ]

The reason why wilder & fury are irrelevant.

They are unwatchable! One is always fat and untrained, sluggish and got only his height and weight as advantage. The other is just wild, with no sense of a boxer. A tall athletic guy with a tremendous punching power. No technique, no basics.

The records are ok, but nothing phenomenal. Fury losing against a nobody in mcdermont, wilder mostly boxing d level.

Lewis, tyson or vitaly could be considered #1 ever. While vitaly didnt have a great record, he did what holyfield & tyson couldnt do and that is to win most rounds in a fight with arguably the best hw ever, that is lewis. Vitaly was very tall himself, has a legendary chin and underrated punching power.
41 kos in 45 fight ko ratio of 87 % says the man could hurt anybody, strong punchers like corrie sanders or samuel peter and master technicians like lewis. Chin, technique, power. A bit stiff yes, but vitaly nevertheless was at his prime a hw that would pose problem to any hw ever. He wasnt much smaller than fury, had more punching power, equal chin and as confident as they get.

80s tyson, need i say more, him close range to wilder would be wilders nightmare.

Prime lewis may be the 1, great jab, great power, great combos, tall and strong, one of the best finisher the hw division has ever seen.

[candyslim]

I'm not going to talk about fighters from 100 years ago, I'll stick to what I know, but fighters from the sixties say and probably well before that fought their careers much the same way they do today, only when I was a young boxing fanatic in the seventies the top fighters used to fight each other way more than they do today.

I recently watched an old documentary about Jack Johnson the first black heavyweight champion of the world - how many of todays fighters know what it's like knowing their life can be ended at any time by some asshole who truly hates you and has a gun in his pocket?

I'm wandering from the point. It was explained that boxing was illegal in many states and they had to be a bit smart to get around it. Fights were often held in remote locations or on river barges, that was a favourite although I'm not sure how that was supposed to keep the lawmen away. Probably added another element of difficulty for them. Anyway another practical way of getting around the problem was to label the fight 'an exhibition of the noble art of pugilism' or some similar bollocks so the authorities would say "Oh that's alright then".

And no Ronny I didn't .

You should take the time. But do what u want.

The difficulties in the past were gigantic. War, rasicm, poverty etc..

Well, 60s was ali, 70s duran, 80s leonard, i got all 3 inside the top 10 ever, so no, i am not a hater of boxers of the past.

I had a look at Hank Armstrong's record just to make you happy Ronny. He had 185 fights. Of those only 10 opponents had a losing record i.e. they'd losr more fights than they'd won. I'm sure you could find plenty of fighters today who'd run up 10 fights against opponents with a losing record in their first 15 fights.

Armstrong was a man who held the world title in three different weight divisions at the same time, back when there were only eight titles to be won. That's like five or six weight classes today. Winning just one title really meant something back then when you had vastly more fighters and so few titles to compete for.

Now I don't want to get into whether Armstrong would have beaten Whitaker or Duran or Pacquiao etc. We can't know the answer to that and people tend to get a bit hot under the collar, but what I can say with absolute certainty is that Henry Armstrong was one hellova fighter back in his day, and he and the other greats from yesteryear deserve the complete and absolute respect of anyone who professes to be a fan of boxing.

[RonnyJ]

You should take the time. But do what u want.

The difficulties in the past were gigantic. War, rasicm, poverty etc..

Well, 60s was ali, 70s duran, 80s leonard, i got all 3 inside the top 10 ever, so no, i am not a hater of boxers of the past.

I had a look at Hank Armstrong's record just to make you happy Ronny. He had 185 fights. Of those only 10 opponents had a losing record i.e. they'd losr more fights than they'd won. I'm sure you could find plenty of fighters today who'd run up 10 fights against opponents with a losing record in their first 15 fights.

Armstrong was a man who held the world title in three different weight divisions at the same time, back when there were only eight titles to be won. That's like five or six weight classes today. Winning just one title really meant something back then when you had vastly more fighters and so few titles to compete for.

Now I don't want to get into whether Armstrong would have beaten Whitaker or Duran or Pacquiao etc. We can't know the answer to that and people tend to get a bit hot under the collar, but what I can say with absolute certainty is that Henry Armstrong was one hellova fighter back in his day, and he and the other greats from yesteryear deserve the complete and absolute respect of anyone who professes to be a fan of boxing.

152 wins, 22 losses, 9 draws. Losing 4 out of your first 5 fights is a very bad start.

12 15 7
19 10 7
18 30 14
1 0 1

these are the kind of records he faced. A lot. Than he faced a better opponent


Baby Arizmendi
60.6
64 9 9
And what happened, he lost to him.

Than he entered his prime and beat a lot of opponents.
I looked up his whole record, he lost to robinson, did he have any win over a legendary boxer, like leonard had wins over duran top 10, hagler and hearns top 25, where is armstrong win over a top 25 p4p ever? None! But armstrong is considered second best boxer ever by historians and leonard around 12. it just doesnt make sense. And when you like at fight footage, prime leonard could rarly be touched, fought phenomanl, technical, athletic, he did mostly everything the right way, while armstrong (look for yourself) had a terrible guard. He came close to his opponents and started punching, leaving his head totaly open, used his head as a battering ram and rarly focused on defense, took tremendous punishmant.

i dont say armstrong aint great, he is great, i just say todays legends are greater, like pac, mayweather or lomachenko.

[Syntax Error]

Ultimately, a fighter is judged by quality.

You can have all the quantity you like, but if it isn't backed up by quality, it's meaningless.

Two guys that spring to mind for are:-

Oleksandr Usyk - The guy has barely had any fights, but his resume is quality and as such, is often ranked amongst the greatest CWs ever.

Julio Cesar Chavez - He had a ton of fights would often have non title fights against Tijuana taxi drivers in between his title defences, but these fights did nothing for his legacy, it's the quality in his resume that shines through.

[candyslim]

You'll never hear me denigrate "Sugar" Ray Leonard, he was a superb fighter not just beating a succession of terrific fighters, but condensing those achievements into a very short time-frame.

I'm not going to get drawn into a comparison of fighters from different eras. It's pointless. Suffice to say that in bygone days fighters fought a lot more frequently. Because there were many more fighters and many fewer titles/ weight divisions, it follows that there was far greater depth of competition, not necessarily better fighters than this century just more good ones, consequently if you are taking a lot of fights against tough opposition you are going to lose some. Back in the day losing your '0' was not regarded in the same way it is today. I could be wrong but I think the prevailing attitude was "if it ain't a title fight the result ain't all that important".

Many old-timers are on record as saying that the greatest fighter who ever lived (up until the time they said it) was "Sugar" Ray Robinson. In my youthful innocence I used to think "If he was 5 times champion of the world he must have lost the title 4 times, so how can he possibly be better than a champion who retired undefeated?"

So I understand what you are saying and why you think it. I have neither the desire nor the energy to debate it with you, all I'll say is it's complicated and leave it to anyone who can be arsed to argue the point.

[RonnyJ]

Ultimately, a fighter is judged by quality.

You can have all the quantity you like, but if it isn't backed up by quality, it's meaningless.

Two guys that spring to mind for are:-

Oleksandr Usyk - The guy has barely had any fights, but his resume is quality and as such, is often ranked amongst the greatest CWs ever.

Julio Cesar Chavez - He had a ton of fights would often have non title fights against Tijuana taxi drivers in between his title defences, but these fights did nothing for his legacy, it's the quality in his resume that shines through.

thats what i have been saying all these years, you are as good as you are, if you are born with elite boxing DNA and on top train hard, than you can have only 2 fights yet fight and beat a unbeaten champion with 24 wins 0 losses in gary russell jr.

the amount of fights wont help against a better boxer. chavez had like 100 fights and whitacker like 30, who won, whitacker won!

quality wins, not quantity.

[RonnyJ]

You'll never hear me denigrate "Sugar" Ray Leonard, he was a superb fighter not just beating a succession of terrific fighters, but condensing those achievements into a very short time-frame.

I'm not going to get drawn into a comparison of fighters from different eras. It's pointless. Suffice to say that in bygone days fighters fought a lot more frequently. Because there were many more fighters and many fewer titles/ weight divisions, it follows that there was far greater depth of competition, not necessarily better fighters than this century just more good ones, consequently if you are taking a lot of fights against tough opposition you are going to lose some. Back in the day losing your '0' was not regarded in the same way it is today. I could be wrong but I think the prevailing attitude was "if it ain't a title fight the result ain't all that important".

Many old-timers are on record as saying that the greatest fighter who ever lived (up until the time they said it) was "Sugar" Ray Robinson. In my youthful innocence I used to think "If he was 5 times champion of the world he must have lost the title 4 times, so how can he possibly be better than a champion who retired undefeated?"

So I understand what you are saying and why you think it. I have neither the desire nor the energy to debate it with you, all I'll say is it's complicated and leave it to anyone who can be arsed to argue the point.

historians disrespect leonard, they never have him inside the top 10 ever. somebody who beat hearns, hagler, duran should 100 % be on anybodys top 10! neither greb, langford or armstrong have 3 legends of this magnitude on their record as wins! yet they are considered top 5 ever, makes no sense.

[Noxy]

Yes, interesting I never really thought about like that before. Of course quality wins, that’s what lives in the memory.