Why is Jack Johnson rated so high...

[TheGreatA]

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.

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:

"Not many boxers could outbox Tunney at this stage of his career, but Loughran was one of them. Aware of that, Tunney tried hard to knock out Loughran, but never came close after the opening round, and the fight appeared to have been even by the end. While there could be no official decision, the majority of sportwriters at ringside - most of them from the Philadelphia-area newspapers - gave their verdicts to Loughran.

"'Tommy Outclasses Gene in Sensational Bout After Weathering a Storm in First Round,' read the somewhat misleading sub-headline in the following day's Philadelphia Inquirer. As it was, it went into the record books as a no decision fight. Tunney himself knew it had been close, but felt he had won the bout, as did virtually all of the New York sportswriters who were present." Tunney, p. 168 (italics added)

A report below from the Newcastle Times, Penn.
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 25.—Gene
Tunney, oŁ New York, former llght-
heavyweight champion oŁ America,
defeated Tommy Loughran of Philadelphia,
at the National League
baseball park here last night. TunnEy
weighed 173 pounds and Loughra,
was 10 pounds lighter.
Tunney landed a hard right on
Loughran's jaw in the first round
and Tommy went down for a count of
nine. Loughran came back gamely
and made a great battle, so much so
that some sport writers were inclined
to judge the match a draw.
Tunney was bleeding from the
mouth and nose much of the time.
Loughran took the offensive In the
last round, but Tunney's body blows
had him weak in the final minutes.

Having read that you'll be left with the impression that it was a close fight.

Now reading it on boxrec.com about two months ago (before the result was changed) you'd be left with the impression that Tunney had easily outpointed and knocked down Loughran.

[Steak]

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:

all I learned from that was that the first round was rough for Loughran. the only other thing the reports said was that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. which is how I treat NDs anyway.

so it didnt real do much for me, nor did it even tell me anything about the fighters in question. its not like there was a round by round either. they didnt agree on who won.

basically, reading these reports only really told me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring.
when I see a ND on boxrec, that tells me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring, unless there is a relevant footnote underneath.

theres not much difference there in the end.

[TheGreatA]

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.

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.

How do you rate Jack Johnson then when there only a couple of his fights are filmed?

Obviously by reading about him and the opposition he faced.

[Boogie Nights]

But reading many newspaper reports will give you a clearer view of what happened in a fight than reading a result listed on boxrec.

Three newspaper reports of the Tunney-Loughran fight:







Having read that you'll be left with the impression that it was a close fight.

Now reading it on boxrec.com about two months ago (before the result was changed) you'd be left with the impression that Tunney had easily outpointed and knocked down Loughran.

this is insightfull stuff, but it's not exactly a blow by blow commentary. all it says really, is tunney knocked down loughran, and then tommy got up and gave a good account of himself......and then they finish off with what they thought the official result was...

judges still cant figure out who won leonard-hagler fight, and no one would say either yes or a no unless they have seen it with their own eyes and decide for themselves.

newspaper account gives an idea, from there people base it however they wanna base it, that's why i never get into heated discussions with them. All it is from there are assumptions since there is no footage to support what another person says.

When boxers say 'never leave it in a judges hands' they mean it. it's a conflicting view of other people.

[TheGreatA]

all I learned from that was that the first round was rough for Loughran. the only other thing the reports said was that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. which is how I treat NDs anyway.

so it didnt real do much for me, nor did it even tell me anything about the fighters in question. its not like there was a round by round either. they didnt agree on who won.

basically, reading these reports only really told me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring.
when I see a ND on boxrec, that tells me that the fight was close and could have gone either way based on scoring, unless there is a relevant footnote underneath.

theres not much difference there in the end.

My point was that boxrec used to list it as a win for Tunney for years which was incorrect.

It's listed as a no decision now which is right but there are surely other old fights that have an incorrect result or are not listed there at all.

I've had to explain to people that the fighters Jimmy Wilde fought were not complete bums / beginners because their records read 0-0 on boxrec, it's simply because none of their fights are listed there as it's hard to find information on that particular era of boxing.

Those newspaper reports were only examples, there are more detailed reports out there but you'll sometimes have to pay to read them (NY Times website archives).

[Boogie Nights]

How do you rate Jack Johnson then when there only a couple of his fights are filmed?

Obviously by reading about him and the opposition he faced.

obviously, and i never had any conflicts with that. my issue is not with that. i always maintained that fighters like tunney, johnson, dempsey should be rated by their own era, their time.

but when looking at the circumstances, the fighters, the times, and the events built up, you start to isolate the facts. when there's not much footage present, i rank fighters accordingly. guys like mcvey, langford, as well as wills were underated. and they are not mentioned in the same light as Johnson.

[Steak]

My point was that boxrec used to list it as a win for Tunney for years which was incorrect.

It's listed as a no decision now which is right but there are surely other old fights that have an incorrect result or are not listed there at all.

I've had to explain to people that the fighters Jimmy Wilde fought were not complete bums / beginners because their records read 0-0 on boxrec, it's simply because none of their fights are listed there as it's hard to find information on that particular era of boxing.

Those newspaper reports were only examples, there are more detailed reports out there but you'll sometimes have to pay to read them.

how do we know that the win for Tunney is incorrect? maybe he really did deserve to win the fight. boxrec is based on the newspaper decisions...which means that while boxrec is unreliable, its no less reliable than the newspapers it is based on.

and as for Jimmy Wilde, I get that most his 0-0 opponents werent actually 0-0, but if theres no information about them even in newspapers, they really couldnt have been very important or high level. I dont discredit a fighter for fighting no name fighters, but I dont give them credit for it either. If Im going to judge an old time fighter like Wilde, Im just going to ignore his win-loss record and instead concentrate on his big/worthwhile wins.

[Yogi]

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.

The majority of them gave it to Langford, though, so that's not such a bad listing by the site nowadays. This is what the six Philadelphian papers covering the fight thought about who had gotten the better;

Morning Telegraph - Draw
Philadelphia Press - Langford
Philadelphia Record - Langford
Philadelphia North Amercian - Draw
Philadelphia Inquirer - Langford (assuming by some margin as they said "All Langford")
Philadelphia Ledger - Ketchel by a shade

3-1-2 for Langford according to the papers out of the fight's location, and as I illustrated in the Ketchel thread (you may have not seen it, Machine), the prevailing opinion was that Langford wasn't trying to give his best effort...I could certainly quote those opinions if asked, but it would require some typing.

They also had seven papers out of New York covering the fight (American, World, Times, Sun, Press, Tribune, and Herald) and adding up the votes from them, Langford had a 4 to 3 edge based on the opinions of the NY papers.

The wired reports featured in other sources (different ones featured in the Washington Times, Times Dispatch, Ogden Standard, etc.) also seem to be in Langford's favour (2-0-1 out of the three listed there), albeit they refer to his advantage as "slight" and wording of that nature.

Going by the consensus, Langford seemed to have a shade the better of the bout, although considering Ketchel had a few supporters in the press and the vast majority thought it close, a draw would also be pretty fair.

[TheGreatA]

how do we know that the win for Tunney is incorrect? maybe he really did deserve to win the fight. boxrec is based on the newspaper decisions...which means that while boxrec is unreliable, its no less reliable than the newspapers it is based on.

and as for Jimmy Wilde, I get that most his 0-0 opponents werent actually 0-0, but if theres no information about them even in newspapers, they really couldnt have been very important or high level. I dont discredit a fighter for fighting no name fighters, but I dont give them credit for it either. If Im going to judge an old time fighter like Wilde, Im just going to ignore his win-loss record and instead concentrate on his big/worthwhile wins.

Maybe he did deserve it or maybe he didn't. But boxrec listed it as a win for Tunney, changed it to a loss and now have it a no contest.

Basically it's not very reliable if you're trying to learn about old timers, some fight results change almost every month.

People could take a look at boxrec, see that Tunney had a win over Loughran and the next month they'll see it listed as a loss.

[TheGreatA]

The majority of them gave it to Langford, though, so that's not such a bad listing by the site nowadays. This is what the six Philadelphian papers covering the fight thought about who had gotten the better;

Morning Telegraph - Draw
Philadelphia Press - Langford
Philadelphia Record - Langford
Philadelphia North Amercian - Draw
Philadelphia Inquirer - Langford (assuming by some margin as they said "All Langford")
Philadelphia Ledger - Ketchel by a shade

3-1-2 for Langford according to the papers out of the fight's location, and as I illustrated in the Ketchel thread (you may have not seen it, Machine), the prevailing opinion was that Langford wasn't trying to give his best effort...I could certainly quote those opinions if asked, but it would require some typing.

They also had seven papers out of New York covering the fight (American, World, Times, Sun, Press, Tribune, and Herald) and adding up the votes from them, Langford had a 4 to 3 edge based on the opinions of the NY papers.

The wired reports featured in other sources (different ones featured in the Washington Times, Times Dispatch, Ogden Standard, etc.) also seem to be in Langford's favour (2-0-1 out of the three listed there), albeit they refer to his advantage as "slight" and wording of that nature.

Going by the consensus, Langford seemed to have a shade the better of the bout, although considering Ketchel had a few supporters in the press and the vast majority thought it close, a draw would also be pretty fair.

I don't have a problem with the fight being listed by boxrec as a win for Langford but when a fight is changed from a win to a draw to a win again, it shows that the source of information is not all that reliable and shouldn't be taken as the absolute truth (as many do).

I'm not criticizing the posters in this thread but I've had a couple of arguments lately with people who only use boxrec to find information, even when film is available.

I did read the Ketchel thread and it was very informative.

I believe Langford was the better fighter of the two but I don't think this fight necessarily showed who the better man was as it only lasted 6 rounds and both men were supposedly ready to go more.

A rematch was to be scheduled but unfortunately it never happened for reasons you pointed out in the thread about Stanley Ketchel.