BoxRec

Just a question does anybody think that some fighters rank higher than they should based on their overall likeability and popularity. An example would be if you take guys like Marciono or Joe Frazier who are generally well liked and respected verses a guy like Tyson who is viewed unfavorably by a fair amount of people. Say if you switched their personalities to where now Tyson was the likable guy and Marciono and Frazier were the unpopular ones does that bump up Tyson a notch or two?

Most list of all time greats in here seem to be faily objective and well thought out but just wonder if the human element plays out a bit and a fighter tends to get slighted or rewarded on that basis.

kick asner wrote:Just a question does anybody think that some fighters rank higher than they should based on their overall likeability and popularity. An example would be if you take guys like Marciono or Joe Frazier who are generally well liked and respected verses a guy like Tyson who is viewed unfavorably by a fair amount of people. Say if you switched their personalities to where now Tyson was the likable guy and Marciono and Frazier were the unpopular ones does that bump up Tyson a notch or two?

Most list of all time greats in here seem to be faily objective and well thought out but just wonder if the human element plays out a bit and a fighter tends to get slighted or rewarded on that basis.

Interesting theory, and I agree with the premise, however your example with Tyson is a bit odd. Regardless of his rather controversial personality, Tyson was incredibly popular and gains prestige due to the popularity. While you are correct that many didn’t like him, for each Tyson “hater” there are many multiples of Tyson “lovers”. If he stepped in the ring tomorrow, he’d get better PPV than any other active fighter ecept perhaps DLH, and there would be very few rooting against him in the stands.

Also the Tyson example is complicated by the fact that his personality had such an effect on the way he fought. Unlike say Marciano who was a gent outside the ring but could be downright nasty in it with a different personality I can't help but ferel Tyson have been a completely different fighter.

There is certainly something to it. At HW, for example, master boxers with an a bit boring personality, such as Gene Tunney or Lennox Lewis, tend to get underrated; while crowd-pleasers like Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Holyfield can get very inflated ratings.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The popularity of fighters often masks the actual achievements of the fighter. Many assume that because a certain boxer has such a popular following that makes him the better boxer compared to other less likeable or popular people. The main thing to remember is that a boxer should be ranked on; their achievements, the quality of opponents around and fought and their skills within the ring.

Ok, everybody is entitled to there own opinion as long as they are open minded enough to agree on certain issues, otherwise it is simply down to how popular that fighter proves to be and a result can never be found as the popularity of the fighter creates a bias within any topic in the forum.

and finally just to finish, MARCIANO IS THE GREATEST BOXER OF ALL TIME!

There are many aspects that cloud peoples judgments of fighters & popularity is definitely near the top of the list.

I always wonder why Eder Jofre very rarely gets mentioned in all time greatest lists, yet no sane person can deny this man his place high up the ATG list. His record is practically unmatched, but because he wasn't that popular, he doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Plus Jofre get's ignored because of the weight he fought at, evidenced by what I see on this forum as well as magazine articles, most people would rather argue about who the 50th best heavyweight was.

Seamus wrote:Plus Jofre get's ignored because of the weight he fought at, evidenced by what I see on this forum as well as magazine articles, most people would rather argue about who the 50th best heavyweight was.

The little guys leave the big guys in their wake in virtually all facets of the game. Yet most prefer to watch 2 massive guys fight

Seamus wrote:Plus Jofre get's ignored because of the weight he fought at, evidenced by what I see on this forum as well as magazine articles, most people would rather argue about who the 50th best heavyweight was.

Well said.

It astounds me, because Jofre was brilliant fighter & his record proves it. :x

bollox wrote:

Seamus wrote:Plus Jofre get's ignored because of the weight he fought at, evidenced by what I see on this forum as well as magazine articles, most people would rather argue about who the 50th best heavyweight was.

The little guys leave the big guys in their wake in virtually all facets of the game. Yet most prefer to watch 2 massive guys fight

Very very true.

Sadly it will probably always be this way. :(

Syntax Error wrote:

bollox wrote:

Seamus wrote:Plus Jofre get's ignored because of the weight he fought at, evidenced by what I see on this forum as well as magazine articles, most people would rather argue about who the 50th best heavyweight was.

The little guys leave the big guys in their wake in virtually all facets of the game. Yet most prefer to watch 2 massive guys fight

Very very true.

Sadly it will probably always be this way. :(

IMO a lot of it is to do with the generally higher KO percentage and their sheer size

p.s I was reading an article just recently at the BBC website on the man I'd consider to probably have been the biggest puncher of all time in Jimmy Wilde.........all 105 or so pounds of him