Have You Changed How You Evaluate A Boxer's Career?
Posted: 26 Oct 2005, 04:20
I am curious about this because of how many posts and posters rank punching power and kos so highly, whereas that doesn't appear to have been the case once upon a time. Would fighters like Conn and Rosenbloom and Loughran be considered great if they weren't already on all the lists?
Another reason I wondered about this has to do with rating the all time top 10 in each division. Take the welterweights as an example; what did your top ten list look like in, say 1975, or in 1988, as compared to now? I would venture to guess that for many iy is barely recognizable as the same list and yet I don't know if I could in all honesty say that any body in the last 30 years accomplished what some of the ex top guys did in their careers.
Have the standards for being a great fighter been tweaked? Do people just want to see their era represented?
Another reason I wondered about this has to do with rating the all time top 10 in each division. Take the welterweights as an example; what did your top ten list look like in, say 1975, or in 1988, as compared to now? I would venture to guess that for many iy is barely recognizable as the same list and yet I don't know if I could in all honesty say that any body in the last 30 years accomplished what some of the ex top guys did in their careers.
Have the standards for being a great fighter been tweaked? Do people just want to see their era represented?