Do you factor this in when considering the greatness and does it affect their legacy

[therealpugilist]

Boxing has changed for good and bad, mostly good.


Their is this myth that fighters of the past would fight anyone, any time, and the best fought the best.

If you are a student of the history of the game, you know better.

The Mob ran boxing from WWI until the 50s and a lot of good fighters had to throw fights or beat the best and never got a title shot.

Some even had fights that should have been wins but had one arm band, carried opponents, or if they didnt knock the opponent out it would be a no decision


I personally think the best are fighting the best more often in our era than the pre 1960....everyone gets world title shots nowadays

Im not trying to start any commotion, just asking a legitimate question.

Im not questioning these fighters skills, but their willingness to fight the best


Ducking is one of the major topics on this forum, and for some instances, us as fans dont have enough inside information to know who really avoided who

Back in the day fighters were open about why and who they avoided.

As time goes on, it seems fans care more about how you win, instead of who you beat. Quality>Quantity.......beating good fighters> kayoing no names


Some of boxings legends avoided the best black fighters of their time and do you guys feel it should affect their legacy?


Personally I do. How can you be considered the world champion when you didnt fight the best available competition or some of them.


Do you think drawing the color line should affect the legacies of John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, the welterweights champions and middleweights champions who ducked Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and the black murderers row? Jack Lamotta had the cajones to fight everyone, sodid Marciano....Harry Greb was a beast


People say today this person ducked this person but you'd be hard presssed to find fighters ducking a country or race of fighters

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Boxing has changed for good and bad, mostly good.

Their is this myth that fighters of the past would fight anyone, any time, and the best fought the best.

If you are a student of the history of the game, you know better.

The Mob ran boxing from WWI until the 50s and a lot of good fighters had to throw fights or beat the best and never got a title shot.

Some even had fights that should have been wins but had one arm band, carried opponents, or if they didnt knock the opponent out it would be a no decision


I personally think the best are fighting the best more often in our era than the pre 1960....everyone gets world title shots nowadays

Im not trying to start any commotion, just asking a legitimate question.

Im not questioning these fighters skills, but their willingness to fight the best


Ducking is one of the major topics on this forum, and for some instances, us as fans dont have enough inside information to know who really avoided who

Back in the day fighters were open about why and who they avoided.

As time goes on, it seems fans care more about how you win, instead of who you beat. Quality>Quantity.......beating good fighters> kayoing no names


Some of boxings legends avoided the best black fighters of their time and do you guys feel it should affect their legacy?


Personally I do. How can you be considered the world champion when you didnt fight the best available competition or some of them.


Do you think drawing the color line should affect the legacies of John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, the welterweights champions and middleweights champions who ducked Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and the black murderers row? Jack Lamotta had the cajones to fight everyone, sodid Marciano....Harry Greb was a beast


People say today this person ducked this person but you'd be hard presssed to find fighters ducking a country or race of fighters

On the first statement, that is pure opinion and one I don't agree with. Times change things- some for the better and some for the worse. Boxing is one sport that I feel has mostly gotten worse.

Yes, everyone gets a title shot these days because there are over SEVENTY TITLES!

I don't hold it against them, because all too often, this was not their choice. Jack Dempsey for one was willing to fight all comers but was not allowed to. Many promoters had fears of racial riots back then and a few did happen. I'm not condoning what went on. Every fighter should get an opportunity when it is earned, no doubt. It's a shame that many were not allowed to, like Sam Langford. By the way, if you haven't read his biography, I highly recommend it.

Many fighters have come along who would fight anybody and everybody, but every era has had ducking, too. It's just part of the sport.

But hey. You can't tell me that most duckers haven't been called out on it by the fans of their eras, too. The duckers get called out constantly on here and it was always that way. At the same time, no one can force any fighter to face someone he doesn't want to.

In a way, it would be nice. Football, basketball and baseball players don't get to duck anybody. They have a season and they have to play the teams they are scheduled to face.

Of course, we are talking about an individual combat sport. Only one guy is held accountable in boxing- the single fighter all by himself. So this is why there is more ducking I believe.

Historically, I don't hold it against the fighters. I blame the corruption of the sport itself which is always more responsible than any fighter ever could be for the best fights not being made.

As far as those who didn't get a chance, they should be held in very high regard since they weren't given their just opportunity to prove themselves. Langford for one is regarded as one of the best of all time by many, as he should be.

[rightsideup]

god knows boxing had its issues with organized crime but the Latin alphabet organizations of the 70s and other organization such as the ibf were chalked full of scandals as well boxing has and may continue to have a seedy side.

[McGoorty]

I just want to talk about the No Decision bouts, yes they were corrupt as hell and they make the past very murky, a nightmare for us today in tracing careers of the likes of Harry Greb, and how the rule helped destroy a talent like Les Darcy who simply refused to take fights where the combination of 10 round fights (something which darcy hadn't had since like his 6th fight or so, it was 20 rounders all the way after that for him)... Over half of Harry Grebs career is hidden behind this ****** nonsensical rule and it wouldn't be so bad if they were all 10 rounders but look closer and you will see many many were just 6 rounders and many 8 rounds,,, many of these were more like exhibitions, Greb had fought at least 6 no names time and time again even after proving to everyone and these opponents themselves that these guys couldn't beat Harry even if they had a 100 fights with him..... he fought these guys 8 times or more... even much later when he is a big name he is fighting these ridiculous rules... these I regard as simply rest fights for him...tune ups basically, he even had at least two against gene Tunney ffs. I am not criticizing Greb at all but I do think he gets credit for some of these when we probably should simply look past it... he had 118 fight that count on his record,, a tiny amount are ND fights which do count because Harry managed a KO..... we tend to think highly of him having nearly 300 bouts, yes some ND bouts were real fights, the ones against the Gibbons brothers i think were real, they saw harry as an up and comer so they went hard on the young Greb and got the better of him, or so the newspaper judges said.... how much credo do we give the newspaper decisions ?? hard to say, the home town papers seem to always favour their hometown boy, this shows up when we read an alternative paper and see that viola.... there is an opposite view.. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................... talk about murky. I think at least half of grebs ND fights are not to even be bothered with tbh. and this goes for all the American fighters of this time and maybe why their contemporary experts always seemed to rate the previous generation as better than their current crop (1910's and 20's).... Now I get to the disgusting treatment meted out to Les Darcy clearly the greatest fighter of this WWI era. Les Darcy was not highly impressed with many of the fighters he saw once he got to the USA... fighters like Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons Battling levinsky he wrote in letters home that he thought vastly overrated and stood no chance against him... these were all private letters, in letters to the press he praised these guys but he was too polite a young man to say otherwise... in fact he though Dillon a real pushover as he did Fred Fulton who he did destroy in arranged sparring bout in front Of the likes of Rickard. This sparring match was a bad idea though, once the Yanks running the game in New York saw Darcy in action they wanted nothing to do with him fighting for any title they owned. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Now Darcy as i said before had nearly his entire 55 bout career as 20 round fights WITH JUDGES and no fight went without an official decision and yet that author of the harry Greb book, Stephen Compton has the bloody hide to say that Darcy had it easy in Australia and that he was the beneficiary of hometown decisions and that the Australian scene was corrupt.... yeah right... that's why sam Langford and Sam McVey spent so much time fighting downunder, langford so much time that he ended up with a deep Australian accent and a master of the slang which Sam was highly fond of. Jimmy Clabby set up shop there and became an Australian citizen. Then Darcy gets to America, rickard wants to make a squillion out of Darcy but Les wants the title only, he already has one version of the title but he wants the belt held by that artful fight dodger, Al McCoy who stays in hiding the whole time Darcy is in America. Mike Gibbons is set up to fight darcy but by now the NY Governor has banned darcy because he was asked by a corrupt Australian government and also the so called close friend has turned on Darcy and signed a ND bout behind Darcy's back, les was furious and sacks this guy because he wants Gibbons but in a fight with judges and 20 rounds or at least 15.... gibbons you see is a clever mover and has a chance to last 10 rounds but never, no way is he gonna knock Darcy out... Darcy quite understandably does not want fights to have no result..... even so he could and should knock Gibbons out... the fight would probably have been called off anyway as they set up many bouts for him only to pull the rug out and make sure he gets no bouts at all.... why ????? simply everyone knows that he is way too good... he is the Charley Burley of his day in this respect. The Fulton spar and the opinion of so many opponents that felt the heat in bouts with Darcy had gotten around... then the newspapers turned on him, trying to destroy his reputation... oh we can't have a non american better than our boys... you see the racism didn't end with the dark men, it extended all the way to Australians apparently... it was because they can't control someone who can simply win a few fights win the belt and then go home to rest up and then fight on his own terms... it was always about controlling the belt...ask Jake la Motta. I think this was the real reason Darcy became a US citizen and joined the US Army.... to finally get a shot at the title, all in vain, things were beginning to look good, then he gets very sick and dies... and many many Australians in the boxing community are yet to forgive.

[Viti Ben-Wa]

All you really need to do is look at the quality of opposition fought then and now to find your answer.

[rightsideup]

I just want to talk about the No Decision bouts, yes they were corrupt as hell and they make the past very murky, a nightmare for us today in tracing careers of the likes of Harry Greb, and how the rule helped destroy a talent like Les Darcy who simply refused to take fights where the combination of 10 round fights (something which darcy hadn't had since like his 6th fight or so, it was 20 rounders all the way after that for him)... Over half of Harry Grebs career is hidden behind this ****** nonsensical rule and it wouldn't be so bad if they were all 10 rounders but look closer and you will see many many were just 6 rounders and many 8 rounds,,, many of these were more like exhibitions, Greb had fought at least 6 no names time and time again even after proving to everyone and these opponents themselves that these guys couldn't beat Harry even if they had a 100 fights with him..... he fought these guys 8 times or more... even much later when he is a big name he is fighting these ridiculous rules... these I regard as simply rest fights for him...tune ups basically, he even had at least two against gene Tunney ffs. I am not criticizing Greb at all but I do think he gets credit for some of these when we probably should simply look past it... he had 118 fight that count on his record,, a tiny amount are ND fights which do count because Harry managed a KO..... we tend to think highly of him having nearly 300 bouts, yes some ND bouts were real fights, the ones against the Gibbons brothers i think were real, they saw harry as an up and comer so they went hard on the young Greb and got the better of him, or so the newspaper judges said.... how much credo do we give the newspaper decisions ?? hard to say, the home town papers seem to always favour their hometown boy, this shows up when we read an alternative paper and see that viola.... there is an opposite view.. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................... talk about murky. I think at least half of grebs ND fights are not to even be bothered with tbh. and this goes for all the American fighters of this time and maybe why their contemporary experts always seemed to rate the previous generation as better than their current crop (1910's and 20's).... Now I get to the disgusting treatment meted out to Les Darcy clearly the greatest fighter of this WWI era. Les Darcy was not highly impressed with many of the fighters he saw once he got to the USA... fighters like Jack Dillon, Mike Gibbons Battling levinsky he wrote in letters home that he thought vastly overrated and stood no chance against him... these were all private letters, in letters to the press he praised these guys but he was too polite a young man to say otherwise... in fact he though Dillon a real pushover as he did Fred Fulton who he did destroy in arranged sparring bout in front Of the likes of Rickard. This sparring match was a bad idea though, once the Yanks running the game in New York saw Darcy in action they wanted nothing to do with him fighting for any title they owned. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Now Darcy as i said before had nearly his entire 55 bout career as 20 round fights WITH JUDGES and no fight went without an official decision and yet that author of the harry Greb book, Stephen Compton has the bloody hide to say that Darcy had it easy in Australia and that he was the beneficiary of hometown decisions and that the Australian scene was corrupt.... yeah right... that's why sam Langford and Sam McVey spent so much time fighting downunder, langford so much time that he ended up with a deep Australian accent and a master of the slang which Sam was highly fond of. Jimmy Clabby set up shop there and became an Australian citizen. Then Darcy gets to America, rickard wants to make a squillion out of Darcy but Les wants the title only, he already has one version of the title but he wants the belt held by that artful fight dodger, Al McCoy who stays in hiding the whole time Darcy is in America. Mike Gibbons is set up to fight darcy but by now the NY Governor has banned darcy because he was asked by a corrupt Australian government and also the so called close friend has turned on Darcy and signed a ND bout behind Darcy's back, les was furious and sacks this guy because he wants Gibbons but in a fight with judges and 20 rounds or at least 15.... gibbons you see is a clever mover and has a chance to last 10 rounds but never, no way is he gonna knock Darcy out... Darcy quite understandably does not want fights to have no result..... even so he could and should knock Gibbons out... the fight would probably have been called off anyway as they set up many bouts for him only to pull the rug out and make sure he gets no bouts at all.... why ????? simply everyone knows that he is way too good... he is the Charley Burley of his day in this respect. The Fulton spar and the opinion of so many opponents that felt the heat in bouts with Darcy had gotten around... then the newspapers turned on him, trying to destroy his reputation... oh we can't have a non american better than our boys... you see the racism didn't end with the dark men, it extended all the way to Australians apparently... it was because they can't control someone who can simply win a few fights win the belt and then go home to rest up and then fight on his own terms... it was always about controlling the belt...ask Jake la Motta. I think this was the real reason Darcy became a US citizen and joined the US Army.... to finally get a shot at the title, all in vain, things were beginning to look good, then he gets very sick and dies... and many many Australians in the boxing community are yet to forgive.

without a doubt the no d era was confusing and a product of events that happened prior to the era. if you are rating harry greb as a atg lack of footage is a negative as is the no d fights. he did fight and beat some very good to excellent fighters and the spar session rumors of him frustrate jack d is legendary but when i make my atg list he(greb) is slightly lower than
most peoples

[Ray Corso]

I look at their Methodology, how they go about their business of winning.
Then their Technology (form) applied and the skill level used in their style. There are right & wrong ways to box, however their were bad to odd techniques used with degrees of success too!
In pro boxing I give more credence to a hard puncher in comparison to a lesser power punch that might land more often (ex. 4 to 1)
If a visual isn't available there is plenty of articles by accomplished writers with excellent descriptions of the fighter.
The quality of opposition would be next and the title rounds and longevity are important also.
I want to see an ATG in with an ATG, if that opponent is not available I must see outstanding high marks against contenders in defense, offense, ring generalship
work rate, conditioning, willingness, activity against top 15, promoting the sport, willing to travel and sportsmanship.
All era's had deficiencies that lack of a "policing" organization makes the sport a sub contracting nightmare! The boxing fan has to get past all the controlling trash and then they pick their type of talents to rout for.
Style, form and class are what the true boxing fan looks for the personality
fans are the fanboys who are the cosmetics worshipers. Not much substance
and their always the loudest!
Ray.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I believe boxing was at its best from 1960-1990s

There was actual champs, free tv, fighters stayed active, most big fights happened in a timely fashion, fighters came to fight, not outpoint..


Boxing is always good when you make competitive matchups..

[rightsideup]

I look at their Methodology, how they go about their business of winning.
Then their Technology (form) applied and the skill level used in their style. There are right & wrong ways to box, however their were bad to odd techniques used with degrees of success too!
In pro boxing I give more credence to a hard puncher in comparison to a lesser power punch that might land more often (ex. 4 to 1)
If a visual isn't available there is plenty of articles by accomplished writers with excellent descriptions of the fighter.
The quality of opposition would be next and the title rounds and longevity are important also.
I want to see an ATG in with an ATG, if that opponent is not available I must see outstanding high marks against contenders in defense, offense, ring generalship
work rate, conditioning, willingness, activity against top 15, promoting the sport, willing to travel and sportsmanship.
All era's had deficiencies that lack of a "policing" organization makes the sport a sub contracting nightmare! The boxing fan has to get past all the controlling trash and then they pick their type of talents to rout for.
Style, form and class are what the true boxing fan looks for the personality
fans are the fanboys who are the cosmetics worshipers. Not much substance
and their always the loudest!
Ray.

nice post ray
just a lot of common sense to apply to the op question

[McGoorty]

Agree

without a doubt the no d era was confusing and a product of events that happened prior to the era. if you are rating harry greb as a atg lack of footage is a negative as is the no d fights. he did fight and beat some very good to excellent fighters and the spar session rumors of him frustrate jack d is legendary but when i make my atg list he(greb) is slightly lower than
most peoples

Yes I have Greb lower than many do, don't know where but to be fair he was the best middleweight of the 20's beyond any doubt.