There's only so much I can take from word of mouth and hearsay. Resume is the most important part to judging ATG status, but watching the skills for oneself and comparing them to opponents and rivals of the time is also important.

Greb, Leonard, Jeanette, McVea, Jeffries, and numerous other greats get the benefit of the doubt from some and get penalized by others.

What do you think?

There's only so much I can take from word of mouth and hearsay. Resume is the most important part to judging ATG status, but watching the skills for oneself and comparing them to opponents and rivals of the time is also important.

Greb, Leonard, Jeanette, McVea, Jeffries, and numerous other greats get the benefit of the doubt from some and get penalized by others.

What do you think?

If we cannot take the word of those who actually saw them fight, why should we take the word of anything thats actually happened in history?

If we cannot take the word of those who actually saw them fight, why should we take the word of anything thats actually happened in history?

Exactly, if you take everything you read on history at face value without taking into account possible embellishments and conjecture than you might be gullible.

History is written by the winners.

Getting off that topic, do you believe everything you read from single accounts?

Have you been on NSB after a close fight?

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

Exactly, if you take everything you read on history at face value without taking into account possible embellishments and conjecture than you might be gullible.

History is written by the winners.

Getting off that topic, do you believe everything you read from single accounts?

Have you been on NSB after a close fight?

Q, NSB is full of idiots who can't even tie their own shoe's yet. Some very good posters there, but mostly idiots.

To answer your question, no I don't believe everything I read from a single account. I try to read multiple accounts and opinions of the time. True boxing historians dig even deeper than that. I have no reason not to believe these accounts anymore than I do to not believe in the battle of Gettysburg.

I judge a fighter mostly by his accomplishments. Like who he's won/lost against, what significant things he's done in his career and so on.

Video footage is important when comparing fighters in a fantasy fight or comparing their skills to one another.

Q, NSB is full of idiots who can't even tie their own shoe's yet. Some very good posters there, but mostly idiots.

To answer your question, no I don't believe everything I read from a single account. I try to read multiple accounts and opinions of the time. True boxing historians dig even deeper than that. I have no reason not to believe these accounts anymore than I do to not believe in the battle of Gettysburg.

Fair enough. They will still suffer from the lack of video evidence, especially as the years go on. Just to elaborate my point:

Do you think Willie Pep would have the top 5 ranking he has without the video evidence that exists? He has a great resume, but without newer historians being able to see how graceful and smooth he is, definitely helps.

Fair enough. They will still suffer from the lack of video evidence, especially as the years go on. Just to elaborate my point:

Do you think Willie Pep would have the top 5 ranking he has without the video evidence that exists? He has a great resume, but without newer historians being able to see how graceful and smooth he is, definitely helps.

I agree video evidence helps immensely if you know what you're looking at. I see a lot of people on here judging fighters from the 20's and earlier based on crappy footage shot from a distance and on flicker film.

As far as the Pep question goes.....newr historians are seeing on film what older historians printed. If they weren't lying about Pep, why would they be lying or exaggerating about fighters who are on on film?

I agree video evidence helps immensely if you know what you're looking at. I see a lot of people on here judging fighters from the 20's and earlier based on crappy footage shot from a distance and on flicker film.

As far as the Pep question goes.....newr historians are seeing on film what older historians printed. If they weren't lying about Pep, why would they be lying or exaggerating about fighters who are on on film?

I don't have any stories I can make an example with right now, but when I come across one, I will post it. Some accounts just have to be questioned when there's no visual evidence.

I don't have any stories I can make an example with right now, but when I come across one, I will post it. Some accounts just have to be questioned when there's no visual evidence.

As I said my friend, that is why I try and read more than one account.

No you can't.The major difference between a boxing historian and any other historian,is that the boxing historian is related to boxing,therefore he is automatically a liar and a scam.We could go back and read some old articles on certain fights,and read that one fighter got robbed badly of a decision,but as most cases have shown in boxing,these so called robberies are not actual robberies at all,usually a close fight that could have gone either way,or even a clear decision to the victor.I used to read that Doug Jones was robbed against Cassius Clay,and when I actually watched the fight,Jones never even won three of the ten rounds,and yet these people had wrote it,claimed that it was a bad decision.Not there was footage of that fight to make my own mind up,but there are many fights where there are no footage to watch to make my own mind up.



The point that I am making,is that if they ain't on film,then they most likely suck.

Then again there is some film of Benny Leonard and Jim Jeffries which suggest that they were both talented boxers, especially for their own time. With Greb, you only have to look at his record and the men he beat, of which there is a lot of film (Gene Tunney, Tommy Loughran, Tommy Gibbons, Mickey Walker, etc.). It gives you an idea of how good he was, even if it's not the same as actually watching him fight.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CauVMvNspIY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CauVMvNspIY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rfQwLykgKGE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rfQwLykgKGE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

I used to read that Doug Jones was robbed against Cassius Clay,and when I actually watched the fight,Jones never even won three of the ten rounds,and yet these people had wrote it,claimed that it was a bad decision.

I wholly agree. That fight is often used as a bastion for Ali bashers to say that he was beaten by a club fighter and got a gift decision. A lot of writers have carried it, even my uncles used to tow it, and I'm not seeing what they saw. It was an awkward, ugly fight, but Jones didn't deserve the win.

Truth be told, the word is unreliable even if you have video. Not just bias, but people see different fights in an honest fashion. I find it unbelieveable that it has just passed into the historical record, if not a belief by boxing fans, that Montell Griffin won both fights with James Toney. I was pulling for Griffin actually, more of an anti-Toney thing at the time, and I could find no reason to give either fight to Griffin. Most of the writing done about Ali-Foreman was, and is wrong. I think I gave Foreman 1 round by the stoppage. I thought John John Molina outworked Oscar De La Hoya. I thought Taylor-Chavez was closer than probably any non-Chavez fan. I could go on.
Even though I break the rule now and then for fun, I usually don't like to judge the greatness of fighters that not only I haven't seen, but weren't fighting when I was able to see them live at somewhere near their best. I still toss in Harry Greb, but I like to qualify it. Did SRR deserve to lose any of 5 wins against LaMotta? Depends who you talk to. I've read that SRR deserved all 6, or really lost 3. I'm making a guess, because without a time machine, that's all we have.

Doug Jones being robbed against Ali/Clay must be some kind of revisionist history because from the newspapers I've read at the time, it was scored a close but clear win for Ali.

The two judges scored it 5-4-1 for Clay. The referee—Lord forgive him. for it was his first big fight and he knew not what he was doing—scored it 8-1-1 for Clay. But televiewer Sonny Liston. though unimpressed, said Clay had won.

If that, or something else did it ("Sheer will, heart and guts did it," said Bill Faversham, Clay's manager), Clay had the gumption then to demonstrate how good a fighter he can be, and for the last three rounds looked, a little bit at least, like the fighter he says he can be. But once Clay had failed to knock Jones out in the fourth, as he had predicted he would, the crowd became blind to all his later efforts. Because Clay lost that fourth-round battle, too many convinced themselves that Jones won the war—which is illogical in any case and untrue in this one. Jones fought one of the best fights of his career, but Clay, fighting his worst, still got the fair decision.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074640/index.htm

I'd say with the majority of unfilmed ATG's, you could tear their resume in half, and it would still look impressive!

I'd say with the majority of unfilmed ATG's, you could tear their resume in half, and it would still look impressive!

Exactly! Once you tore the comps records in half, you'd half to tear their Hcomps records in half. Bow many people here have actually taken the time to do this? So spare me all the boxrec warriors out there who think they have a case built on records.

I guess Greb is a bit of a benchmark in this argument. One thing I always take into account is there is footage available of guys he beat such as Tunney, Walker, Loughran etc. So I always figure if he could beat them he must have been pretty good?

Old school greats from past eras wouldn't continued to be labeled as such if they ain't put in the work in their day. I still acknowledge the gr8ness of fighters who were before my time that I ain't get to see. There are some guys I have seen that are considered gr8/legendary fighters I think are overrated tho, but that could likely be said about any fighter from any era. All in the eye of the beholder I guess. Nobody can definitively say if a fighter is gr8 and force anybody to believe it.

There's only so much I can take from word of mouth and hearsay. Resume is the most important part to judging ATG status, but watching the skills for oneself and comparing them to opponents and rivals of the time is also important.

Greb, Leonard, Jeanette, McVea, Jeffries, and numerous other greats get the benefit of the doubt from some and get penalized by others.

What do you think?you asked what do you think,well these fighters you mention are not even close to being all time greats,how can you put these average fighters in an all time great status,in their eras the fighting was not even close to what it is today,:boxing:

This for me is the central factor in the Holy Grail of being able to truly picture how modern day fighters compare against the greats of yester year.

As most of us struggle to predict results of fights due to happen (and usually with the benefit of having watched these fighters countless times) how can we genuinely talk about all time match ups with fighters we have little footage of??

I take the point re how can we take anything historical for granted without word of mouth, but for me, I base my presumptions more heavily on what I see than what I'm told.

The resume argument is a useful guide but how much have we really seen of , say, Jack Johnson's opponents or even have a working knowledge of how fighters trained or prepared back then?

As an example take Halger - SRL - Amongst a lot of people I talk to (who probably never watched the fight) to it appears to be a stone cold fact that Hagler got robbed coz they've heard it from several "sources" or read it Online or elsewhere. The truth dissolves with time.

In god knows how many years when current day footage may be obsolete can you imagine people w*nking themselves blind over Sven Ottke's resume?

The truth dissolves with time.

I respect peoples view on Old Timers if they grew up in that era but the truth is history is constantly being revised.

Boxing snobbery is a huge issue with people turning apoplectic with rage should it be suggested BHop beats Hagler for example. God forbid someone suggests a modern day beats SRR.

The truth is the best fighters today more than likely hold their own with the greats of yester year in many cases.

have you read what you just wrote coz i dont know what you are trying to say with all this snobbery stuff,i could not care less what you think coz there is not one fighter from the old days including the 1980s that would be able to fight and be a top ten boxer in todays day and age:boxing:

Perhaps you may want to re read what I wrote.

The point about snobbery is that yesterdays boxers tend to get over romanticised.

However, if you think there's not a single fighter pre 90's who could compete today I suggest you go take your head for a ****.

I guess Greb is a bit of a benchmark in this argument. One thing I always take into account is there is footage available of guys he beat such as Tunney, Walker, Loughran etc. So I always figure if he could beat them he must have been pretty good?
I have just realised I have totally parrotted GreatA who said the same thing far more eloquantly.

No you can't.The major difference between a boxing historian and any other historian,is that the boxing historian is related to boxing,therefore he is automatically a liar and a scam.We could go back and read some old articles on certain fights,and read that one fighter got robbed badly of a decision,but as most cases have shown in boxing,these so called robberies are not actual robberies at all,usually a close fight that could have gone either way,or even a clear decision to the victor.I used to read that Doug Jones was robbed against Cassius Clay,and when I actually watched the fight,Jones never even won three of the ten rounds,and yet these people had wrote it,claimed that it was a bad decision.Not there was footage of that fight to make my own mind up,but there are many fights where there are no footage to watch to make my own mind up.



The point that I am making,is that if they ain't on film,then they most likely suck.

Now if you could only knock out the highlighted bits you have yourself a very good post there :)

There's only so much I can take from word of mouth and hearsay. Resume is the most important part to judging ATG status, but watching the skills for oneself and comparing them to opponents and rivals of the time is also important.

Greb, Leonard, Jeanette, McVea, Jeffries, and numerous other greats get the benefit of the doubt from some and get penalized by others.

What do you think?

finally, a post of yours i can agree with :D