BoxRec

Who wins?

Thanks for this wonderful contribution to the forum. Now go and have a life.

wouter wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 05:04 Thanks for this wonderful contribution to the forum. Now go and have a life.

x2

Yet another in a long line of tedious posts about boxer A from one era against boxer B from another. It is so boring. I thought this was meant to be a forum about boxing history. Things that actually happened. About time these hypothetical matches had their own category. One that I can ignore. I have no objection to people debating it, but it isn't for me and it sure isn't history.

Miles Templeton.

prewarboxing wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 14:09 Yet another in a long line of tedious posts about boxer A from one era against boxer B from another. It is so boring. I thought this was meant to be a forum about boxing history. Things that actually happened. About time these hypothetical matches had their own category. One that I can ignore. I have no objection to people debating it, but it isn't for me and it sure isn't history.

Miles Templeton.

Those are kinda history-related threads, where discussions almost every time go the debating about how old-school fighters were better on the one side and how advanced are current fighters on the other side.

Well fighters often don't fight the best fighters of their own era either. So there is a lot to debate on that front as well.

I am afraid I don't agree. If you want to debate the strengths and weaknesses of Ezzard Charles, for instance, then go ahead. But do so in relation to the bouts he actually had. There is plenty of historical material to draw upon.
His relative merit doesn't need to be offset against a supposed matchup with Tyson Fury. Nor do Tyson Fury's abilities need to be evaluated in relation to Ezzard Charles. Or Marciano v Wilder, or any of the other bollocks that seems to attract so much inerest.

It is so repetitive and dull. It is likely to drive me away from this forum permanently. One hypothetical matchup after another. Who cares? Last week someone put up an interesting post about Dan Creedon and James J Corbett. Real history. No-one was interested, other than commenting about his 'tight little leather thong'.



Miles Templeton.

prewarboxing wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 15:01 I am afraid I don't agree. If you want to debate the strengths and weaknesses of Ezzard Charles, for instance, then go ahead. But do so in relation to the bouts he actually had. There is plenty of historical material to draw upon.
His relative merit doesn't need to be offset against a supposed matchup with Tyson Fury. Nor do Tyson Fury's abilities need to be evaluated in relation to Ezzard Charles. Or Marciano v Wilder, or any of the other bollocks that seems to attract so much inerest.

It is so repetitive and dull. It is likely to drive me away from this forum permanently. One hypothetical matchup after another. Who cares? Last week someone put up an interesting post about Dan Creedon and James J Corbett. Real history. No-one was interested, other than commenting about his 'tight little leather thong'.



Miles Templeton.

Thank goodness someone who actually speaks...well said..there is sooo much wonderful history to learn about but people are obsessed with who's bigger who's best..like children playing top trumps in the playground.....

As I've pointed out a big problem with boxing history is that the best fighters often don't face each other. Which means there is often confusion as to where to rank someone in their own era. If your trying to evaluate someone's place in boxing history there is often the issue of how their legacy is affected by failing to face the best of their time.

Dempsey's failure to face Greb and Wills for example and his eventual losses to Tunney cast a massive shadow over his legacy. It's possible he was only the 3rd or even the 4th best heavyweight of his own era.

tiny_acres wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 07:25

wouter wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 05:04 Thanks for this wonderful contribution to the forum. Now go and have a life.

x2

Ditto. All of these trans-era comparisons are a non-value-added.

I don't have a problem with hypothetical matchups between men who could, and should, have fought, such as Dempsey and Wills. There are many other interesting examples. But what, exactly, is the point of discussing Sam Langford v Robert Helenius. Garbage threads like this are polluting the Boxing History Forum

Miles Templeton.

evrenb wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 16:58

prewarboxing wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 15:01 I am afraid I don't agree. If you want to debate the strengths and weaknesses of Ezzard Charles, for instance, then go ahead. But do so in relation to the bouts he actually had. There is plenty of historical material to draw upon.
His relative merit doesn't need to be offset against a supposed matchup with Tyson Fury. Nor do Tyson Fury's abilities need to be evaluated in relation to Ezzard Charles. Or Marciano v Wilder, or any of the other bollocks that seems to attract so much inerest.

It is so repetitive and dull. It is likely to drive me away from this forum permanently. One hypothetical matchup after another. Who cares? Last week someone put up an interesting post about Dan Creedon and James J Corbett. Real history. No-one was interested, other than commenting about his 'tight little leather thong'.



Miles Templeton.

Thank goodness someone who actually speaks...well said..there is sooo much wonderful history to learn about but people are obsessed with who's bigger who's best..like children playing top trumps in the playground.....

Spot on evrenb

i dont mind the question, but i think if you dont know much about boxing, it follows that you will think any guy that is tall or muscle bound, will beat any guy who is not. thats a nice and easy answer and you dont need to think too hard. well, if you knew boxing, you would talk boxing, not just how big or how small somebody is. i just didnt realize this place had so many of those types. thats too bad. later fellas.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 17:35 As I've pointed out a big problem with boxing history is that the best fighters often don't face each other. Which means there is often confusion as to where to rank someone in their own era. If your trying to evaluate someone's place in boxing history there is often the issue of how their legacy is affected by failing to face the best of their time.

Dempsey's failure to face Greb and Wills for example and his eventual losses to Tunney cast a massive shadow over his legacy. It's possible he was only the 3rd or even the 4th best heavyweight of his own era.

I think then , if you read your own comment back, that you shouldn't assume AJ would beat everyone....

I'll be honest. If Langford couldn't do anything to Fred Fulton (6'5" 220) it'd be hard to imagine him doing much with the modern 21st century heavyweights who are more athletic--- however, it's absolutely not a condemnation on Langford or anyone else from the past because Langford IS the greatest boxer who ever lived. It's just a matter of physics. Langford couldn't do anything to Harry Wills either (6'4"), and it's certainly no disgrace--- especially when Dempsey admitted in his autobiography that he flat out ducked Langford.

At some point us fans have to admit that certain individuals and certain eras are apples and oranges. You can't compare what guys do today to what guys did decades and centuries ago anymore than you can expect the older generation to be the successes they were in their eras if they had to compete with guys today. It's a disservice to both individuals, and it's not fair.

Langford did beat Wills a few times although I believe Wills was only 6'2

If you look at the record, the two men fought a total of 18 times... I believe there was 2 losses and 2 draws in there... The rest of the time Wills dominated Langford. The two losses were in the first 35 bouts of Wills career--- that may seem like a lot today but Wills wouldn't be considered "the number one" guy in the division until the 1920's, and those losses were 5 years earlier (1915). Wills wouldn't be the logical contender until 1924. Mind you Langford was 5'7" and did have SOME success against big guys who were mostly limited--- but Wills was bigger than Jack Dempsey (who was 6'1") and CyberBoxingZone lists him as 6'3" whereas BoxRec has him 6'2" although RING magazine in their "100 Greatest Punchers" edition I do believe has him listed as 6'4".

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/induct ... wills.html

And.... The IBHOF lists Wills as 6'4"...

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑10 Nov 2018, 16:41 If you look at the record, the two men fought a total of 18 times... I believe there was 2 losses and 2 draws in there... The rest of the time Wills dominated Langford. The two losses were in the first 35 bouts of Wills career--- that may seem like a lot today but Wills wouldn't be considered "the number one" guy in the division until the 1920's, and those losses were 5 years earlier (1915). Wills wouldn't be the logical contender until 1924. Mind you Langford was 5'7" and did have SOME success against big guys who were mostly limited--- but Wills was bigger than Jack Dempsey (who was 6'1") and CyberBoxingZone lists him as 6'3" whereas BoxRec has him 6'2" although RING magazine in their "100 Greatest Punchers" edition I do believe has him listed as 6'4".

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/induct ... wills.html

And.... The IBHOF lists Wills as 6'4"...

There is an evidence that Harry Wills didn't stood 6'2", but stood between 6'3 and 6'4" and there is a picture where he stood taller than Luis Angel Firpo who stood 6'2 1/2".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q ... 0372672356

If anyone could find a view to zoom closer, then you see Wills stood taller than Firpo and those newspapers are misleading his height.

I notice that the trend with BoxRec at least when it comes to height and weight statistics is that they side with under-cutting the truth than telling the truth. I understand somewhat as to why because it's like pro wrestling--- exaggerating the statistics--- so they'd rather be on the short side of caution than to give an inch (literally) to the long held narrative.



Now, here's Wills with the 5'7" Langford. Even with Wills dipping down he absolutely towers over him. Clearly, Wills was no 6', 6'1", or 6'2". He had to have been 6'4". Now heres a picture of an old Wills with Ezzard Charles.



Charles was 6'0" and it's clear that Wills was much bigger. In this he's leaning downwards, and if he was standing tall he'd be half a head taller than Charles.



Wills demonstrating his height and reach with another boxer, not sure who. But clearly Wills was in the business of promoting himself as something like a giant.



Some miscellaneous photos of Wills, again, showcasing his physical size. I ask anyone, why would a man 6'2" pretend to be a giant--- when it'd be 1" taller than Dempsey? No, Wills was 6'4".



https://www.oregonlive.com/O/index.ssf/ ... n_two.html

According to an old newspaper article about one of the many bouts Wills had with Dempsey's favorite sparring partner Bill Tate--- one of the few "true giants" of boxing in those days--- Wills is said to be 6'3" and Tate 6'6", though the old narrative on these two men is that they were 6'4" and 6'8" respectively.

Some articles on Tate say he was 6'6.5", etc. and maybe the truth is that Tate was 6'7"--- a compromise in the middle--- and maybe that can be employed for Wills as well, where he is 6'3.5", and that makes sense because I'm reminded of people like Richard Kiel (Jaws from the James Bond films) who said, "It's easier to say 7'2" than 7'1 and one-sixteenth."

Many of boxrecs heights are exaggerated. They list Holyfield as 6''2 1/2 while he seems to have actually measured 6'1 1/4 and have Ali as 6'3 when he actually measured 6'2 1/2. I think Lennox Lewis was only 6'4 1/2 while Akinwande was 6'6. Those are just a few examples.

Have seen Ali's height listed on the tale of the tape (and other places) and it was always 6'3. If anything, he looked taller.
Have seen Holyfield at 6'2 and 1/2 and 6'2, never lower.
Have seen Lewis height listed many times as well and it was always 6'5.

Lennox Lewis is a mystery. Back when the RINGSIDE special from ESPN was still on YouTube, I distinctly remember Emmanuel Stewart saying that although Lennox was billed as 6'5" he was in fact taller than that--- and if you watch Tyson/Lewis the referee was 6'5" and Lewis was taller than he was, and if you watch Klitschko/Lewis it's apparent that Lewis is virtually identical in height to the Ukrainian. In fact, there's a few pictures floating around of Lennox Lewis with Tyson Fury and they seem similar in height (Fury slightly taller).

For his amateur fights and all his cruiserweight fights he is listed as 6'1 or 6'1 1/4. If you doubt me go on YouTube.