BoxRec

I know this is beating a dead horse, but how does one rank a fighter that one has never seen fight? Growing up I heard so much about the old-timers that I got it in my head that boxing was better in the past...until I actually got to see film of some of the past greats...greb, griffith, benny leonard, mickey walker, tunney and others...it opened my eyes to the fact perception really is everything. Some people will never admit that Roy Jones Jr or Mike Tyson were as great as Sugar Ray Robinson or Jack Dempsey. I know people who rank fighters because they read how great those fighters were in a magazine or encyclopedia. Or somebody they may or may not consider authoritative told then that the fighter was great. These people will accept that as conventional wisdom and even defend it vehemently even though they themselves have no first-hand knowledge of the fighter. I know we all look back on the past with rose colored glasses, but when the reality is staring at you from ESPN classic network, you'd have to be blind to deny it. After watching the Tyson-ferguson, Ali-NOrton, Duran-Buchanan and Griffith-Benevenuti fights on TV recently, all I can say is: memories sure are funny things when even mediocre performances of the past get elevated to legendary status today.

If I am understanding what you are getting at; I would strongly disagree that fighters are better now and in recent time times than they were a long time ago.

You shouldn't just go by the handful of fights that you mentioned. For example, the Norton fights weren't the best ali fights. Watch any of his fights from 1964-1967 and you will see a phenomenal fighter.

Tyson's fight against Ferguson certainly wasn't his best either.Don't understand why you are knocking the Benevenuti-Griffith fights.

There are bad,mediocre,good,and great fighters in every era. You also shouldn't just go by 1 fight when rating a fighter of any era.

Dentsun4228 wrote:I know this is beating a dead horse, but how does one rank a fighter that one has never seen fight? Growing up I heard so much about the old-timers that I got it in my head that boxing was better in the past...until I actually got to see film of some of the past greats...greb, griffith, benny leonard, mickey walker, tunney and others...it opened my eyes to the fact perception really is everything. Some people will never admit that Roy Jones Jr or Mike Tyson were as great as Sugar Ray Robinson or Jack Dempsey. I know people who rank fighters because they read how great those fighters were in a magazine or encyclopedia. Or somebody they may or may not consider authoritative told then that the fighter was great. These people will accept that as conventional wisdom and even defend it vehemently even though they themselves have no first-hand knowledge of the fighter. I know we all look back on the past with rose colored glasses, but when the reality is staring at you from ESPN classic network, you'd have to be blind to deny it. After watching the Tyson-ferguson, Ali-NOrton, Duran-Buchanan and Griffith-Benevenuti fights on TV recently, all I can say is: memories sure are funny things when even mediocre performances of the past get elevated to legendary status today.

I only have one question for you. Where did you get a film of Harry Greb fighting?

i can't imagine a fighter being much better than Floyd Mayweather Jr. ---

Try to imagine someone who has beaten a great fighter.

torodecayey wrote:i can't imagine a fighter being much better than Floyd Mayweather Jr. ---

look, Mayweather is damn good, but he is no Henry Armstrong.

Ambling Alp wrote:Try to imagine someone who has beaten a great fighter.

i say Floyd has already beaten great fighters in Corrales and Castillo and some very good fighters in Manfredy G Hernandez Judah Gatti ...

i know all about Henry Armstrong-- my grandpa boxed him and he says that at his best Hank was unbeatable...

Decagon wrote:Corrales and Castillo are borderline greats, at the very, very best. Genaro Hernandez was better than either of them.

u mean "i quit because i broken my nose" genaro hernandez?? i think corrales and castillo would have both beat hernandez.


oscar de lahoya schooled hernandez like he was his daddy

torodecayey wrote:i can't imagine a fighter being much better than Floyd Mayweather Jr. ---

I can't agree more. I never thought anyone will be better that prime RJJ, but PBF is a tard never, too complete.

The big difference with the likes of Mayweather and Jones jnr, and the likes of Ray Robinson is that Robinson proved on a number of times against other great fighters that he himself is a great fighter. Everytime Mayweather has moved up a weight division he's handpicked his opponent so he can have a title to his name despite fighting a shit fighter. That's the difference with a lot of the older fighters compared with todays, they fought often and they fought the best instead of only fighting who will make them the most money and bitching around like Mayweather does until he gets what he wanted. Imagine Mayweather in a dog fight with Armstrong or Duran, he'd probably go back to his corner after a few rounds crying to his Daddy.

mayweather fights handpicked opponents?




was potential hall of famer genero hernandez handpicked?

was undefeated dangerous angel manfredy handpicked??

mayweather fought the 2 best lightweights of our era......top 30 lightweights of all time jose luis castillo and diego corrales. he went 3-0 vs them. its safe to say mayweather did not HANDPICK these guys.


at junior welter he took on arturo gatti and sharmba mitchell


at welter hes taking on two champions zab judah, and now hes taking on carlos baldomir. ur saying these dangerous 147lbers are handpicked?

torodecayey wrote:i can't imagine a fighter being much better than Floyd Mayweather Jr. ---

I think you're right...If you watch PBF's best performances (Corrales, Gatti, Chavez, N'dou) he's one of those talents that you have to see to truly believe. I'd certainly rank him above Armstrong, Duran and Ike williams at lightwt. Besides, he's beaten some outstanding fighters in convincing fashion. I'd rank RJJ higher in terms of sheer talent. But PBF, Hopkins, Tyson and a few other modern greats are sorely under-appreciated in terms of their impact in their era and their all-time standings. Then you have the old timers who are sorely over-appreciated relative to their contributions and ability...I'm talking guys like Gene Tunney, Mickey Walker, Rocky Marciano, Benny Leonard and others. Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against the old-timers. I love watching film of Joe Louis, SRR, Kid Gavilan etc...Those guys were brilliant. But I think we need to get away from this mentality that "it was better in the old days and these young fighters today are soft." I think that a guy like Diego Corrales would have given Duran the fight of his life...Same with Castillo... Hell, I'd even give Hatton an honest shot at troubling Duran. My point is: It's hard enough to honestly rank the best lightwts of the past 30 years, much less even talk about fighters of 80 years ago that most of of have never even seen film of.

Dont look for sympathy here Dentsun, you will find none. These guys love their relics. You are going to have to wait till current fighters are retired 30 years or so before people come around on them.

I have beaten the drum you are beating now 1000 times, and they put there fingers in their ears and yell "I AM NOT LISTENING YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT".

I like the Boxers of the past forum, I have said it many times in the past that I have taken tidbits I have learned here and used them as a starting point to look back and study older boxers. The one thing that I dont like is, they are steadfastly connected to their relics. These guys fought bums, journeymen and greats of their time, just like guys of today do. The thing is they fought each other guys who were great that fed on lesser guys, just like today.

Its the nature of the beast, all you can do is wait for Floyd Mayweather or the boxer of your choice to retire and fade into memories, so that you can be one of those guys claiming no one around in 2050 could beat Floyd.

Decagon wrote:Jose Luis Castillo was a handpicked opponent?!?!? Floyd wanted Hatton at 140, but Hatton refused the match three or four times, and now he's fighting the real champion at welterweight. Who do you suppose he should fight, some unproven WBO titlist?

And you believe Floyds version of the story? Hatton has said the exact same thing that he has tried to get the fight with Floyd who has refused to fight him, how can you believe one guy over the other? I'll concede the Castillo comment, I'd had a few drinks and overexaggerated, although Castillo wasn't considered a great fighter when Floyd fought him, he probably was the better of the lightweight titlists, but it should be pointed out that Castillo was robbed in their first fight. As for Baldomir, he's a decent fight, and Floyd has taken his time in fighting him. I give Floyd credit for trying to win the proper championship after it looked like he was going to fart arse around fighting ex-contenders (like he tried to do by trying to make the Spinks fight).

was potential hall of famer genero hernandez handpicked?

was undefeated dangerous angel manfredy handpicked??

mayweather fought the 2 best lightweights of our era......top 30 lightweights of all time jose luis castillo and diego corrales. he went 3-0 vs them. its safe to say mayweather did not HANDPICK these guys.

You should go and read what I typed again, I said that "Everytime Mayweather has moved up a weight division he's handpicked his opponent "
Corrales, Hernandez and Manfredy were all fought at 130lbs, where I consider Floyd easily in the top 5, probably even top 3 of all-time.

at junior welter he took on arturo gatti and sharmba mitchell

at welter hes taking on two champions zab judah, and now hes taking on carlos baldomir. ur saying these dangerous 147lbers are handpicked?

Whats so great about Mitchell or Gatti? Both of these guys were washed up. Gatti had three wars with Ward and was battle worn, all of his good wins at junior welter were against washed up opponents as well. The fact that an old fighter like Ward could give Gatti such a hard fight shows that Gatti wasn't an elite fighter, he was there for the taking.
Then what did Floyd do? He jumped up to welterweight to fight Sharmba Mitchell rather then sticking around and fighting the quality opponents at 140lb. Mitchell was coming off a three round blowout against Tszyu and he wasn't the same fighter since their first fight.
Judah is and always has been overrated. Watch what happened in the Tszyu fight, Judah has a handful of tricks and when his opponent stand up to them like Tszyu did he becomes clueless. What kind of great fighter backs up in a straight line with his hands down? Zab Judah is not a great fighter and he wasn't a dangerous fight for Floyd either when they fought.
Baldomir is just in the right place at the right time, the man has a great fighting heart and I've become a fan of him this year, and Floyd deserves credit for taking on the true welterweight champion, but this is just another easy payday.
For me to really call Floyd a great fighter (as in top 30 pound for pound) he needs to go and fight Hatton and Margarito, I wanna see how he handles a fighter with the style of those two who are in their primes and can put him under pressure for 12 rounds. As it looks though Mayweather just wants to fight the guys who will give him titles and avoid being in a fight that he could actually lose, and thats why he was keen to fight Cory Spinks. If Karmazin had won that fight, do you really think Floyd would of tried to make a fight with him?
The main point I was trying to make was that guys like Floyd Mayweather wont be considered as great as the fighters of the past because they don't fight have the heart of the balls of the guys in the previous generations. The fighters today make fights based on risk-reward and thats why we don't get the best fighting each other, compared to the guys of the past who fought the best to prove they were the best.

Hmmm, I've never heard either of those to be honest. If you could find me some links I'd be more then happy to concede that point as well (I know a few Hatton fanatics and I'd love to have that over them ). Though I can remember Mayweather saying in an interview that basically Hatton doesn't generate enough money for him to take the fight, and I haven't ever heard anything about Hatton turning down Floyd's offer '3-4 times' as you put it, apart from what Floyd has said himself.

Decagon wrote:Hatton said that he wasn't ready for Mayweather in a two-part video interview on Maxboxing in 2005. It might still be up there.

Here's a link to the interview where he answered the question, "Floyd Mayweather has said several times in the press in recent months that you demanded 13 Million dollars to fight him. Was such a fight ever discussed and can you comment on the validity of his statement," by saying, "I don’t remember saying that exactly, but it was probably something in that region":

http://www.fightfan.com/interviews/0806-Hatton.htm

Hatton's the ducker.

I don't think Mayweather would have any qualms about meeting Hatton in the ring. We've all seen that Hatton has flaws that a fighter of Floyd's ability should be able to exploit. Ricky might be better off sticking to 140 if he can still make the weight safely but that might be a big IF. He must think he can as he is scheduled to fight Urango in the new year; he better have a quiet Christmas and ease up on the lager intake though as he looked like Jabba The Hutt's son in those last holiday photos.

Decagon wrote:Hatton said that he wasn't ready for Mayweather in a two-part video interview on Maxboxing in 2005. It might still be up there.

Here's a link to the interview where he answered the question, "Floyd Mayweather has said several times in the press in recent months that you demanded 13 Million dollars to fight him. Was such a fight ever discussed and can you comment on the validity of his statement," by saying, "I don’t remember saying that exactly, but it was probably something in that region":

http://www.fightfan.com/interviews/0806-Hatton.htm

Hatton's the ducker.

Thanks for that, $13 million is a fornicating lot of money to be asking for what would be a welterweight fight, I wouldn't of thought either of those two would make anywhere near that money. Hopefully like Hatton said the fight will be made after Hatton finishes this three fight deal. I think Floyd will win the fight comfortably, and I can't see any of the guys beating him except maybe Margarito, my problem with him is he seems to fornicate around too much without making the fights that will make him great.

Yeah but those guys are all light-middles... why should Margarito have to step up in weight for a big fight... also who knows what the small print in those fights said or what the purses were?.... Margarito wants to fight the best Welters which I think is fair enough... he's definately being ducked and its a damn shame as he is very good imo...

<<<<<I know this is beating a dead horse, but how does one rank a fighter that one has never seen fight? Growing up I heard so much about the old-timers that I got it in my head that boxing was better in the past...until I actually got to see film of some of the past greats...greb, griffith, benny leonard, mickey walker, tunney and others...it opened my eyes to the fact perception really is everything. Some people will never admit that Roy Jones Jr or Mike Tyson were as great as Sugar Ray Robinson or Jack Dempsey. I know people who rank fighters because they read how great those fighters were in a magazine or encyclopedia. Or somebody they may or may not consider authoritative told then that the fighter was great. These people will accept that as conventional wisdom and even defend it vehemently even though they themselves have no first-hand knowledge of the fighter. I know we all look back on the past with rose colored glasses, but when the reality is staring at you from ESPN classic network, you'd have to be blind to deny it. After watching the Tyson-ferguson, Ali-NOrton, Duran-Buchanan and Griffith-Benevenuti fights on TV recently, all I can say is: memories sure are funny things when even mediocre performances of the past get elevated to legendary status today.>>>>>


Ranking fighters generally becomes a discussion of pre-conceived notions; regurgitation of media induced conventional wisdom, and fan bias run amuck.

There was a thread not long ago, asking to rank the top 15 all time HWs. (I extended mine well past 15) Although in the process of shuffling the names around in the top 10 and forgetting to reenter Larry Holmes was not my most consistent move, (My bad, I intended to place him in the number 6 spot) other then that my list was based on fact and my many years of boxing interest and study. I also personally had extensive armature tenure, and a very short pro stint in the early 90s

I however, had the unmitigated gall to DARE to place Joe Louis in a position other then 1 or 2, I placed Roland LaStarza a couple of notched above Walcott, and my list included a few fighters not generally included in such lists, along with explanations as to why they belonged there.

OH BOY! You would think my assertions were from another dimension, and I had defaced the original painting of the last supper!
The nincompoops who base their opinions on single fights, regurgitate revised history from drunken fools like Burt Sugar, and those who spew quasi statistical nonsense like “lineal champions”, “ducked good fighter” and “ he had a hard time against so and so” came out with their tin foil hats on and both guns blazing!

How dare I point out the FACT that Louis had some lack luster performances and was basically a flat footed fighter who didn’t use a lot of movement, or the Max Bear was a one handed fighter, or that Ike Ibeabuchi was a gifted fighter who might well have been a top 10 all time HW hed he not been arrested.

How dare I point out that Kid Matthews with a record of 90 wins and 6 losses belongs in the top 40, or that Oscar Bonavena, who’s all but two losses against his 59 wins were against current, future and past champions, belongs on such a list as well?

How dare I include Greg Peralta, a fighter with 99 wins against some of the best fighters of his era on such a list?

OH NO! A factual prospective! They would have none of that !
These are not the names used by the forum board wannabe experts!
This is not media induced Kool aid!
Only over simplistic nut hugging is allowed, there is no room for consistant rankings based on FACTS!!!!
AHHHHHHH !!!!!!!


Having such discussions is a waste of time. People’s perceptions are too often based on “something they once heard” or “a clip they once saw” or the logic that fighter A had a tougher fight against fighter B then fighter C, so fighter C MUST be a better fighter, or "Well, MOST people say it's so"


In Boxing, you have to look at the BIG picture, and it is not as simple as the one dimensional view so many peoile have

The modern day boxing media with it's coperate influenced rankings and commentary is the WORSE place to look, only slightly better then the self annointed "experts" who dwell in forums like this, who the closest they have ever ggotten to the REAL boxing world is the fifth row out the upper mezzanine, and the 21st hand historicly revised kool aid they attemt to pass offf as research.

In the end, it is all a matter of exposure and perception.

<<<So, all you did was look up the fighters' records?!?!?<<<

Far from it. I own a huge collection of boxing archives, commentary, articles, and video from the 20s to the present day. I was lucky enough to grow up in a boxing family, in which my Dad and Uncle were pro fighters, and another uncle was a trainer and manager.
I never had to READ about fights and fighter from the 30s, 40s and 50s, I heard first hand from family, extended family and family friends who were there.
That is why I am often amused when I see regurgitated nonsense taken from at best, questionable sources, being presented as researched fact

I have to agree with cosand to at least some degree here. For example try to put ali outside the top five, hell out side the top three of all time heavy weights and see what happens. Forget the fact that he could only throw punches moving to his left, held and laced excessively, couldn't throw a body punch, and beat old men and one dimensional fighters and had a tough time with quite a few ordinary guys. Not to say that he wasn't great, just not the greatest. But people have an image induced by media and so called boxing experts that they cling to. The fact is, most so called experts were coming into the business, or were young fellas around the time Ali was making his name, so the experts of today either got their start sensationalizing the man, or were fans of his growing up. We all have our favorites. So most people just hear about who the greatest was from the experts and wha la Ali is without question the greatest. The point is, who is considered great can usually be traced back to who was popular about a generation earlier, when the so called experts were coming up. I'm sure in the fifties people talked about the fighters of the twenties and the thirties like they were golden. That said, I'm twenty four but I would still argue that some of the older fighters that I've seen on tape, Kid Chocolate, SRR, Dempsey, ect. would have a field day with most of the guys around today.

chance

You make some GREAT points. (Even though I personally do rank Ali as my #1) My example is always Joe Louis. I make a lot of enemies and piss some people off whn I say although he was one of the all time greats, I regard him as perhaps the most over rated fighter in boxing history. People tend to look back at Louis with some strange euphoric rose colered glasses, ignoring the fact that he went on long runs of fighting soup cans, and strugggled with fighters (Billy Conn 1 for example) that his historical legacy does not mesh with. Rocky M is said to have had waek compition, but in FACT, his opponents compare very well when compared to louis's "bum of the month club"
This is what i mean when i talk about the boxing media never letting the FACTS get in the way of their story line.
With the HW division, one point that too often gets missed, is that prior to the 70s, many if not most top heavyweights would be Cruiserweights today.

Take the to fighters from the 40s, 50s and 60s, and place them in the cruiserweight divison over the past 20 years.

Are you kidding me ?????

The names Jirov and Toney, would be little more then footnotes.
Even a Frazier, Rocky M vs Holyfield fight either at heavyweight or Cruiserweight would have been a one sided affair.

Anyway..great post !

cosand wrote:

How dare I include Greg Peralta, a fighter with 99 wins against some of the best fighters of his era on such a list?

What were the names of those "best fighters of his era" that Peralta beat?

chance wrote:I have to agree with cosand to at least some degree here. For example try to put ali outside the top five, hell out side the top three of all time heavy weights and see what happens. Forget the fact that he could only throw punches moving to his left, held and laced excessively, couldn't throw a body punch, and beat old men and one dimensional fighters and had a tough time with quite a few ordinary guys. Not to say that he wasn't great, just not the greatest. But people have an image induced by media and so called boxing experts that they cling to. The fact is, most so called experts were coming into the business, or were young fellas around the time Ali was making his name, so the experts of today either got their start sensationalizing the man, or were fans of his growing up. We all have our favorites. So most people just hear about who the greatest was from the experts and wha la Ali is without question the greatest. The point is, who is considered great can usually be traced back to who was popular about a generation earlier, when the so called experts were coming up. I'm sure in the fifties people talked about the fighters of the twenties and the thirties like they were golden. That said, I'm twenty four but I would still argue that some of the older fighters that I've seen on tape, Kid Chocolate, SRR, Dempsey, ect. would have a field day with most of the guys around today.

So, with all those faults you claim he had why do you say Ali was great?

If I subscribed to your views, I'd be a man about it and go the whole hog and say he was pile of crap.

Also, if Ali did have all those faults you list, the guys he beat like Liston, Frazier, Foreman etc were fekkin basket cases I guess.

Christ, and for all those years I thought they were modern day greats because I was brainwashed. Me and most of the others on here.

Lucky you have come along to put us right.

I shall await further gems from you, mate.