Page 1 of 1
How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 22 Dec 2025, 13:57
by Sweet Dick Willie
I mean I've read a ton of books on the jack johnsons and dempseys and battling sikis of the earth, but I never quite understood how you could rate these fighters based on those scruffy videotapes we got or the newspaper decisions? I guess you guys are just 150 years old or something
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 22 Dec 2025, 15:15
by gilgamesh
I've been trying to watch all I can of fighters there's video of. Most Heavyweight Champions you can find video of dating way, way back, but definitely the fighters I'm putting my focus on first are guys I can more properly observe with my own eyes.
Ultimately the Legends of Boxing that pre-date video can be rated on their accomplishments, and rankings, but trying to rate where they compare with guys in later eras is always going to be just a guessing game really so the way I choose to go about it, is I just kinda would rate them in their own kinda category separate from the video era.
It's not to say they're not Legends, it's just that we can SEE the other guys ya know.
You don't hear Baseball fanatics talking about how the best team ever was the 1899 St. Louis Cardinals or whatever the f*ck
Or hell maybe you do, I don't know. Would be odd though.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 22 Dec 2025, 19:26
by Expug
Well , you’re not wrong. I agree.
“ I can’t call a guy a cowboy, until I see him ride “
I guess we go by who a guy beat historically to rate the fighter. At times though, it can be misleading.
Especially if you haven’t seen any of the guys he beat. Grainy old footage can be rough sometimes to analyze. I mean Jim Corbett on video looks like he couldn’t beat an amateur. But there are some big wins on his ledger. He lost to Fitz who many consider an all time great but it wasn’t a blowout.
It can be difficult to rank these old timers
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 22 Dec 2025, 21:22
by Ambling Alp II
Watching the video can be tricky. But if you watch say Jack Johnson, you can tell that he knew what he was doing.
I always think of like a links in a chain. There is never a time when it stops and start completely. There is always overlapping of careers. Try working backwards. If you can rank a guy who fought in say the 1930s, try finding guys that he fought who were slightly older than him who began their careers a little before him. Look at what they did. Then look at guys who they fought who were slightly older than them.
This can be done.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 23 Dec 2025, 00:23
by gilgamesh
It's not about wondering about the ranking or the standing of the guys they fought, that can be figured out easily enough. It's about not knowing how good the fights themselves were. You can check the records and see that so and so fought a ranked fighter, but if you can't see the fight, you don't know if it was good, if it sucked or what, if one or both of the guys looked sloppy or whatever the case may be.
As I say, part of the idea of ranking a guy properly is based on the Performance. If you can't see it, you can't really comment on the performance. At least not properly.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 23 Dec 2025, 06:23
by Ezzard
You can't. It's just for fun. Idle chat in a bar over a few beers.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 23 Dec 2025, 11:45
by Sweet Dick Willie
Ezzard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 06:23
You can't. It's just for fun. Idle chat in a bar over a few beers.
Exactly. In a bar I'll say that Battling Siki is the greatest boxer ever but if they ask for proof I say its Bernard Hopkins
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 23 Dec 2025, 13:43
by gilgamesh
Battling Siki wasn't the best ever I don't think whether there's video of him or not
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 05:03
by Ezzard
JackSprocket wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 11:45
Ezzard wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 06:23
You can't. It's just for fun. Idle chat in a bar over a few beers.
Exactly. In a bar I'll say that Battling Siki is the greatest boxer ever but if they ask for proof I say its Bernard Hopkins
Being right is overrated. It does not compare to engaging conversation and the exchange of new ideas and fresh perspectives. I think you're right but it's a lot of fun trying.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 06:20
by Sweet Dick Willie
gilgamesh wrote: ↑23 Dec 2025, 13:43
Battling Siki wasn't the best ever I don't think whether there's video of him or not
Battling Siki was the shit!!
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 09:59
by Controversial
You can only really rate fighters on the era they were in. There is grainy footage of a few old ATGS and most don't look that great in comparison to today. Watch Sam Langford who same rank as one of the greatest fighters ever, he looks very amateurish. No jab, walks in with his hands down winging punches with either hand. In that era it obviously worked, if anyone tried that today they wouldn't last long. When I think of John L Sullivan I just think of one of the bare knuckle traveller fighters, just a hard man but no actual finesse. It's not fair to compare eras though.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 11:06
by Jaywheel
You need to have perspective. It's pretty much the same with everysport. You look at old hockey games and you wonder why is Bobby Orr or Rocket Richard still considered top 10 ATG. Goalies and D's look like they can barely hold up and skate.
They did a shootout contest a couple of years ago with NHL players using vintage hockey sticks. They looked VERY mortal with their dekes, dangles and shots. A few could'nt even lift the puck of the ice.
Of course Langford looks raw. Do you believe he would look the same today? As with every sport, I think the greats would always find a way to rise to the top in any era.
Would Langford be too small against Wlad? Most probably. What happens when Wlad fights a 30 rounder against a big live opponent 100 years ago when he gasses out in 4 rounds in his prime against Brewster?
We can never know for sure, but it's fun to discuss about.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 13:05
by gilgamesh
Jaywheel wrote: ↑24 Dec 2025, 11:06
You need to have perspective. It's pretty much the same with everysport. You look at old hockey games and you wonder why is Bobby Orr or Rocket Richard still considered top 10 ATG. Goalies and D's look like they can barely hold up and skate.
They did a shootout contest a couple of years ago with NHL players using vintage hockey sticks. They looked VERY mortal with their dekes, dangles and shots. A few could'nt even lift the puck of the ice.
Of course Langford looks raw. Do you believe he would look the same today? As with every sport, I think the greats would always find a way to rise to the top in any era.
Would Langford be too small against Wlad? Most probably. What happens when Wlad fights a 30 rounder against a big live opponent 100 years ago when he gasses out in 4 rounds in his prime against Brewster?
We can never know for sure, but it's fun to discuss about.
Yeah honestly when thinking of like a Mythical matchup between to use your example Wlad and Langford. To do a fair comparison you'd have to imagine the bout both ways.
What would it look like in the modern era? What would it look like in 1908?
As time goes on, and major rules changes are put in place it winds up having a major impact on the sport itself, and how you'd go about competing in it.
Re: How can you rate fighters of the olden days?
Posted: 24 Dec 2025, 15:12
by Ambling Alp II
Rules sometimes is the biggest obstacle. Agree that it would be nice if we could see modern video of everyone. Sometimes we virtually don't have any video at all, like Harry Greb. However, he beat several good opponents that we have video of so we can surmise that he had to have been pretty good.
Video can be tricky with some guys. If you only saw Félix Trinidad fight Hopkins or Wright, you wouldn't think much of him. Other fights he looked great.
Usually though, if I take a hard look at a guy's career, (not just wins and losses) and then watch him fight, you are not surprised much. Maybe the biggest exception is Trevor Berbick. He doesn't show much on video, but somehow had some wins that you would count on.