BoxRec

>>>Of coarse it was, thats why alot of fighters were able to do it. When Duran and whitaker ruled the division, they would bnot have been able to beat a lightheavy contender. Are you saying that they were not as good as lightweights in Blackburns day?<<<

A lot eh...how about naming some other lightweights that accomplished it! I'm not saying they were not as goode, just not as good as Blackburn was! Could anyone imagine Duran going against say Marvin Johnson, or even Whitaker going against a Marvin Johnson, or even a Virgil Hill? Well Blackburn, just to name one, went up against the likes of "Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien and handled him rather well...as he did with the like of George Gunther, Jim Barry, Jack Bonner, Tony Caponi...and hell, after he came out of prison he fought nothing under middleweights...sorry, but Whitaker couldn't do that, Duran did move up in weight, but he never fought the same at 135, or even 147!

sorry, but Whitaker couldn't do that, Duran did move up in weight, but he never fought the same at 135, or even 147!

I know they couldnt, during their time. At the start of the new century I wouldnt put it past them.

Philadelphia" Jack O'Brien and handled him rather well...as he did with the like of George Gunther, Jim Barry, Jack Bonner, Tony Caponi.

Except for Jack O Brian, those fighters you mention, for a lack of a better word, sucked. Sucked badly. Jack O Brian was past his prime when he fought Blackburn and still smacked him around the ring for six rounds. Blackburn was on his bike the whole time.
As for those others, well, did I mention they sucked? Caponi and Gunther were crappy middleweights. Gunther lost more than he won and Caponi nearly lost as much. Barry was a horrible heavyweight who fought Blackburn very early in his career then went on to losing more fights than he won.

Bonner, a middleweight actually didnt really suck. At one time he was decent, but he was done and losing alot more than winning when he fought Blackburn.

Well as I figured, you know nothing of the fighters I mentioned, which were just a few of the many very good opponents that Blackburn faced, and by looking at their records in the database, which are mostly incomplete, you figured you had a good grasp of their careers...wrong...you stated that Gunther lost more than he won, which of course his incomplete record in the database lists him at 12-16-8 (3 KO), which anyone that had no clue about him could assume that he sucked by looking at that record, but after Gunther’s last fight his career total was 75-21-11 (62 KO) with 31 ND bouts...far from losing more than he won, wouldn’t you say? As a matter of fact Gunther started out his career with 41 consecutive knockouts in his first 41 bouts...second only to Billy Fox who had 43!

Jim Barry was a very good heavyweight at the turn of the century, which again, you can’t tell anything by just looking at his record in the database as it not only is very incomplete, but it also does not tell of the trouble that Barry put Sam Langford through nearly ever time they met, which was several times. Nor does looking at a record tell of the fits that he gave all the other tops heavyweights of the day and Barry was one of the very few white to fighters to bar no one white, or black! I don’t have his record handy, but he won far more than he lost and over half of his victories were by knockout…his record was something like 65-35-20 (40 KO) overall, which I have the record somewhere, which I’ll gladly find if necessary!

Another very incomplete record is that of Tony Caponi, who was a very solid fighter who was much bigger than Blackburn. Again another instance where you can not determine a fighters worth by just looking at his record in the database! As I already stated from 1914 on till he retired Blackburn rarely fought anyone his size!

I just mentioned a couple of fighters that he faced. I didn’t even mention other fine, larger opponents such as George Cole, Jack Williams, Larry Temple, Jack McCarron, Gunboat Smith, Al Rogers, Young Ahearn, Jackie Clark, Joe Borrell and others of similar ability, and don’t try to go by what their record says because most are incomplete.

Before stating that a fighter sucks, or making statements that are very far from being accurate, please take the time to learn something about the fighter first instead of relying on what their incomplete record might say!

Well as I figured, you know nothing of the fighters I mentioned, which were just a few of the many very good opponents that Blackburn faced, and by looking at their records in the database,

Thats exactly what you did. You just delved deeper to back up your arguement. Regardless of whether their records were incomplete or not, thier is enough information to demonstrate that these fighters did indeed suck. You could disect their career all you want none of these guys made any kind of impact.
Bottom line is that Blackburn beating these guys does not prove he was better than Duran and Whitaker. It shows me how much more successful they would have been in Blackburns time.

>>>Thats exactly what you did.<<<

Of course I looked over their records, but I have also read many, many newspaper accounts of their careers, as well as various magazine articles and books as well as correspondance about the fighters with some of the top historians that specialize in early boxing history. A fighters record is what I put the least emphasis on as records alone tell absolutely nothing about the fights, or the fighters! All a record provides is the result of a bout and there is absolutely no way that anyone can gauge what kind of fighter a man was by just looking at his very incomplete record! You have read about the fights themselves and other articles of the day to get a good grasp of a fighters career...sorry record checking alone just won't do it no matter how many times you look at it!

>>>Bottom line is that Blackburn beating these guys does not prove he was better than Duran and Whitaker.<<<

No one made the claim that Blackburn was better than Gans, Whitaker, or Duran...I said he should be in the top five! All I stated was that Blackburn beat many very good fighters that were much larger than he and I stated that I just don't see Whitaker, Duran, or even Gans giving up the kind of weight to fighters that Blackburn did on a regular basis!

A fighters record is what I put the least emphasis on as records alone tell absolutely nothing about the fights, or the fighters! All a record provides is the result of a bout and there is absolutely no way that anyone can gauge what kind of fighter a man was by just looking at his very incomplete record!

even an incomplete record can tell you alot about a fighter. Especially if it shows he lost a lot of fights early, in his prime and slighty after that. If it shows that the majority of the losses were to mostly ordinary fighters and when no fighter of note in his class has been defeated by him.
That says a hell of alot.

Does it say that the fight may have been close, or even a bogus decision? Does the stat say how well, or how bad the fighter performed? Fighters like a Eric Crumble, well of course all you need to do is look at his record and you know that he is a bum, but without reading the fights of fighters such as jim Barry, or a George Gunther or any older fighters then you can tell very little by just looking at their record.

For instance when only looking at the record of Jim Barry, you can see that his knockout losses to Langford stand out, but the draws and ND bouts are nothing but symbols and none of them tells how Barry gave Langford all that he could handle in several bouts...and anyone that has not read accounts of those fights have no idea at all how the bouts went...all they can do is assume and guess!

Looking at only a record shows very little about a fighter and when researching a fighter it's one of the least important aspects that one should follow when trying to determine how good, or bad a fighter was, or is and being that many, many old timer records are very incomplete then the record is the last thing to consider and certainly nothing to go by when trying to make an argument!

If they were any good there would be more extensive information about them.

>>>If they were any good there would be more extensive information about them.<<<

There is a lot of information about the fighters I mentioned...you just have to look and spend time...your not going to find anything in all the books that write the same stuff about the same fighters over and over and over, and you won't be able to type their name into a search engine to find a bunch of articles for them, you actually have to do some actual research to learn about the fighters!