BoxRec

Jip wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: I agree that it’s a prerequisite to possess a thorough understanding of any fighter before including them to one’s personal all time pound-for-pound top-ten, which obviously requires some form of research.

However, where the video material is extremely limited and sometimes difficult to watch the action clearly, such as viewing any of Sam Langford’s contests, then you’re evaluating their all-time-great credentials solely by reading someone else’s criteria/opinion, rather than using the proverbial “eye test”.

Reading articles whereby you’re “told” someone is great is almost certainly not synonymous to witnessing their talents first-hand, especially considering the vast majority of the authors that wrote the words that you're likely to have read weren’t even alive when these fighters competed.


Here are some questions that should be very easy to answer to anyone that believes that Harry Greb is an all-time-great:

• How many Harry Greb fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Harry Greb?
• What are some of your favourite Harry Greb fights?
• What is Harry Greb’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Harry Greb face that impressed you the most?

Like I said before, I’m not criticising SaadOffTheDeck’s personal selection of all time pound-for-pound top-ten fighters, but I do wonder if he’d be able to evaluate Floyd Mayweather’s capabilities if he’d never saw him fight?

A lot of people really like Floyd Mayweather’s fighting style and consider him an all-time-great, but a lot of other people don’t. However, based on resume and accomplishments alone, he’s one of the greatest fighter’s in history. So why do people’s perceptions differ so much when the facts contained within resume’s are irrefutable in nature? It’s because they saw him fight!

Let me give another example, SaadOffTheDeck believes that Pernell Whitaker would defeat Floyd Mayweather in a fantasy fight, but could he confidently make this claim without having ever seen either of these guys compete (or be as confident if he’d only viewed a couple of rounds)?

In my mind, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is far more technically accomplished, in terms of resume, than Pernell Whitaker. So why does SaadOffTheDeck rate the former below the latter? It’s because he saw them both fight!

It’s not my place to criticise how other people formulate their opinions, but in the same way I would personally refrain from criticising any modern day fighter if I’d never seen them fight (or watched very little of them in action), the same rule applies if I'm asked to endorse boxers that competed 70+ years or so ago.

one of the best post boxrec has ever seen.

and that is exactly what i am saying, people put boxer from 1920 in there atg p4p top 10 when there is no or rare footage and when you see these old school boxers you can tell they would have a hard time with the top boxers from the 90 and 2000+ like all prime jones/pac/mayweather. winning a fight in boxing is based on 5 main things: technique/footwork/speed/power/coordination. now nobody can tell me that guys like floyd, rigo, pac, jones are top of the list concerning these criterias i mentioned right now. but boxers who are in some of your p4p list that you have never seen fight have better technique than rigo, better speed than jones, how can you say it, when there is no tape, no proof?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I go on resumes. Ali & Louis are just outside my top 10. Your list is pretty terrible even by your own guidelines. Just bad school. Tyson and no holyfield is laughable. Same as Roy with no Whitaker. Rigondeaux, awful stuff bro.

No Ali but Tyson and Holyfield

None of the above my adle minded swamp creature. His list is strictly opinion, easier to tackle same era errors. Understand cookie? Good

ginty wrote:

Kilsby wrote:I understand what people are saying when the mention old time fighters look crude to the modern fighters but what most fail to understand is someone for Jack Johnson for example kinda invented defensive manoeuvres, his techniques were copied by others that came after him.

How can you be greater than a man who another man copies?

Surely what made them great is being the inventor of a skill.

Johnson's peak-a-boo defense was copied by Floyd Patterson, who in turn Tyson copied.

His shoulder roll is very similar to the technique Mayweather & B-Hop use.
^^^
Would both Mayweather & B-Hop have been as successful in their own career if they had not used this technique because it had not been invented??

Could they have came up with this technique themselves?

There lies the greatness.

But that doesn't make them the greatest boxer ever does it? Is dick flosby the greatest ever high jumper because he invented the the flosby flop no he's not or perhaps the first guy to do a back flip on a bike is he the greatest ever ?

Kilsby wrote:

ginty wrote:

Kilsby wrote:I understand what people are saying when the mention old time fighters look crude to the modern fighters but what most fail to understand is someone for Jack Johnson for example kinda invented defensive manoeuvres, his techniques were copied by others that came after him.

How can you be greater than a man who another man copies?

Surely what made them great is being the inventor of a skill.

Johnson's peak-a-boo defense was copied by Floyd Patterson, who in turn Tyson copied.

His shoulder roll is very similar to the technique Mayweather & B-Hop use.
^^^
Would both Mayweather & B-Hop have been as successful in their own career if they had not used this technique because it had not been invented??

Could they have came up with this technique themselves?

There lies the greatness.

But that doesn't make them the greatest boxer ever does it? Is dick flosby the greatest ever high jumper because he invented the the flosby flop no he's not or perhaps the first guy to do a back flip on a bike is he the greatest ever ?

^^^
In short - no it doesn't....

But if Flosby hadn't invented his flop it higher likely we would be jumping anywhere near 2 metres like today - we would be stuck to the old technique & getting around 1m 25cm to 1m 50cm scale.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:H2h hypothetical is the absolute last measuring ground that should be used for rating a career. Current p4p you can do whatever you want. Two different things IMv. Fighters definitely don't have better training now. I laugh Everytime someone says that.

davie wrote:Using my highly scientific method of 'here's what I think and I don't give a flying fvck what you think of it"












*which will almost certainly change by tomorrow

TheGingerBomber wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:H2h hypothetical is the absolute last measuring ground that should be used for rating a career. Current p4p you can do whatever you want. Two different things IMv. Fighters definitely don't have better training now. I laugh Everytime someone says that.

Sport's science has improved dramatically since the 1940's. Rest & recovery is part of training.

Kilsby wrote:Or Kid Gavilan - he invented the bolo punch (half-hook/half uppercut) many have used it after him but he was the first to use it in devastating fashion.

Can the followers be greater than the creator?

That's why old fighters tend to get the props - the new fighters are using the techniques they showed them.

Did anyone dance before Willy Pep in a ring?

Same thing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

TheGingerBomber wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:H2h hypothetical is the absolute last measuring ground that should be used for rating a career. Current p4p you can do whatever you want. Two different things IMv. Fighters definitely don't have better training now. I laugh Everytime someone says that.

Sport's science has improved dramatically since the 1940's. Rest & recovery is part of training.

Yet somehow 40 years ago Heavyweights kept a better pace than Lightweights do now. These guys do lots of resting. I'll give you that.

Heretic wrote:But Hercules lost to Margarito

TheGingerBomber wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

TheGingerBomber wrote:
Sport's science has improved dramatically since the 1940's. Rest & recovery is part of training.

Yet somehow 40 years ago Heavyweights kept a better pace than Lightweights do now. These guys do lots of resting. I'll give you that.

I can't explain, my guess is just all round toughness seemed more common back then! The beatings some of them took too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

TheGingerBomber wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Yet somehow 40 years ago Heavyweights kept a better pace than Lightweights do now. These guys do lots of resting. I'll give you that.

I can't explain, my guess is just all round toughness seemed more common back then! The beatings some of them took too.

Humans were tougher in general and the Boxers of the time were in better physical condition. They had to be.

TheGingerBomber wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

TheGingerBomber wrote:
I can't explain, my guess is just all round toughness seemed more common back then! The beatings some of them took too.

Humans were tougher in general and the Boxers of the time were in better physical condition. They had to be.

Yeah. I've got mass respect for them!