BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 13:50 Noooooooo!

Henry Armstrong for me is #1.

Like Fritzie Zivic told him: "Henry, you're the greatest fighter that ever graced this Earth!"

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:52 And we don't really have Greb or Langford on film too much. Despite their amazing records it's hard to give them the nod because of the lack of film.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:03

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:52 And we don't really have Greb or Langford on film too much. Despite their amazing records it's hard to give them the nod because of the lack of film.

You kinda almost have to separate 'em.

It's really not fair to either the guys from the past or the present to compare them to guys from the era where there's little to no footage of them because we're not able to accurately critique them. Obviously their records speaks to the fact that they MUST have been amazing, but just how incredible or effective their technique is compared to guys from other eras we're not fit to say because we're not lucky enough to see it.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:26

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 13:50 Noooooooo!

Henry Armstrong for me is #1.

Like Fritzie Zivic told him: "Henry, you're the greatest fighter that ever graced this Earth!"

With any of the Top 4 or 5 all time guys. You're just splitting hairs who's #1. They're all great in such a way that can never and will never be duplicated again in our lifetimes.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 14:38

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:26

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 13:50 Noooooooo!

Henry Armstrong for me is #1.

Like Fritzie Zivic told him: "Henry, you're the greatest fighter that ever graced this Earth!"

With any of the Top 4 or 5 all time guys. You're just splitting hairs who's #1. They're all great in such a way that can never and will never be duplicated again in our lifetimes.

While checking the great Henry Armstrong's accomplishments, the ONLY THING that I got to say about this giant of boxing is, "wow!"

26 fights won straight by knockout in 1937 alone.
Three world titles of 3 divisions held at one time.
One loss in 3 years and 48 fights (1937-40).
Nineteen title defenses at Welterweight.
Eleven of those title defenses were made in one year. Three of them in one month.

This guy Armstrong must be crazy! That's a total career right there.

To me, the greatest boxer pound per pound of all-time! No doubt about it!

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 20:24

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 14:38

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:26

With any of the Top 4 or 5 all time guys. You're just splitting hairs who's #1. They're all great in such a way that can never and will never be duplicated again in our lifetimes.

While checking the great Henry Armstrong's accomplishments, the ONLY THING that I got to say about this giant of boxing is, "wow!"

26 fights won straight by knockout in 1937 alone.
Three world titles of 3 divisions held at one time.
One loss in 3 years and 48 fights (1937-40).
Nineteen title defenses at Welterweight.
Eleven of those title defenses were made in one year. Three of them in one month.

This guy Armstrong must be crazy! That's a total career right there.

To me, the greatest boxer pound per pound of all-time! No doubt about it!

Oh no, you ruined your decades long thread! SPOILER ALERT

oogiebe wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 21:11

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 20:24

elmersalsa wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 14:38

While checking the great Henry Armstrong's accomplishments, the ONLY THING that I got to say about this giant of boxing is, "wow!"

26 fights won straight by knockout in 1937 alone.
Three world titles of 3 divisions held at one time.
One loss in 3 years and 48 fights (1937-40).
Nineteen title defenses at Welterweight.
Eleven of those title defenses were made in one year. Three of them in one month.

This guy Armstrong must be crazy! That's a total career right there.

To me, the greatest boxer pound per pound of all-time! No doubt about it!

Oh no, you ruined your decades long thread! SPOILER ALERT

LMFAO!!!!!!!! So I guess that ends that!!!!

tiny_acres wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 23:22

oogiebe wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 21:11

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑18 Jan 2023, 20:24

Oh no, you ruined your decades long thread! SPOILER ALERT

LMFAO!!!!!!!! So I guess that ends that!!!!

I can die in peace now

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:03

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 14:52 And we don't really have Greb or Langford on film too much. Despite their amazing records it's hard to give them the nod because of the lack of film.

You kinda almost have to separate 'em.

It's really not fair to either the guys from the past or the present to compare them to guys from the era where there's little to no footage of them because we're not able to accurately critique them. Obviously their records speaks to the fact that they MUST have been amazing, but just how incredible or effective their technique is compared to guys from other eras we're not fit to say because we're not lucky enough to see it.

All good but for me in the end the greatest player of any sport needs to be able to be witnessed. I love boxing but telling sports fans this guy is the greatest ever but you can't watch him just wouldn't wash.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 07:28

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:33

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:03

You kinda almost have to separate 'em.

It's really not fair to either the guys from the past or the present to compare them to guys from the era where there's little to no footage of them because we're not able to accurately critique them. Obviously their records speaks to the fact that they MUST have been amazing, but just how incredible or effective their technique is compared to guys from other eras we're not fit to say because we're not lucky enough to see it.

All good but for me in the end the greatest player of any sport needs to be able to be witnessed. I love boxing but telling sports fans this guy is the greatest ever but you can't watch him just wouldn't wash.

I don't necessarily buy into that argument.

I never saw Jim Thorpe compete as an athlete but it's safe to say the man was the world's greatest athlete for the first half of the 20th century. In the same vein I've only seen little short clips of Sam Langford boxing but on the basis of his record and the names that he beat over the course of five weight divisions I have to figure the man was the greatest boxer there ever was.

Even with film available you'll have people who doubt. It's like arguments I've had with my nephews who never saw Michael Jordan play even though there is tons of film available and they are convinced LeBron James is the greatest.

Of course we'll never know 100% concretely who is the greatest in any sport, especially if you consider that sports evolve and rules change. Maybe Langford is only the greatest boxer of the 20th century or the greatest boxer of the first half of the 20th century. It's really difficult to compare apples and oranges especially when you figure most of the men we're talking about were apart of era's referees weren't squeamish and fights went 15 rounds or longer with gloves that were as little as 3 ounces, etc.

This kind of reminds me of when Wilt Chamberlain was asked about Michael Jordan and Chamberlain stated, "Do you think Jordan would have been as great as he was had they changed the rules around him like they did me?" and the same logic has to apply with boxing as well.

Nobody is unbeatable I don't care how fast they are or how tough they are or how skilled they are. If the rules and circumstances are just right anybody can be beaten. Imagine Muhammad Ali with 3 oz gloves on where you were fighting inside of an 18 ft ring where there was no neutral corner rule, and the fight was scheduled somewhere between 20 or 45 rounds. A man of his style with high volume jabs would have broken his hands pretty fast and would have been completely useless after a while.

Some people you can argue are only the greatest in accordance to the rules in which they play or compete. Meaning that in any other time under any other kind of rules they would not have had the success that they did. Especially in this day and age that we live in of 12 rounds and 10 oz gloves with referees stopping fights pretty quickly.

I'm not so sure that the likes of Joe Frazier and others would have been able to have a lot of success today because the fights may very well have been stopped because somebody got hit with 5 or 10 unanswered punches even if they were completely fine. People can talk about boxing progressing better and better over time but I think that is largely an illusion because of how diluted or watered down the sport has kind of become since the 1980s.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 08:26

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 07:28

Ezzard wrote: ↑16 Jan 2023, 15:33

All good but for me in the end the greatest player of any sport needs to be able to be witnessed. I love boxing but telling sports fans this guy is the greatest ever but you can't watch him just wouldn't wash.

I don't necessarily buy into that argument.

I never saw Jim Thorpe compete as an athlete but it's safe to say the man was the world's greatest athlete for the first half of the 20th century. In the same vein I've only seen little short clips of Sam Langford boxing but on the basis of his record and the names that he beat over the course of five weight divisions I have to figure the man was the greatest boxer there ever was.

Even with film available you'll have people who doubt. It's like arguments I've had with my nephews who never saw Michael Jordan play even though there is tons of film available and they are convinced LeBron James is the greatest.

Of course we'll never know 100% concretely who is the greatest in any sport, especially if you consider that sports evolve and rules change. Maybe Langford is only the greatest boxer of the 20th century or the greatest boxer of the first half of the 20th century. It's really difficult to compare apples and oranges especially when you figure most of the men we're talking about were apart of era's referees weren't squeamish and fights went 15 rounds or longer with gloves that were as little as 3 ounces, etc.

This kind of reminds me of when Wilt Chamberlain was asked about Michael Jordan and Chamberlain stated, "Do you think Jordan would have been as great as he was had they changed the rules around him like they did me?" and the same logic has to apply with boxing as well.

Nobody is unbeatable I don't care how fast they are or how tough they are or how skilled they are. If the rules and circumstances are just right anybody can be beaten. Imagine Muhammad Ali with 3 oz gloves on where you were fighting inside of an 18 ft ring where there was no neutral corner rule, and the fight was scheduled somewhere between 20 or 45 rounds. A man of his style with high volume jabs would have broken his hands pretty fast and would have been completely useless after a while.

Some people you can argue are only the greatest in accordance to the rules in which they play or compete. Meaning that in any other time under any other kind of rules they would not have had the success that they did. Especially in this day and age that we live in of 12 rounds and 10 oz gloves with referees stopping fights pretty quickly.

I'm not so sure that the likes of Joe Frazier and others would have been able to have a lot of success today because the fights may very well have been stopped because somebody got hit with 5 or 10 unanswered punches even if they were completely fine. People can talk about boxing progressing better and better over time but I think that is largely an illusion because of how diluted or watered down the sport has kind of become since the 1980s.

Who is Jim Thorpe?

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 08:29

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 08:26

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑19 Jan 2023, 07:28

I don't necessarily buy into that argument.

I never saw Jim Thorpe compete as an athlete but it's safe to say the man was the world's greatest athlete for the first half of the 20th century. In the same vein I've only seen little short clips of Sam Langford boxing but on the basis of his record and the names that he beat over the course of five weight divisions I have to figure the man was the greatest boxer there ever was.

Even with film available you'll have people who doubt. It's like arguments I've had with my nephews who never saw Michael Jordan play even though there is tons of film available and they are convinced LeBron James is the greatest.

Of course we'll never know 100% concretely who is the greatest in any sport, especially if you consider that sports evolve and rules change. Maybe Langford is only the greatest boxer of the 20th century or the greatest boxer of the first half of the 20th century. It's really difficult to compare apples and oranges especially when you figure most of the men we're talking about were apart of era's referees weren't squeamish and fights went 15 rounds or longer with gloves that were as little as 3 ounces, etc.

This kind of reminds me of when Wilt Chamberlain was asked about Michael Jordan and Chamberlain stated, "Do you think Jordan would have been as great as he was had they changed the rules around him like they did me?" and the same logic has to apply with boxing as well.

Nobody is unbeatable I don't care how fast they are or how tough they are or how skilled they are. If the rules and circumstances are just right anybody can be beaten. Imagine Muhammad Ali with 3 oz gloves on where you were fighting inside of an 18 ft ring where there was no neutral corner rule, and the fight was scheduled somewhere between 20 or 45 rounds. A man of his style with high volume jabs would have broken his hands pretty fast and would have been completely useless after a while.

Some people you can argue are only the greatest in accordance to the rules in which they play or compete. Meaning that in any other time under any other kind of rules they would not have had the success that they did. Especially in this day and age that we live in of 12 rounds and 10 oz gloves with referees stopping fights pretty quickly.

I'm not so sure that the likes of Joe Frazier and others would have been able to have a lot of success today because the fights may very well have been stopped because somebody got hit with 5 or 10 unanswered punches even if they were completely fine. People can talk about boxing progressing better and better over time but I think that is largely an illusion because of how diluted or watered down the sport has kind of become since the 1980s.

Who is Jim Thorpe?

I'm really hoping you're joking.