No Footage, What Rankings?

[Boogie Nights]

I wonder why no one ever brings this up. I mean it would be pretty ignorant of me to say that any particular fighter i havent seen before or seen very little of is better than foreman, louis, hearns, whitaker, or ali and so forth, when ive seen as many fights of them as there are available, but there's no or very little footage of the other guy. Basically what im doing is reading and making my opinion on the judgement of another critic, whom ive never met, who passed long before the new age of boxing has arrived, and who could have written anything he wanted.

That doesnt go for Johnson alone, the subject in another thread currently discussed.

Take for example Bert Sugar, (whom i dislike immensily) puts guys like Walker #11, Tony Canzoneri #12, Tunney 13, Gans 15, Wilde 18, Ketchel 19, Barney Ross 20. HOT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That **** is just top 20 out of a 100. I mean they are all names who are praised higly, and we've heard many stories about them, but for ****s sake out of all them there are videos that can be counted on fingers, and even less videos on some of their competition. Why the **** would i trust someone like Burt Sugar to have an opinion on where and how fighters should be ranked when he puts guys like:

leonard at 25, guy like Hagler at 47, Arguello at 56, liston 73, Hopkins 91, tyson 100. There are tons of other examples. Sugar is not alone at holding this view. Many other historians follow that pattern, and many fans buy into it, and start ranking fighters accordingly.

but Burt did make room for Original Joe Walcott, on whom there are not only any videos, but maybe 2 or 3 pictures that do exist. Apparently P4P Jim Jeffries with 21 fights is better than Jones Jr, Pryor, Wilfred Benitez, Gomez and Hopkins. John Sullivan comes in at 54, higher than monzon, burley, arguello, **** tiger.....****, i've never seen that ****er box a day in my life.

These are the people that put together their famous rankings, and want you to believe that it's gold and it's the way it is, because their granddadies told them so.

[JAB5239]

I wonder why no one ever brings this up. I mean it would be pretty ignorant of me to say that any particular fighter i havent seen before or seen very little of is better than foreman, louis, hearns, whitaker, or ali and so forth, when ive seen as many fights of them as there are available, but there's no or very little footage of the other guy. Basically what im doing is reading and making my opinion on the judgement of another critic, whom ive never met, who passed long before the new age of boxing has arrived, and who could have written anything he wanted.

That doesnt go for Johnson alone, the subject in another thread currently discussed.

Take for example Bert Sugar, (whom i dislike immensily) puts guys like Walker #11, Tony Canzoneri #12, Tunney 13, Gans 15, Wilde 18, Ketchel 19, Barney Ross 20. HOT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That **** is just top 20 out of a 100. I mean they are all names who are praised higly, and we've heard many stories about them, but for ****s sake out of all them there are videos that can be counted on fingers, and even less videos on some of their competition. Why the **** would i trust someone like Burt Sugar to have an opinion on where and how fighters should be ranked when he puts guys like:

leonard at 25, guy like Hagler at 47, Arguello at 56, liston 73, Hopkins 91, tyson 100. There are tons of other examples. Sugar is not alone at holding this view. Many other historians follow that pattern, and many fans buy into it, and start ranking fighters accordingly.

but Burt did make room for Original Joe Walcott, on whom there are not only any videos, but maybe 2 or 3 pictures that do exist. Apparently P4P Jim Jeffries with 21 fights is better than Jones Jr, Pryor, Wilfred Benitez, Gomez and Hopkins. John Sullivan comes in at 54, higher than monzon, burley, arguello, **** tiger.....****, i've never seen that ****er box a day in my life.

These are the people that put together their famous rankings, and want you to believe that it's gold and it's the way it is, because their granddadies told them so.

Were George Washington and Abe Lincoln great presidents? How do you know? You might as well rank G-Dub above them even the he has put the economy in the gutter. because you have solid information and video proof of what he's done.

Fighters don't get ranked by who you think they may or may not have beat, but but what they accomplished in the era they fought. Just because YOU aren't versed in the era they fought in doesn't make them any less great. Many of todays fighters ARE more technicly skilled. But they fight in an era where there are 3 or 4 titles, 17 weight classes and roughly 5 to 6 time less the amount of professional fighters..

Up until the late 60's, early 70's there were more fighters, less titles and less weight classes. On top ofv that, top fighters were not paid exoberant fee's by PPV, HBO or other such companies. They fought (in many cases) twice as much or more a year, without the convenience of medical science to help them along. If they didn't.....no money.

Guys like Canzoneri, Ross and Gans (when not fighting non title bouts to feed their families) were fighting the best of the best in their division and beating them. It would be the equivalant of say Floyd Mayweather today fighting all the bestv at 130 (he did) and then fighting all the best at 147, which we know he didn't do. It would be the equivalant of him fighting injured or uninjured.

A man can only be judged on the era he fought in. But if you look carefully and break those era's down, there are big differences. Should we rank men higher that only fought 3 or 4 times a year? Sure, in some instances. Should we rank men higher who were mere titlist instead of being the ONE and ONLY champion of the world? There are exceptions, but in most cases I would say no.

Personaly I rank many of the fighters of the past higher for these very reasons. Thats not to say the fighters of today are not as good, or in many cases better physicaly and stylisticly. But through no fault of their own they fight in a watered down era that places more value on (what have you done for me lately) than actual substance.

My grandaddy told me people like Abe Lincoln, Washington, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, JFK, MacCarther and many others were great people. Should I discard that because I never knmew them and they weren't from my era?

If you don't take the time to study not only the fighter but the era and circumstances he fought in, as well as his competition (which you also have to take era and circumstances into consideration) you will never get it.

Not all historians have it right. Its as subjective as subjective gets. But in their defense, most have done many times more research than the casual fan. That means you and me. Myself, I can't, won't, disregard what happened in bygone era's because I didn't see it. There are to many facts to prove otherwise. Peace.

[Boogie Nights]

Were George Washington and Abe Lincoln great presidents? How do you know? You might as well rank G-Dub above them even the he has put the economy in the gutter. because you have solid information and video proof of what he's done.

Fighters don't get ranked by who you think they may or may not have beat, but but what they accomplished in the era they fought. Just because YOU aren't versed in the era they fought in doesn't make them any less great. Many of todays fighters ARE more technicly skilled. But they fight in an era where there are 3 or 4 titles, 17 weight classes and roughly 5 to 6 time less the amount of professional fighters..

Up until the late 60's, early 70's there were more fighters, less titles and less weight classes. On top ofv that, top fighters were not paid exoberant fee's by PPV, HBO or other such companies. They fought (in many cases) twice as much or more a year, without the convenience of medical science to help them along. If they didn't.....no money.

Guys like Canzoneri, Ross and Gans (when not fighting non title bouts to feed their families) were fighting the best of the best in their division and beating them. It would be the equivalant of say Floyd Mayweather today fighting all the bestv at 130 (he did) and then fighting all the best at 147, which we know he didn't do. It would be the equivalant of him fighting injured or uninjured.

A man can only be judged on the era he fought in. But if you look carefully and break those era's down, there are big differences. Should we rank men higher that only fought 3 or 4 times a year? Sure, in some instances. Should we rank men higher who were mere titlist instead of being the ONE and ONLY champion of the world? There are exceptions, but in most cases I would say no.

Personaly I rank many of the fighters of the past higher for these very reasons. Thats not to say the fighters of today are not as good, or in many cases better physicaly and stylisticly. But through no fault of their own they fight in a watered down era that places more value on (what have you done for me lately) than actual substance.

My grandaddy told me people like Abe Lincoln, Washington, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, JFK, MacCarther and many others were great people. Should I discard that because I never knmew them and they weren't from my era?

If you don't take the time to study not only the fighter but the era and circumstances he fought in, as well as his competition (which you also have to take era and circumstances into consideration) you will never get it.

Not all historians have it right. Its as subjective as subjective gets. But in their defense, most have done many times more research than the casual fan. That means you and me. Myself, I can't, won't, disregard what happened in bygone era's because I didn't see it. There are to many facts to prove otherwise. Peace.

I never said those fighters werent great, i think you're getting the wrong idea. i can see the point in them being ranked by what they did in their era in their primes, but i never lived in that era, i dont have representation of that era except for what i read in the books. And you called it on the nose, boxing has changed. Back in the old days, fighters treated boxing as their regular job with steady salary, nowadays it's an entertainment business, lived on and survived by gamblers in the casinos. Fighters make their name, and then make PPV apperances 3 or 4 times to cash in.

I myself study boxing history. Belive it or not, i also try to follow boxing in the old bareknuckle days. For better or worse the sport has evolved.

Fighters you selected did face the best, the best that there were at the time, but it doesnt mean that their competition consisted of world beaters. Today it's rare to see 2 best fighters square off in one division. Today we got De La Hoya Pacquiao type fights.

I dont compare boxers to presidents, movement leaders, etc. I make it easy on myself. My point is who is to say that a guy like Johnson should be rated above a guy like foreman, or taking a guy like Jack Nonpareil and placing him above hagler P4P speaking. Who is to say that fighters ranked below wouldnt have made it if put in those same conditions. Because they fought less?? because there werent any White Hopes put in front of them in a hostile environment to test their resolve? because the pay was different? I know a great fighter when i see one. Any fighter from the high grade will have the same mind set, they might have different set of skills, different style, but their mindframe is to be a worthy competitor, and be victorious. Fighter like foreman, proved both in his younger days, and especially in his elder years that he's got a strong will and a lion heart. And im just putting George for a toss up here as an example. I dont see how he cannot fill Johnson's shoes fighting in the same ring that Johnson fought in.

I never brought up the crap that fighters should be ranked based on who beats whom.

I cant strongly support an opinion that i think fighter A should be placed at 2, and fighter B should be 14, if i havent seen fighter A with my own eyes. Reading, believing, and actually seeing are different things. Sure i like to read about fighters of the old days. When i was a kid i watched cartoons and read fairy tales about Kings slaying away dragons, typical stuff, those were my heros. I started reading about tough guys like greb, ot battling siki, and i said those guys are bad asses, they are my heros. It's all just food for thought.

Word gets passed around, you choose to believe or not. I dont need that kind of reasurance. I never disputed that those guys werent great. It's just to me it's quite arrogant and disrespectfull to say that that particular fighter is better than the other, just because i took someone's word for it.

but maybe it's because i got a set of strict rules, and a taste that varies from other people.

[JAB5239]

I never said those fighters werent great, i think you're getting the wrong idea. i can see the point in them being ranked by what they did in their era in their primes, but i never lived in that era, i dont have representation of that era except for what i read in the books. And you called it on the nose, boxing has changed. Back in the old days, fighters treated boxing as their regular job with steady salary, nowadays it's an entertainment business, lived on and survived by gamblers in the casinos. Fighters make their name, and then make PPV apperances 3 or 4 times to cash in.

What you read in books from people who did see them fight and did know about their competition. What possible reason is there to discount what they've written? Were they not objective then, but we are today?

I myself study boxing history. Belive it or not, i also try to follow boxing in the old bareknuckle days. For better or worse the sport has evolved.

I have no doubt you study boxings history, as do I. But some people have followed the history in much closer detail than people like ourselves.

Fighters you selected did face the best, the best that there were at the time, but it doesnt mean that their competition consisted of world beaters. Today it's rare to see 2 best fighters square off in one division. Today we got De La Hoya Pacquiao type fights.

It always baffles me why anybody would think that the competition back than was any less tough than today. With more fighters, less divisions and only one belt, it mathmaticlly had to be a tougher time to fight in. Less money, less advanced medical science, same day weigh ins, very little film, traveling by train in most cases.

Fighters like Pac and Oscar have it made compared to back then. Thats not to say they are not as good. But how would they hold up to a scheduale of fighting 9, 10, times a year? Would Mayweather have been considered great back than with their 2oz gloves, his brittle hands and fighting all those times a year? all these types of thing have to factor in when era's.

I dont compare boxers to presidents, movement leaders, etc. I make it easy on myself. My point is who is to say that a guy like Johnson should be rated above a guy like foreman, or taking a guy like Jack Nonpareil and placing him above hagler P4P speaking. Who is to say that fighters ranked below wouldnt have made it if put in those same conditions. Because they fought less?? because there werent any White Hopes put in front of them in a hostile environment to test their resolve? because the pay was different? I know a great fighter when i see one. Any fighter from the high grade will have the same mind set, they might have different set of skills, different style, but their mindframe is to be a worthy competitor, and be victorious. Fighter like foreman, proved both in his younger days, and especially in his elder years that he's got a strong will and a lion heart. And im just putting George for a toss up here as an example. I dont see how he cannot fill Johnson's shoes fighting in the same ring that Johnson fought in.

Again...fighters are ranked historicly on what they accomplished and who they fought in their era. You have to understand THAT era, the fighters comp and the different hardships (money, travel, medical etc.) that they had to deal with. Maybe Im wrong, but I believe you're trying to gauge how fighters of either era would do vice versa. THAT is an impossible guessing game that has nothing factual to back it up.

I never brought up the crap that fighters should be ranked based on who beats whom.

I cant strongly support an opinion that i think fighter A should be placed at 2, and fighter B should be 14, if i havent seen fighter A with my own eyes. Reading, believing, and actually seeing are different things. Sure i like to read about fighters of the old days. When i was a kid i watched cartoons and read fairy tales about Kings slaying away dragons, typical stuff, those were my heros. I started reading about tough guys like greb, ot battling siki, and i said those guys are bad asses, they are my heros. It's all just food for thought.

That your prerogative. But I see no reason not to take the word of people who actually saw these men fight. Knew and saw the competition. Lived in and understood the era. I mean seriously, did they blow these fighters (a very small percentage of fighters when you think about it) up thinking "this is how I think they should be ranked 100 years from now"?

Word gets passed around, you choose to believe or not. I dont need that kind of reasurance. I never disputed that those guys werent great. It's just to me it's quite arrogant and disrespectfull to say that that particular fighter is better than the other, just because i took someone's word for it.

but maybe it's because i got a set of strict rules, and a taste that varies from other people.

Thats fine, I can respect that. But at the same time, isn't it quite arrogant and disrespectful to say a particular fighter isn't better because you haven't seen him fight? Like I said last post, we never saw Washington or Lincoln. Is it a stretch to say they weren't better presidents than Bush and many others? Its all history, my man.

[Boogie Nights]

That your prerogative. But I see no reason not to take the word of people who actually saw these men fight.

i do. Historians filled the books how the barerknuckles fighters would fight for 70 rounds imposing their will on each other.

Now im not sure what those men were doing in that ring for 50-100 rounds with nothing but bone knuckless to get their business over with. Reading about stuff like that proves what a load of horse **** all those accounts are. It makes you think you reading about supermen. I dont care who you are or what kind of defensive abilities you got. with a pro boxer who knows his way in a squared circle a fight shouldnt go more than a round without any gloves on.

I mean seriously, did they blow these fighters up thinking "this is how I think they should be ranked 100 years from now"?
.

they created that notion for guys like Bert sugar. P4P Jim Jeffries is not superior than Roy Jones Jr nor has he done anything that exceeds Roy's accomplishments. Jack Sullivan should not be better than Marvin Hagler just because historians perceive Jack to be like a badass character from a dirty harry movie. and I didnt see enough clips of Gene Tunney to come to a conclusion that he's scientifically any better than james toney who's made his mark from light heavyweight into deeper divisions with good sucess after fighting as a middleweight for years.

[TheGreatA]

i do. Historians filled the books how the barerknuckles fighters would fight for 70 rounds imposing their will on each other.

Now im not sure what those men were doing in that ring for 50-100 rounds with nothing but bone knuckless to get their business over with. Reading about stuff like that proves what a load of horse **** all those accounts are. It makes you think you reading about supermen. I dont care who you are or what kind of defensive abilities you got. with a pro boxer who knows his way in a squared circle a fight shouldnt go more than a round without any gloves on.

When you have two fighters who know that serious damage could be done with just one blow and that the fight could last a hundred rounds, they tend to be cautious, looking for openings.

For example in John L. Sullivan's 75 round bareknuckle fight against Jake Kilrain, Kilrain was running from Sullivan and dived into the canvas everytime Sullivan was looking to land a punch.

The rounds under those rules lasted until an opponent visited the canvas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_rules

Sullivan was yelling at the referee to make Kilrain fight and at the end the cornerman had to stop it as any more punishment on Kilrain could've been dangerous to his health.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...87/6/index.htm

[Boogie Nights]

When you have two fighters who know that serious damage could be done with just one blow and that the fight could last a hundred rounds, they tend to be cautious, looking for openings.

For example in John L. Sullivan's 75 round bareknuckle fight against Jake Kilrain, Kilrain was running from Sullivan and dived into the canvas everytime Sullivan was looking to land a punch.

The rounds under those rules lasted until an opponent visited the canvas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Prize_Ring_rules

Sullivan was yelling at the referee to make Kilrain fight and at the end the doctor had to stop it as any more punishment on Kilrain could've been dangerous to his health.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.c...87/6/index.htm

i know the LPR rules, which makes the accounts seem even more phenomenal from my point of view. With so many knockdowns and fighters still exceeding those rounds tells me 2 things. 1. either an opponent had just enough power to put the other guy down but not even strong enough to finishthe other guy off. 2. or the other fellow's chin must have been from another planet.

i wonder how many miles of running in a 100 round fight would it cover in a track marathon? or was that the other guy that incompetent to figure out the other guy's moves or strategy from at least a 5th round mark up?

guys like Sulivan, especially, were considered killers, their instinct almost suggests the number of rounds a fight would go before the 2 contestants even enter the ring.

like im saying i was not around in those days, and why should i put my trust into sources and accounts like that. to me it sounds extereme and until i have a clear picture to reconstruct the event i cannot be biased in my view to another fighters.
and i tell ya, those guys keep saying boxing has evolved, well acording to these theories we have in the books, it appears we have damn well deteriorated. we should invent a time machine and get those defensive genius into today's ring. hell 12 rounds would be a warm up stretch for them. they will make a fighter like mayweather look like second rate amateur.

[KJB]

I actually really like this topic. I was watching Roger Federer play Tennis the other day, this is a 27 year old pro whom many believe is the greatest player of all time. Many have that same belief about Tiger Woods when it comes to golf.
When you get down to boxing, its almost laughable to try and imagine a scenario where a modern fighter could crack most historians top 20s, let alone top 10s and God forbid GOAT.
IMHO I think that shows there is some flaw in the way we are going about ranking fighters throughout history. I know more weight classes, fighting less often and more belts etc. can take away from it but athletes, and sports in general, are constantly evolving, and boxing is one of the oldest organized sports we still compete in.
Also, while we are ranking John Sullivan above guys like Marvin Hagler, I think its fair to rank Theagenes over Ali.

[JAB5239]

I actually really like this topic. I was watching Roger Federer play Tennis the other day, this is a 27 year old pro whom many believe is the greatest player of all time. Many have that same belief about Tiger Woods when it comes to golf.
When you get down to boxing, its almost laughable to try and imagine a scenario where a modern fighter could crack most historians top 20s, let alone top 10s and God forbid GOAT.
IMHO I think that shows there is some flaw in the way we are going about ranking fighters throughout history. I know more weight classes, fighting less often and more belts etc. can take away from it but athletes, and sports in general, are constantly evolving, and boxing is one of the oldest organized sports we still compete in.
Also, while we are ranking John Sullivan above guys like Marvin Hagler, I think its fair to rank Theagenes over Ali.

I think I see where you are going here, but I may be wrong. Just because the sport is evolving (something I totally agree with) doesn't make the modern fighters better. It is impossible to rank fighters by imaginary head to head match-ups. All we have left are accomplishments. It doesn't happen in all cases, but the majority of the time less weight classes, one title and fighting the best challengers time and again as well as fighting to stay busy and make money is going to trump fighting in an era with nearly twice as many weight classes and four times as many belts, with less overall proffessional fighters three or four times a year.