Judging Boxers Historically: Are We Looking at It Wrong?

[Obama]

I give the article at solid C+. The plus for effort. The C for boxing knowledge.

He exposed his lack of boxing knowledge when he tried to break down Henry Armstrong's resume and list off his best wins. I think he named 4 HOFers on Armstrong's resume, left out the amount of times he beat them, but made sure to list all the times they beat him. He thought it worth noting Baby Arizmendi beat him twice, but not worth noting Armstrong beat him 3 times. There was also no mention that he beat Zivic once. Let me just go ahead and list the HOFers Armstrong beat that he didn't even mention:

Midget Wolgast
Benny Bass
Chalky Wright
Lew Jenkins (x2)
Sammy Angott

But I'll address his "point" to for the hell of it. While he doesn't really know his boxing he makes a somewhat valid point. Fighters today don't get their just do. But then they retire....and guess what? Slowly but surely, they start getting their due. Larry Holmes is often rated among the 5 greatest Heavyweights of all time. Did he get his due when he was in his prime? ...No.

Then there's another thing, but something I expect most neo boxing fans to over look, so I give him a pass. Boxing is the oldest major spectator sport there is. Period. Not by a little bit either. By a lot. So OBVIOUSLY when you have MORE fighters to compare, the fighters today have MORE competition to compete with in the all time ratings.

So to sum it all up....

1) Writer lacks the boxing knowledge to properly evaluate a resume.

2) Fighters may be under rated while they're kicking ass but are just as likely to be over rated once they stop being relevant.

3) Boxing is old, real old. More fighters to look at than in other sports.

Now I'ma add a little something to 3 cuz it's going to go over ppl's heads. They're going to look up when these other modern sports started, like Tennis, Basketball, etc, and notice that the years seem to coincide with when boxers that appear on most ATG lists fought. Not a fair comparison. Those sports, just like boxing, took time before their athletes became relevant in the all time sense of things. Joe Gans makes my top 10, maybe even top 5 p4p list. His career started in 1893. Tennis came out around the same time. What Tennis player from the 1890s does anyone rate in the top 50, top 100? Do any of you even know Tennis players that played back then? I rest my case.

[Obama]

Another thing, back to point 2. That's not a modern phenomenon. **** been happening like that since forever. Take Harry Greb for instance. It's either him or Robinson for #1 MW all time according to raters, statistically speaking. How long you think it's been that way? Certainly wasn't the case when Nat Fleischer, or his peers, were doing ratings.

Took till about the 80s before Harry Greb > Stanley Ketchel was a majority consensus. Yet Greb retired (died) in the 20s.

[check hook]

The writer takes a very long way around when he could easily have cut it short and said,"If Paquiao beats Mayweather he will become a Top 3 ATG along with Robinson, Ali & Henry Armstrong".. yet that has been known for a couple of years now. Pacquiao is the only fighter in the last 30yrs who has a chance to cement a legacy as good as any fighter in history.

That wasn't the point of the article...........

[Spartacus Sully]

3) Boxing is old, real old. More fighters to look at than in other sports.

Now I'ma add a little something to 3 cuz it's going to go over ppl's heads. They're going to look up when these other modern sports started, like Tennis, Basketball, etc, and notice that the years seem to coincide with when boxers that appear on most ATG lists fought. Not a fair comparison. Those sports, just like boxing, took time before their athletes became relevant in the all time sense of things. Joe Gans makes my top 10, maybe even top 5 p4p list. His career started in 1893. Tennis came out around the same time. What Tennis player from the 1890s does anyone rate in the top 50, top 100? Do any of you even know Tennis players that played back then? I rest my case.

even older then that with greats such as figg, donnelly, sayers, mendoza, mace, belcher, heenan, and paulson.

and even fruther back then that with the likes of hercules, pollux, and ulysses.

[Obama]

even older then that with greats such as figg, donnelly, sayers, mendoza, mace, belcher, heenan, and paulson.

and even fruther back then that with the likes of hercules, pollux, and ulysses.

I hardly see the pioneers get rated that highly, so I didn't even bother. Furthermore anyone who thinks the article is great woulda just responded "lol who the hell are they?".

[Spartacus Sully]

I hardly see the pioneers get rated that highly, so I didn't even bother. Furthermore anyone who thinks the article is great woulda just responded "lol who the hell are they?".

just saying boxing was allready being taught 180 years before gans and was being praticed under a common set of rules 130 years before gans.

as you compared it to tennis with the same starting date of 1890 while if anything boxing would be compared more so to base ball being around since the 1740's with such greats as babe ruth and shoeless joe showing up around 1910 just as greats appeard in boxing around 1890

[SBleeder]

even older then that with greats such as figg, donnelly, sayers, mendoza, mace, belcher, heenan, and paulson.

and even fruther back then that with the likes of hercules, pollux, and ulysses.

Pacquiao whips Hercules inside of 4 rounds, dude. Hercules didn't have protein shakes.

[Spartacus Sully]

Pacquiao whips Hercules inside of 4 rounds, dude. Hercules didn't have protein shakes.

ulysess ko's manny inside 3 with a right cross just like he used to take down irus.

[Obama]

Pacquiao whips Hercules inside of 4 rounds, dude. Hercules didn't have protein shakes.

Pacroid using a lot more than that.

[r.burgundy]

I give the article at solid C+. The plus for effort. The C for boxing knowledge.

He exposed his lack of boxing knowledge when he tried to break down Henry Armstrong's resume and list off his best wins. I think he named 4 HOFers on Armstrong's resume, left out the amount of times he beat them, but made sure to list all the times they beat him.

So OBVIOUSLY when you have MORE fighters to compare, the fighters today have MORE competition to compete with in the all time ratings.

3) Boxing is old, real old. More fighters to look at than in other sports.

Not a fair comparison. Those sports, just like boxing, took time before their athletes became relevant in the all time sense of things. Joe Gans makes my top 10, maybe even top 5 p4p list. His career started in 1893. Tennis came out around the same time. What Tennis player from the 1890s does anyone rate in the top 50, top 100? Do any of you even know Tennis players that played back then? I rest my case.

the point of the article was that losses arent held against older fighters but are held against modern fighters.i say that all the time and its why i cant take fighters whom their is no film of seriously.just taking your post for example,everybody always wants to highlite what these old guys did good,but never what they did wrong.their is no objectivity whatsoever

boxing is the only sport i know of where there is actual debate and its because of guys like bert sugar that the debate is non-sensical.taking bball,jordan is recognized as the greatest ever.you wont hear a 70 year old talking about bob cousy was greater than jordan.and in team sports their are a hell of alot more athletes than in boxing.more does not = better

boxing is older but nfl teams carry 53 and nba carry 15 so those #'s alone give those leagues much deeper athlete polls than boxing.those #'s couldnt possibly be close if you tally up pro athletes from each sport

only difference is the other sports have the common sense to recognize the evolution and give their guys the respect.fights from the gans era up until the late 50's are like some mma hybrid or lowbrid.damn near unwatchable,foul plagued hugfests.the rules of boxing have changed more dramatically than any sport

i can say without a doubt roy jones was the best mw i have ever seen.he won titles at mw,lhw,and heavy and yet somehow greb,whom nobodys ever seen is ranked higher.its just mind boggling