BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:51

Paci wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:47

Im agreeing and disagreeing with you, dummy. I go by rep, you go on pure hard facts about boxers that you can see for yourself. That is my response. In simple english.

To be fair, I did say I didn’t understand your response.

And after reading your previous post a few times, I still don’t quite understand it, but it’s good we at least share some common ground.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:52

Paci wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:30

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:52

Paci wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:30

Bert Sugar lights up like a kid every time he talks about seeing him during the 40s.

Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Paci wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 10:58

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 09:52
Lol, Bert lit up about anything over 50 years ago. Had a few drinks with him once, nice guy but he's too far in the past.

Cool.
Not strange he is a boxing historian, of course he well get hung up on some weird stories needs to talk about it.

Thomastearns wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 12:57 I can't say who were the greatest top 20 p4p all time boxers, I have no way of knowing.

I can say who were my favourites, memory permitting. Here is, barring no 1, a very fluid list

1 Muhammad Ali
2 Thomas Hearns
3 Mike Tyson

4 Gennady Golovkin
5 Marvin Hagler
6 Roberto Duran
7 Ray Leonard
8 Frank Bruno
9 Manny Pacquiao
10 Nigel Benn
11 Vitali Klitschko
12 Vasyl Lomachenko
13 Naoya Inoue
14 Joe Calzaghe
15 Teofilo Stevenson
16 Jack Dempsey
17 Rocky Marciano
18 George Foreman
19 Roy Gumbs
20 Ray Robinson

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:15

Paci wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 10:58

Cool.
Not strange he is a boxing historian, of course he well get hung up on some weird stories needs to talk about it.

Fun guy, I'm interested in the old timers so not an issue for me. When it comes to his lists they are too way back for me.

Bandog wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 06:49 1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 09:22

Bandog wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 06:49 1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

RonnyJ wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 03:49 Amateur boxing gets way to underrated.

A technicly average boxer like foreman, who took 1 hour to swing out for a hook gets considered top 20 ever and a brilliant technician way more athletic savon gets never mentioned amongs the best boxers ever. Savon made david tua or shannon briggs look like below average boxers. Height reach punchin power technique savon is among the 5 best hw ever.

RonnyJ wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 10:27

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 09:22
What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

let it go EO. if he like old school boxers so be it.

what is your list?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 09:22

Bandog wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 06:49 1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Clay/Ali
4. Gene Tunney
5. Sandy Saddler
6. Benny Leonard
7. Sam Langford
8. Joe Louis
9. Archie Moore
10. Harry Greb
11. Joe Gans
12. Mickey Walker
13. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
14. Willie Pep
15. Harry Wills
16. Jack Johnson
17. Roy Jones Jr.
18. Roberto Duran
19. Sugar Ray Leonard
20. Ezzard Charles

What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

gilgamesh wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 13:27

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 09:22
What criteria are you using the rate the following fighters above the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. and Roberto Duran?

• Jack Johnson (made his debut 123 years ago)
• Sam Langford (made his debut 118 years ago)
• Joe Gans (made his debut 111 years ago)
• Benny Leonard (made his debut 109 years ago)
• Harry Greb (made his debut 107 years ago)
• Gene Tunney (made his debut 105 years ago)
• Mickey Walker (made his debut 101 years ago)
• Henry Armstrong (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Harry Wills (made his debut 89 years ago)
• Sandy Saddler (made his debut 86 years ago)
• Ezzard Charles (made his debut 80 years ago)

A lot of these guys have more fights against high level opposition, more fights period, and did it in less time than it took guys in the modern age to fight half that many times or less.

As Boxing fans we owe it to the sport, and to the legends that helped build it to not let these guys simply be buried by time and dust. If not for nerds like us talking about these guys, and keeping their memory alive, they'll fade away.

Ultimately that is probably the fate of these legends as it is the fate of those of us here who discuss them, but it's still worthwhile to rememeber and discuss them as long as we can.

Perhaps a more satisfying list to you EO would be to ask "What is the Top 20 fighters you have SEEN with your own eyes"

With that question people will only be able to go so far back in history, and you may get answers that would be more satisfying to you.

jas80s wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 13:34 I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 13:02

RonnyJ wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 10:27



let it go EO. if he like old school boxers so be it.

what is your list?

My list would be controversial, because I can only express an honest opinion based on what I know and the fights I’ve seen.

And I have to have extensive knowledge of each boxer, coupled with having seen those fighters compete numerous times, as well as being very familiar with their opposition, in order for them to qualify for my personal list.

So the list would likely be dominated by high-profile fighters from the 1970’s onwards.

There may be widely-perceived great fighters that I’m only vaguely familiar of, such as Carlos Monzon & Salvador Sanchez, where I’ve unfortunately only seen a few of their bouts, so they’ll be excluded.

Similarly, the likes of Sam Langford and Harry Greb would never be considered amongst my top twenty greatest pound-for-pound fighters of all-time list, because I don’t know enough about them, since information about these guys is scarce.

I think it’s dishonest and pretentious for anybody to include any fighter(s) amongst their personal favourite top twenty list when they blatantly lack knowledge about them.

And that’s the reason why people become outraged when I ask very simple questions, that they are unable to answer, about their so-called “favourite” fighters that made their professional debuts more than a century ago!

I’ll think about contributing my top twenty list another day.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 12:31

RonnyJ wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 03:49 Amateur boxing gets way to underrated.

A technicly average boxer like foreman, who took 1 hour to swing out for a hook gets considered top 20 ever and a brilliant technician way more athletic savon gets never mentioned amongs the best boxers ever. Savon made david tua or shannon briggs look like below average boxers. Height reach punchin power technique savon is among the 5 best hw ever.

RonnyJ wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 16:54

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 12:31

You leave me alone. You did not answer my question. Bad behaviour!

jas80s wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 13:34 I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 17:51

jas80s wrote: ↑31 Mar 2020, 13:34 I am curious as to why it matters that I have seen a fighter versus having not seen a fighter myself? Who is to say that I have any idea what I am talking about when it comes to rating the comparative strengths and weaknesses of a fighter? Furthermore, what should make me believe that my eyes can discern how fighters from different eras compare? That is a variable that simply cannot be defined since such a fight has never taken place. It strikes me as egotistical to think that it is necessary for me to have seen a fighter in order for that fighter's rating to have any merit.

Just as an example, I would regard Eddie Futch's assessment of a fighter none of us have seen much more highly than my assessment of a fighter I have seen many times. One of us knows the game at a very high level, and the other doesn't; who has seen who is of little importance.

I also think that one can glean a good amount from records and I would certainly trust how a fighter performed against other fighters over their career against my ability to breakdown how good their skills are giving them a personal eye test.
Personally, I would be far more likely to trust what the former tells me over the latter, except in a very few instances.

3rd party data can be pretty compelling, especially when one considers how often it is said and who it is that has said it.

It doesn't matter. EO is just being his usual obnoxious self-aggrandizing self. Boxing history works just like any other history. Recorded accounts of the events as they took place. We learn from it. We glean information from it. Going by EO, do we actually know that Abe Lincoln was actually a decent president? I've never actually seen him preside. lol!