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.
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.
Comment