Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[Steak]

...and Harry Wills rated so low on many people's lists? people go crazy over Johnson's wins over Langford, Jeanette and McVae, but Wills beat these three guys multiple times.

Ive heard that Johnson beat them when they were more 'prime', but how is that so? McVae was 18-19 years old when Johnson beat him. call me crazy, but that seems pretty young, assuming they got his birth date correct.
on the other hand, Wills beat him when he McVae was 26, and then a few more times before he even turned 30. hmmm.

Jeanette is understandable, Johnson beat him when he was much younger. although I have to admit, when Johnson fought him his record looked like garbage, when Wills fought him it looked much better.

and people always say that it counts a little against Johnson that he never gave Langford a rematch, yet at the time that people wanted a rematch, Wills was fighting him again and again.

he also beat guys like Fred Fulton and Firpo, which are better wins than pretty much all of Johnson's non-colored title defences.

I dont expect him to be rated over Johnson, but how is it that Johnson gets into people's top 3, while Wills doesnt get into the top 10 at all? either lower Johnson or raise Wills, because something doesnt make sense there.
and whats more, I dont see how Dempsey could be rated higher than Wills either.

[TheGreatA]

Johnson beat them when they were too young while Wills beat them when they were too old.

Jeannette, Langford and McVea struggled to find anyone to fight during their prime days except each other.

The one thing that keeps Wills from being ranked high is that he never got a shot at Jack Dempsey. If he had fought Dempsey and won, I'm sure he would be ranked in many top 10 HW lists.

Unfortunately he is now a mostly forgotten great of the early 1900's era.

I would not put too much into boxrec records by the way, they are usually incorrect when it comes to the lesser known boxers of the late 1800's/early 1900's.

[Steak]

Johnson beat them when they were too young while Wills beat them when they were too old.

Jeannette, Langford and McVea struggled to find anyone to fight during their prime days except each other.

The one thing that keeps Wills from being ranked high is that he never got a shot at Jack Dempsey. If he had fought Dempsey and won, I'm sure he would be ranked in many top 10 HW lists.

Unfortunately he is now a mostly forgotten great of the early 1900's era.

I would not put too much into boxrec records by the way, they are usually incorrect when it comes to the lesser known boxers of the late 1800's/early 1900's.

I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

[TheGreatA]

I wasnt judging boxrec rankings actually, I was judging the people in the top 10 Heavyweights list that had Johnson really high and didnt have Wills in the top ten at all.

and I know Ive said this before, but boxrec is as good as any other source when it comes to judging old fighters...its all secondary sources. either boxrec or newspapers...and newspapers cant even agree with each other on how the fight went a lot of the time. I mean, I seriously doubt even boxing historians have ever actually seen a full Jeanette fight before, because little to no footage even exists of him...at least in his early days.

and boxrec doesnt have all the fights listed for certain old fighters, but they probebly will have all the big/significant fights theyve been in, and thats mostly all that counts. I dont really care if a fighter's win over a bum is missing or not.

the thing is that Wills basically fought and beat a lot of Dempsey's and Johnson's best wins...and doesnt seem to get as much credit as either of them.
I dont care how you rate them, I just dont think it makes much sense that Johnson ought to be rated that much higher than Wills.

I agree with you but in my opinion it's not so much about Dempsey and Jack Johnson being overrated as much as it is about Harry Wills being underrated.

Even the big fights are often listed wrong by boxrec.

In the past couple of months Tunney's fight against Loughran has changed from a win to a loss and then to a no contest, and Langford's fight against Ketchel was changed from a draw into a win for him.

[Steak]

I agree with you but in my opinion it's not so much about Dempsey and Jack Johnson being overrated as much as it is about Harry Wills being underrated.

Even the big fights are often listed wrong by boxrec.

In the past couple of months Tunney's fight against Loughran has changed from a win to a loss and then to a no contest, and Langford's fight against Ketchel was changed from a draw into a win for him.

but thats because those fights were judged differently by different newspapers. I mean, when one newspaper says that Tunney beat Loughran and another says the opposite, what are you supposed to make of it? there is no real right answer unless youve seen the full fight yourself, and in the end the NC is probebly a more fair assessment of the bout than either of the newspapers, which basically means that boxrec is more reliable than a newspaper reoprt(in that case, at least).

[Boogie Nights]

I have done tons of research on Johnson in the past, and i broke down his record piece by piece on other sites. Im burnt out on talking about him.

He's definetly overrated, and it's pretty crazy to see him in the top ten on some people's lists.

[Yogi]

I'd like to say that BoxRec blows, but that might be a little unfair to them because they are and have been attempting to add to their database on an ongoing basis. I really do think people rely way too much on what is listed on their site, though, especially for the fights that took place during the no decision era of the sport when they are often changing their listings of fights (as Machine so accurately illustrated) or are very often selective in listing a single source for what supposedly happened, and even doing so when that source was very much in the minority (I gave an example of this a couple months back in regards to one of the Langford/Jeannette fights).

Besides maybe a fight date that I don't have available from other sources, that's not a site I personally use as a source for the fights from back then, nor is it one that I find myself visting on a regular basis.

[TheGreatA]

but thats because those fights were judged differently by different newspapers. I mean, when one newspaper says that Tunney beat Loughran and another says the opposite, what are you supposed to make of it? there is no real right answer unless youve seen the full fight yourself, and in the end the NC is probebly a more fair assessment of the bout than either of the newspapers, which basically means that boxrec is more reliable than a newspaper reoprt(in that case, at least).

In that case yes, but in the case of Langford-Ketchel, the fight was listed as a draw for years by boxrec.com but it is now listed as a win for Langford although some newspaper reports gave it to Ketchel or had it a draw.

About Tunney vs Loughran, Philadelphia newspapers gave the decision to Loughran while New York newspapers favoured Tunney.

In my opinion both newspapers could have been biased for their hometown fighter and having read detailed reports on the fight, listing it as a no contest or a draw seems appropriate.

[Steak]

I'd like to say that BoxRec blows, but that might be a little unfair to them because they are and have been attempting to add to their database on an ongoing basis. I really do think people rely way too much on what is listed on their site, though, especially for the fights that took place during the no decision era of the sport when they are often changing their listings of fights (as Machine so accurately illustrated) or are very often selective in listing a single source for what supposedly happened, and even doing so when that source was very much in the minority (I gave an example of this a couple months back in regards to one of the Langford/Jeannette fights).

Besides maybe a fight date that I don't have available from other sources, that's not a site I personally use as a source for the fights from back then, nor is it one that I find myself visting on a regular basis.

I think that boxrec is pretty useful simply because it usually lists what the newspaper decision(s) said. then you can look up the newspaper in question and try to get a more detailed review of the fight by looking in their archives, if one exists.

personally, if video of the fight doesnt exist, I have no problem using boxrec. by far the best way to judge a fight is to see it first hand...and if thats impossible and no one living can describe the fight, I dont see how its much different than a 100ish year old newspaper report, since newspapers in that time(or any time) were often unreliable anyway since they could be biased and conflict with other newspaper reports.

[Boogie Nights]

cant imagine many people baising their facts or opinions on newspaper decisions. really how thick is that when you think about it.

old timers got their own opinion on what went on back in the days. if im rating somebody i need to see that fighter for myself. and not once or twice, and not in just a couple of fights either.