Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bert Sugar Top 10 Heavyweights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DeeMoney View Post
    Ive said it before, the thing about Sugar, as with these other historian/scribes, is that they make their money by allegedly being the smartest and most knowledgeable in the room. So if they go and give a list with all the accepted guys in the accepted spots (Louis, Ali, Dempsey, etc) they cant show off their knowledge; instead they blend in with the masses, which in turn makes them equal with the masses.

    So what they do is highly rank someone who is relatively obscure or unique (note relatively) so as to pretentiously display a faux esoteric insight. The same thing hipsters do with music.

    This allows them to hold their noses at the masses, who support the generally accepted answer, as not having the insight or wisdom they have.

    Now i may be wring in this assumption, in it specifically applying to Bert Sugar, but ive seen it play out many places- so i imagine it has at least somewhat a role here
    Kinda makes them sound like sports hipsters then.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by DeeMoney View Post
      Ive said it before, the thing about Sugar, as with these other historian/scribes, is that they make their money by allegedly being the smartest and most knowledgeable in the room. So if they go and give a list with all the accepted guys in the accepted spots (Louis, Ali, Dempsey, etc) they cant show off their knowledge; instead they blend in with the masses, which in turn makes them equal with the masses.

      So what they do is highly rank someone who is relatively obscure or unique (note relatively) so as to pretentiously display a faux esoteric insight. The same thing hipsters do with music.

      This allows them to hold their noses at the masses, who support the generally accepted answer, as not having the insight or wisdom they have.

      Now i may be wring in this assumption, in it specifically applying to Bert Sugar, but ive seen it play out many places- so i imagine it has at least somewhat a role here
      I think, there's a lot of truth to this - but I also believe, there can be widly different reasons, why some of these "strange" opinions manifest themselves.

      In the case of Bert Sugar, I definitely think he wanted to sound, like he had superior knowledge, which would then (in some people's opinion, not least his own!) make him stand out like a real "historian".

      In the case of Nat Fleischer, I believe he was an honest man, who really believed that the boxers from his youth, were the best ever. This resulted in some very strange All-Time rankings - but he was probably speaking from the heart.

      Then we have more recent historians like IBRO member Tracy Callis. He doesn't go back neary as far as Fleischer, but has spent a lifetime researching old-timers from newspaper reports. From the information gathered this way he, also, has come up with some very "unconventional" All-Time lists. But, like Fleischer, I don't believe he has an agenda. He probably calls it, like he sees it - but seems to have brainwashed himself, by reading hundreds of contemporary reports about the greatness of late 19th century boxers!

      But you're right... there are also many wannabe historians, who think they sound cool/knowledgeable by talking up the old-timers.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bundana View Post
        I think, there's a lot of truth to this - but I also believe, there can be widly different reasons, why some of these "strange" opinions manifest themselves.

        In the case of Bert Sugar, I definitely think he wanted to sound, like he had superior knowledge, which would then (in some people's opinion, not least his own!) make him stand out like a real "historian".

        In the case of Nat Fleischer, I believe he was an honest man, who really believed that the boxers from his youth, were the best ever. This resulted in some very strange All-Time rankings - but he was probably speaking from the heart.

        Then we have more recent historians like IBRO member Tracy Callis. He doesn't go back neary as far as Fleischer, but has spent a lifetime researching old-timers from newspaper reports. From the information gathered this way he, also, has come up with some very "unconventional" All-Time lists. But, like Fleischer, I don't believe he has an agenda. He probably calls it, like he sees it - but seems to have brainwashed himself, by reading hundreds of contemporary reports about the greatness of late 19th century boxers!

        But you're right... there are also many wannabe historians, who think they sound cool/knowledgeable by talking up the old-timers.
        I agree with that, & definitely see the Callis line of thought happening a lot too. Guys end up going native all the time; if you spend all your time studying fighters from a certain time, then they will be the ones you think the most of.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by sonnyboyx2 View Post
          From his top 100 list he has the Heavyweights in this order.

          1/. Joe Louis
          2/. Muhammad Ali
          3/. Jack Dempsey
          4/. Jack Johnson
          5/. Gene Tunney
          6/. Rocky Marciano
          7/. Ezzard Charles
          8/. George Foreman
          9/. Joe Frazier
          10/. Evander Holyfield

          Great list which i agree with... here is my take on it

          1/. Louis -- longest reign + most title defences
          2/. Ali -- 3 time champ who fought best oppostion
          3/. Dempsey -- ferocious fighting machine
          4/. Johnson -- ruled for a decade, brilliant defensive master
          5/. Tunney -- 1st ever scientific style fighter & undefeated
          6/. Marciano -- 49-0
          7/. Charles -- brilliant boxer/fighter who could do it all
          8/. Foreman -- Hardest puncher ever & oldest ever champ
          9/. Frazier -- brilliant pressure fighter who won FOTC
          10/. Holyfield -- 4 times champion
          So, not one of the top 7 were in their prime before 1960?

          Sugar used to have Holmes 10th, his omission is one of the many things wrong with this list.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16 View Post
            Jimmy Young, Sam McVea and no Wlad or Vitali? I understand these lists change as does mine, but I see no way Jimmy Young deserves to mentioned anywhere near the greatest heavyweights. Wlad reigned for years undisputedly and Vitali was dominant as long as he physically held up (even though I feel Lewis would have beaten him anyway). Also a champion. He only lost to one of the greatest heavyweights of all time in Lennox, and his other loss came due to a torn rotator cuff when he couldn't continue.
            The competition fought... Nether Klit beat any fellow great fighters. Young's win against Foreman s h its on any win either klit ever got.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Bundana View Post
              I think, there's a lot of truth to this - but I also believe, there can be widly different reasons, why some of these "strange" opinions manifest themselves.

              In the case of Bert Sugar, I definitely think he wanted to sound, like he had superior knowledge, which would then (in some people's opinion, not least his own!) make him stand out like a real "historian".

              In the case of Nat Fleischer, I believe he was an honest man, who really believed that the boxers from his youth, were the best ever. This resulted in some very strange All-Time rankings - but he was probably speaking from the heart.

              Then we have more recent historians like IBRO member Tracy Callis. He doesn't go back neary as far as Fleischer, but has spent a lifetime researching old-timers from newspaper reports. From the information gathered this way he, also, has come up with some very "unconventional" All-Time lists. But, like Fleischer, I don't believe he has an agenda. He probably calls it, like he sees it - but seems to have brainwashed himself, by reading hundreds of contemporary reports about the greatness of late 19th century boxers!

              But you're right... there are also many wannabe historians, who think they sound cool/knowledgeable by talking up the old-timers.
              It would help a lot if anyone serious about a list showed, and described, what actions led them to believe such a fighter is great... and I mean specifically! As in: "when we look at Tunney, we see him using parrying, setting traps, feinting, etc... specific actions done well... There is a guy who does this for modern fighters... And it opens eyes! It can be done for all fighters.

              Otherwise it is all heresay! lol.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16 View Post
                Side note, I have neither Wlad or Vitali in my top 10, but way higher than McVea and Young is no where near this list.
                Its petty to pick on apart a list. I actually have a thread justifying Young... Look at tape of Young, and McVea, compare it to Vlad and Vitali, then consider comp fought...

                Vitalie was IMO better all round than his brother, but never fought anyone of any note. Both brothers had great punches, horrible footwork, no skills inside... Wlad could not fight inside... Vitalie had a crack at Lewis, I feel for him...

                And compare Johnson, who controlled his man inside, and caught him often, with Vlad's so called "Stewart solution" where he just holds.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                  Its petty to pick on apart a list. I actually have a thread justifying Young... Look at tape of Young, and McVea, compare it to Vlad and Vitali, then consider comp fought...

                  Vitalie was IMO better all round than his brother, but never fought anyone of any note. Both brothers had great punches, horrible footwork, no skills inside... Wlad could not fight inside... Vitalie had a crack at Lewis, I feel for him...

                  And compare Johnson, who controlled his man inside, and caught him often, with Vlad's so called "Stewart solution" where he just holds.
                  I have seen much tape of Young and he was very underrated, I seen your thread too and no offense, really fail to see how in any way, it being justifiable ranking him among top 10 all time. Because he got a bad decision against him vs a past prime, out of shape Ali that was diagnosed with Parkinson's just a few years afterwards? Or beat a traumatized Foreman who despite still being him his physical prime, was clearly mentally not the same? He even had Young out on his feet late. Foreman pre Ali, had a high % chance of finishing him off IMO, he didn't want to gas himself like he did vs Ali.

                  I don't think he was robbed in his all of losses either, which seems to be a myth about his career, like the Norton fight for example. There were a lot of close rounds that could've went either way. There were decisions that could have went his way also, but again that shows his lack of that "great fighter" mentality because a lot of times, it seemed like he fought just to survive (a common theme among a lot of pure boxers). When you compare him vs a long reigning champion like Wlad (who's in my top 15) or a someone like Vitali, do we completely ignore losses as well? And I can easily dig up this post, but in one of my first posts I made coming back to this forum, you agreed with my answer when I stated that all time rankings/greatness can be based on LENGTH OF DOMINANCE, even if sometimes you don't have all time names. That's why Wlad is in my top 15 because he dominated his own division while being undisputed.

                  I really want a reasoning or a breakdown, as to why Jimmy Young belongs in the top 10.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16 View Post
                    I have seen much tape of Young and he was very underrated, I seen your thread too and no offense, really fail to see how in any way, it being justifiable ranking him among top 10 all time. Because he got a bad decision against him vs a past prime, out of shape Ali that was diagnosed with Parkinson's just a few years afterwards? Or beat a traumatized Foreman who despite still being him his physical prime, was clearly mentally not the same? He even had Young out on his feet late. Foreman pre Ali, had a high % chance of finishing him off IMO, he didn't want to gas himself like he did vs Ali.

                    I don't think he was robbed in his all of losses either, which seems to be a myth about his career, like the Norton fight for example. There were a lot of close rounds that could've went either way. There were decisions that could have went his way also, but again that shows his lack of that "great fighter" mentality because a lot of times, it seemed like he fought just to survive (a common theme among a lot of pure boxers). When you compare him vs a long reigning champion like Wlad (who's in my top 15) or a someone like Vitali, do we completely ignore losses as well? And I can easily dig up this post, but in one of my first posts I made coming back to this forum, you agreed with my answer when I stated that all time rankings/greatness can be based on LENGTH OF DOMINANCE, even if sometimes you don't have all time names. That's why Wlad is in my top 15 because he dominated his own division while being undisputed.

                    I really want a reasoning or a breakdown, as to why Jimmy Young belongs in the top 10.
                    Bolded: It just does not warrant a response when someone attempt to explain away a victory. Forget the Ali fight, I would make an exception for that fight because Ali was past it. But you just explained away a win against Forman, and this win is buttressed by the Ali, Norton and Lyle fights. Thats just a really weak argument. Do you think Fighters all come into the ring 100%? And can you statistically show the differences for all fighters, so we can compare ALL victories? and grade them based on percieved excuses from a losing fighter? If not? then the foreman win was magnificent. It is buttressed by Young twice beating Lyle, who was a very hard fight for Big George.

                    A close fight with Norton that could go either way is remarkable. As far as using different factors, I agree with you that length of dominance is a factor. I don't think it is the only factor... who is more impressive? the reign of Louis against not so great comp? Or Ali, who did not reign as long, but beat great, some ATG (perhaps) fighters? Its kind of a rhetorical question. But I do acknowledge that length of reign and dominance can be a factor.

                    Young fought against steller competition in his prime. He had skills that show and antagonize great champions. He beat great fighters. His skills can be broken down and seen on tape. Those are my reasons. I think Vlad's competition was really bad, he never avenged all his loses, he lost to some medoicre fighters during his prime fighting... On tape his punches are indeed beautiful but his footwork, his flinching, his crude grabbing, do not show a ATG fighter to me.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                      Bolded: It just does not warrant a response when someone attempt to explain away a victory. Forget the Ali fight, I would make an exception for that fight because Ali was past it. But you just explained away a win against Forman, and this win is buttressed by the Ali, Norton and Lyle fights. Thats just a really weak argument. Do you think Fighters all come into the ring 100%? And can you statistically show the differences for all fighters, so we can compare ALL victories? and grade them based on percieved excuses from a losing fighter? If not? then the foreman win was magnificent. It is buttressed by Young twice beating Lyle, who was a very hard fight for Big George.
                      Even if Foreman fought the same past prime Ali a 2nd time, he would've still lost. There's literally dozens of interviews/articles of Foreman saying how much the Ali fight affected him mentally. A lot of pure/technical boxers that could go rounds and make George think about his stamina, would've given him Ali flashbacks. As I said, Foreman was in his physical prime and was still a dangerous fighter, just not mentally the same after Ali and it was clear.

                      A close fight with Norton that could go either way is remarkable. As far as using different factors, I agree with you that length of dominance is a factor. I don't think it is the only factor... who is more impressive? the reign of Louis against not so great comp? Or Ali, who did not reign as long, but beat great, some ATG (perhaps) fighters? Its kind of a rhetorical question. But I do acknowledge that length of reign and dominance can be a factor. Young fought against steller competition in his prime. He had skills that show and antagonize great champions. He beat great fighters. His skills can be broken down and seen on tape. Those are my reasons. I think Vlad's competition was really bad, he never avenged all his loses, he lost to some medoicre fighters during his prime fighting... On tape his punches are indeed beautiful but his footwork, his flinching, his crude grabbing, do not show a ATG fighter to me.
                      I have Ali number 1 and Louis 2, but that is in no way shape or form comparable to Young/Wlad. The longevity of Ali, his strength of resume as well as him being the first fighter to regain the title 3 times (which was unheard of in those days) is the reason I have him over Louis. I think Louis record is underrated as well.

                      I don't rank fighters based on their skill alone but their accomplishments in the ring. If skill were the only factor, shouldn't Roy be ranked top 2 of all time up there with Robinson? Fact of the matter is, Young was never champion, had a very short prime and was unfortunate to have some very close losses go against him. That doesn't make him an all time great. And Wlad definitely had his problems but they were all before he hit his stride IMO, which I feel pretty much started and ended with Emanuel Steward. And he definitely fought in a time where the division was not strong, but you can only who's in front of you and he cleaned out his division, unified the division, reigned for 11 years and defended his title 23 times. THATS all time great accomplishments. No way can Young be justified over him. In fact, I've never seen Young on ANY all time great list. He's known more for his potential, but that's not what all time great means.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by slicksouthpaw16 View Post
                        Even if Foreman fought the same past prime Ali a 2nd time, he would've still lost. There's literally dozens of interviews/articles of Foreman saying how much the Ali fight affected him mentally. A lot of pure/technical boxers that could go rounds and make George think about his stamina, would've given him Ali flashbacks. As I said, Foreman was in his physical prime and was still a dangerous fighter, just not mentally the same after Ali and it was clear.



                        I have Ali number 1 and Louis 2, but that is in no way shape or form comparable to Young/Wlad. The longevity of Ali, his strength of resume as well as him being the first fighter to regain the title 3 times (which was unheard of in those days) is the reason I have him over Louis. I think Louis record is underrated as well.

                        I don't rank fighters based on their skill alone but their accomplishments in the ring. If skill were the only factor, shouldn't Roy be ranked top 2 of all time up there with Robinson? Fact of the matter is, Young was never champion, had a very short prime and was unfortunate to have some very close losses go against him. That doesn't make him an all time great. And Wlad definitely had his problems but they were all before he hit his stride IMO, which I feel pretty much started and ended with Emanuel Steward. And he definitely fought in a time where the division was not strong, but you can only who's in front of you and he cleaned out his division, unified the division, reigned for 11 years and defended his title 23 times. THATS all time great accomplishments. No way can Young be justified over him. In fact, I've never seen Young on ANY all time great list. He's known more for his potential, but that's not what all time great means.
                        We don't know if Foreman was mentally damaged to the extent that he was not the same after Ali... there is no empirical way to validate this statement. We don't know if he would have beat, or lost to Ali a second time. fighters say a lot of things. Just have to agree to disagree about using this to diminish the win by Young.

                        I agree with you on rankings. Jones being a natural phenomena alone, indeed... does not give him that clout, agreed. Many great fighters were never champions, I think that alone does not qualify as a mitigating factor for the rankings. For example, Mcvea, who beat some of best, but in a slightly different context (Black fighters fought each other a lot). Young was part of a group of fighters that won, when the era had perhaps the best competition ever. The fights he lost were judged and close, hence this should be considered.

                        I will say this now, so you know how I feel up front: I love Stewart, but think he did nothing for Vlad. Vlad held people... He did not learn to move properly, to stop flinching, to fight inside... He just learned to grab and tie up smaller fighters. I know Young is on no list... I think this is wrong. So the mere fact he is not on those lists, does not sway me.

                        What does All Time Great Mean? well it could mean being a winner against some of the toughest fighters. That may even trump just winning consistently against inferior opposition.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                          It would help a lot if anyone serious about a list showed, and described, what actions led them to believe such a fighter is great... and I mean specifically! As in: "when we look at Tunney, we see him using parrying, setting traps, feinting, etc... specific actions done well... There is a guy who does this for modern fighters... And it opens eyes! It can be done for all fighters.

                          Otherwise it is all heresay! lol.
                          Yeah, that would be nice - but that can only be done with fighters, we can watch on film.

                          A lot of real old-timers, with no footage, can be found on various all-time lists, put out there by (supposedly) knowledgeable historians. Do boxers from late 19th/early20th century, that we have never seen, deserve to be reated as highly as they sometimes are - if all we know about them is (as you point out) heresay?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bundana View Post
                            Yeah, that would be nice - but that can only be done with fighters, we can watch on film.

                            A lot of real old-timers, with no footage, can be found on various all-time lists, put out there by (supposedly) knowledgeable historians. Do boxers from late 19th/early20th century, that we have never seen, deserve to be reated as highly as they sometimes are - if all we know about them is (as you point out) heresay?
                            Technically it is indeed all heresay. We can treat them highly but have to accept that we cannot compare them unless we agree to compare using anecdotal information. But when we do this, if there is no tape? It gets very difficult.

                            The more my thinking evolves on this issue, the more I think there should be an interm period after a fighter's career where we can avoid comparing to historical lists... when the fighter's legacy is cemented, then the fighter can become part of history and at that point, film should not necessarily be a primary means of comparison. Up until the early 1990's we had trainers that had seen as far back as Johnson, all the way up to Tyson. On a historical level we know many of them said Dempsey was the best... a suprising number said Marciano was the best... Here is a rhetorical question? what do we do with that information?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                              Bolded: It just does not warrant a response when someone attempt to explain away a victory. Forget the Ali fight, I would make an exception for that fight because Ali was past it. But you just explained away a win against Forman, and this win is buttressed by the Ali, Norton and Lyle fights. Thats just a really weak argument. Do you think Fighters all come into the ring 100%? And can you statistically show the differences for all fighters, so we can compare ALL victories? and grade them based on percieved excuses from a losing fighter? If not? then the foreman win was magnificent. It is buttressed by Young twice beating Lyle, who was a very hard fight for Big George.

                              A close fight with Norton that could go either way is remarkable. As far as using different factors, I agree with you that length of dominance is a factor. I don't think it is the only factor... who is more impressive? the reign of Louis against not so great comp? Or Ali, who did not reign as long, but beat great, some ATG (perhaps) fighters? Its kind of a rhetorical question. But I do acknowledge that length of reign and dominance can be a factor.

                              Young fought against steller competition in his prime. He had skills that show and antagonize great champions. He beat great fighters. His skills can be broken down and seen on tape. Those are my reasons. I think Vlad's competition was really bad, he never avenged all his loses, he lost to some medoicre fighters during his prime fighting... On tape his punches are indeed beautiful but his footwork, his flinching, his crude grabbing, do not show a ATG fighter to me.
                              - -U channeling Ginsberg or Kerouac here?

                              Why U no speak 4 U self and let them sign on 4 theyselves?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
                                - -U channeling Ginsberg or Kerouac here?

                                Why U no speak 4 U self and let them sign on 4 theyselves?
                                Yawn... Ill let Samuel Jackson say it... He does with much more panache.

                                [Content is Protected, Please Register For Free To Unlock This Content]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                TOP