whats your all time greatest 10 fighters

[Yogi]

Hence the problem with hypotheticals when dealing with fighters of that era vs modern fighters. Because of the availabilty and accessabilty to video I can pick apart and dissect the fighting styles of modern fighters like Tyson, Jones, Toney etc....Kid Norfolk? Can't say I've seen him fight, so I don't know squat about his balance, stance, handspeed, jab, combination punching, punching technique, defence, in-fighting ability, bodypunching or in the ring tendencies and habits. All I really have to go on is his record, reputation and subjective newspaper accounts of that era. Ditto for his competition.

Now the problem with newspaper accounts of that era is that the writer was often reporting on a fight that he only saw once (if at all) and knew the reader likely had not seen nor would ever see it, so I imagine a less than completely accurate portrayal of some of these fights were often presented. Sports writers were also in the business of selling papers and their metaphoric imagery inducing depictions of fights and the fighters themselves as "dark dusky ***els" sprinkled with generous doses of similies "he moved in the ring like a hungry jungle cat" are laughable by today's standards not to mention racist.

I have a photocopied newspaper from 1910 the day after the Battle of The Century with a round by round description of Johnson-Jeffries which has notable inaccuracies when you compare it with the actual film. I'm sure it was quite common.

Hence why I give so little credence to those all-time rankings people compile that are based on mythical head-to-head matchups, and why I personally try not to discuss mythical matchups involving fighters from that early film era when pitted against a fighter from the more modern era...Actually I'm not a really big fan of mythical matchups in general, although a good & largely objective discussion on them can be most enjoyable, for sure.

Kid Norfolk?

No, I don't believe I've ever seen him fight either, and to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure that footage of him is still in existence today. But even if video of him, do you think you, I, or anybody else is going to get the complete picture of his fighting skills from film that is likely going to have a bunch of missing frames, varying speed depending on the "cranker", moisture blotches or any other damage that's most prevailant on those old films?

I'd certainly say not, especially if one was trying to dissect a fighter's ability to fight on the inside, which is just about completely impossible...

Besides giving me a rough idea on the style they fought in, those old films do nothing more for me that fill a curiosity, and the only direct comparisions I'll make with fighters in those films is going to be with other fighters that I'm watching under the same or very similiar circumstances.

Ok, if I can backtrack just a little...If you could get an accurate gauge on a fighter's skill level by looking at films, is that honestly going to tell you how "great" that fighter was?

No, I don't think so, because to me a fighter's skill level is only a very small part of the total equation when determining a level of greatness for said fighter, and in fact, I'd say it was a prerequisite that every great fighter in history has had a very high level of fighting ability in the sport...They wouldn't have had the success they did if they didn't have an abundance of fighting ability in comparision to his peers.

As far as fight reports go, I'm generally not looking for the exact specifics of a fight unless it was to answer a specific question about said fight (i.e. pep vs. Graves or something like that). Instead I'm looking for a general feel and an overall description of the action being described...

For example, and I only use this because one of the fighters has been fresh on my mind over the last few days;


"Carnera hooked a left to the jaw and clinched. Godfrey sank a hard left to the body. They exchanged left jabs and then Godfrey hammered a right to the jaw. Godfrey hooked a left to Carnera's head and Carnera drove a left and right to the face. They exchanged lefts to the face and then Godfrey crossed a right to the head. Carnera replied with rights to the body and head. Godfrey drove a right to Carnera's head and then staggered his opponent with a right and left to the jaw"


That was the description of the first round of that fight, and was from the round-by-round published in the NY Times. Nothing fancy being written, at all, as a way of beautifying the action or whatever, and when reading on through the other four rounds, I believe the writer has captured the general feel of what was taking place in the ring from what we can see from the video...Nothing overly dramatic being written by the writer in a not-overly dramatic fight. He makes note of the clinching & pushing going on, the harder punches being thrown by Godfrey (by his description), and also, if going by my interpretation of the writings, the writer seemed to have the view that Godfrey got the slightly better of things over the course of the rounds fought, which is something my own eyes tell me...

And those are the kind of reports I'm looking for when reading about an old fight, as they're both descriptive, written in a factually sort of way (no glamourizing), and are words from, I trust fully*, a first hand viewer (written in Philly, then sold to the Times)...

It also helps that you have a secondary (or more) source at your disposal, but, even though boxing's history has retained a TON of written information, that's not always an option. But a secondary fight report is certainly going to be an option in regards to the historical (one of, if not the single biggest fight in history at that time and for all-time) Johnson/Jeffries bout that you alluded to, as I've come across plenty of contemporary writings in regards to that matchup. And ****, that fight took place during the days of Langford & Ketchel, and God knows their's still numerous fight reports/descriptions left over from that one and by many different newspapers.

*I do tend to put an element of trust in the written word of those writers from back then, and if, for whatever reason(s), I find myself not trusting what was said initial readings, then I'll carry on 'til I find something that I can trust a great amount. Boxing's great & illustrious history didn't begin with the advent of film, so no, I'm not going to rely only on the available footage, just like I'm not going to rely all that much on filmed footage to learn the history of anything that people have taken part in...In the context of mankind's history and when comparisions are made to the average lifetime, the film era is but a baby that's just opened it's eyes for the first time.

Let me ask you, though...

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?

Ok, if you're anything like me then you're likely to say the written word. Now if such was the case, what written word are you going to trust more...the modern writings of some early 20th century fighter, which are more likely to be embellished or untrue one way or the other, or the contemporary writings of what was said about them back in their day?

A few 2006 writers may tell me that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, but a few 1947 writers make no mention of that "feat" and instead decribe the action as something quite opposite...I'll take the latter for $500, Alex

A few 2006 writers may tell me that the "pound-for-pound" term was originally coined for Robinson, yet I can see an article written in 1933 with that exact term being used to describe a fighter that was fighting in that year...Robinson didn't have access to a time machine, did he?

Or getting back to the Langford/Ketchel fight, I can read on BoxRec listing it as a newspaper win for Ketchel, or the IBHOF site claiming that Ketchel got the better of things according to most newspapers. Yet, if I was to use the newspapers from that time I can see that the Philadelphia Record, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Gettysburg Times, etc., all thought Langford got the better of the action even though he was said to have taken it easy on Ketchel (most newspaper accounts will allude to this), whereas I can find but two that had the opinion Ketchel got the better of things (Washington Post being one of them...a few like the NY Times had it even).

I know that's only a couple of quick examples, but do you see what I'm getting at?

P.S. "A great fighter in his time is a great fighter for all-time."

That's been a saying of mine for quite some time, and it's one that I firmly believe in. I'm also going to go to whatever lengths I can to see what made that fighter great in his time, and if I have to rely largely on the written word & opinions of the writers & fighters of those days, then yeah, that is what I'm going to do...For me, the alternative is ignorant, and ignoring a large part of boxing history because of the some advancement in technology would be just plain wrong.

[phallus]

Hence why I give so little credence to those all-time rankings people compile that are based on mythical head-to-head matchups, and why I personally try not to discuss mythical matchups involving fighters from that early film era when pitted against a fighter from the more modern era...Actually I'm not a really big fan of mythical matchups in general, although a good & largely objective discussion on them can be most enjoyable, for sure.

Kid Norfolk?
No, I don't believe I've ever seen him fight either, and to tell you the truth, I'm not even sure that footage of him is still in existence today. But even if video of him, do you think you, I, or anybody else is going to get the complete picture of his fighting skills from film that is likely going to have a bunch of missing frames, varying speed depending on the "cranker", moisture blotches or any other damage that's most prevailant on those old films?

I'd certainly say not, especially if one was trying to dissect a fighter's ability to fight on the inside, which is just about completely impossible...

Besides giving me a rough idea on the style they fought in, those old films do nothing more for me that fill a curiosity, and the only direct comparisions I'll make with fighters in those films is going to be with other fighters that I'm watching under the same or very similiar circumstances.

Ok, if I can backtrack just a little...If you could get an accurate gauge on a fighter's skill level by looking at films, is that honestly going to tell you how "great" that fighter was?

No, I don't think so, because to me a fighter's skill level is only a very small part of the total equation when determining a level of greatness for said fighter, and in fact, I'd say it was a prerequisite that every great fighter in history has had a very high level of fighting ability in the sport...They wouldn't have had the success they did if they didn't have an abundance of fighting ability in comparision to his peers.

As far as fight reports go, I'm generally not looking for the exact specifics of a fight unless it was to answer a specific question about said fight (i.e. pep vs. Graves or something like that). Instead I'm looking for a general feel and an overall description of the action being described...

For example, and I only use this because one of the fighters has been fresh on my mind over the last few days;


"Carnera hooked a left to the jaw and clinched. Godfrey sank a hard left to the body. They exchanged left jabs and then Godfrey hammered a right to the jaw. Godfrey hooked a left to Carnera's head and Carnera drove a left and right to the face. They exchanged lefts to the face and then Godfrey crossed a right to the head. Carnera replied with rights to the body and head. Godfrey drove a right to Carnera's head and then staggered his opponent with a right and left to the jaw"


That was the description of the first round of that fight, and was from the round-by-round published in the NY Times. Nothing fancy being written, at all, as a way of beautifying the action or whatever, and when reading on through the other four rounds, I believe the writer has captured the general feel of what was taking place in the ring from what we can see from the video...Nothing overly dramatic being written by the writer in a not-overly dramatic fight. He makes note of the clinching & pushing going on, the harder punches being thrown by Godfrey (by his description), and also, if going by my interpretation of the writings, the writer seemed to have the view that Godfrey got the slightly better of things over the course of the rounds fought, which is something my own eyes tell me...

And those are the kind of reports I'm looking for when reading about an old fight, as they're both descriptive, written in a factually sort of way (no glamourizing), and are words from, I trust fully*, a first hand viewer (written in Philly, then sold to the Times)...

It also helps that you have a secondary (or more) source at your disposal, but, even though boxing's history has retained a TON of written information, that's not always an option. But a secondary fight report is certainly going to be an option in regards to the historical (one of, if not the single biggest fight in history at that time and for all-time) Johnson/Jeffries bout that you alluded to, as I've come across plenty of contemporary writings in regards to that matchup. And ****, that fight took place during the days of Langford & Ketchel, and God knows their's still numerous fight reports/descriptions left over from that one and by many different newspapers.

*I do tend to put an element of trust in the written word of those writers from back then, and if, for whatever reason(s), I find myself not trusting what was said initial readings, then I'll carry on 'til I find something that I can trust a great amount. Boxing's great & illustrious history didn't begin with the advent of film, so no, I'm not going to rely only on the available footage, just like I'm not going to rely all that much on filmed footage to learn the history of anything that people have taken part in...In the context of mankind's history and when comparisions are made to the average lifetime, the film era is but a baby that's just opened it's eyes for the first time.

Let me ask you, though...

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?

Ok, if you're anything like me then you're likely to say the written word. Now if such was the case, what written word are you going to trust more...the modern writings of some early 20th century fighter, which are more likely to be embellished or untrue one way or the other, or the contemporary writings of what was said about them back in their day?

A few 2006 writers may tell me that Willie Pep once one a round without throwing a punch, but a few 1947 writers make no mention of that "feat" and instead decribe the action as something quite opposite...I'll take the latter for $500, Alex

A few 2006 writers may tell me that the "pound-for-pound" term was originally coined for Robinson, yet I can see an article written in 1933 with that exact term being used to describe a fighter that was fighting in that year...Robinson didn't have access to a time machine, did he?

Or getting back to the Langford/Ketchel fight, I can read on BoxRec listing it as a newspaper win for Ketchel, or the IBHOF site claiming that Ketchel got the better of things according to most newspapers. Yet, if I was to use the newspapers from that time I can see that the Philadelphia Record, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Gettysburg Times, etc., all thought Langford got the better of the action even though he was said to have taken it easy on Ketchel (most newspaper accounts will allude to this), whereas I can find but two that had the opinion Ketchel got the better of things (Washington Post being one of them...a few like the NY Times had it even).

I know that's only a couple of quick examples, but do you see what I'm getting at?

P.S. "A great fighter in his time is a great fighter for all-time."

That's been a saying of mine for quite some time, and it's one that I firmly believe in. I'm also going to go to whatever lengths I can to see what made that fighter great in his time, and if I have to rely largely on the written word & opinions of the writers & fighters of those days, then yeah, that is what I'm going to do...For me, the alternative is ignorant, and ignoring a large part of boxing history because of the some advancement in technology would be just plain wrong.

kid norfolk detached harry greb's retina

[SABBATH]

I've seen a whole lot of friggin' fights over the last 30 years (covering all eras), as I'm sure you have. I've also done plenty of reading on the history of the sportm, as again, I'm sure you have...But knowledge-wise, what have you learned more from, video or the written word?

Absolutely I've learned more about fighters and the game's history from the written word, and I'm no stranger to quoting reference material on these threads however it's a different matter when trying to assess just how good a particular fighter was when we have very poor and limited or in many cases no film footage.

In fact it's quite impossible to completely and subjectively critique those old-time fighters (as we so often do with modern fighters) when we've never seen them fight. All we have to rely on is historical data such as newspaper reports, eye witness accounts ring records etc.....

If Mike Tyson fought in the early 1900's and there was no existing film footage of him and you were left to only look at his ring record and accomplishments in his championship prime combined with some of the more glowing reports that were being written about him in 1986-89, would you not have a different view that you do now of Tyson as a fighter? I know I would. In fact my whole view of Tyson the fighter has very little to do with what I've read and has everything to do with what I've seen.

I'm not suggesting we should question everything written about a particular old-time fighter. However, should we necessarily accept contemporary writings of them simply because there is no existing footage to refute it? I'll take it with a grain of salt as I also do with modern contemporary writers who can also embelish, exaggerate and mislead.

Fighters of yesteryear had their ***** and bumps as do modern fighters. We're just unable to downplay their accomplishments and overall abilities and dissect them to the same degree that we do modern fighters (a common theme on these threads) where we are able to utilize our own subjective observations as part of the overall equation.

All I'm sayin'......

[hemichromis]

Absolutely I've learned more about fighters and the game's history from the written word, and I'm no stranger to quoting reference material on these threads however it's a different matter when trying to assess just how good a particular fighter was when we have very poor and limited or in many cases no film footage.

In fact it's quite impossible to completely and subjectively critique those old-time fighters (as we so often do with modern fighters) when we've never seen them fight. All we have to rely on is historical data such as newspaper reports, eye witness accounts ring records etc.....

If Mike Tyson fought in the early 1900's and there was no existing film footage of him and you were left to only look at his ring record and accomplishments in his championship prime combined with some of the more glowing reports that were being written about him in 1986-89, would you not have a different view that you do now of Tyson as a fighter? I know I would. In fact my whole view of Tyson the fighter has very little to do with what I've read and has everything to do with what I've seen.

I'm not suggesting we should question everything written about a particular old-time fighter. However, should we necessarily accept contemporary writings of them simply because there is no existing footage to refute it? I'll take it with a grain of salt as I also do with modern contemporary writers who can also embelish, exaggerate and mislead.

Fighters of yesteryear had their ***** and bumps as do modern fighters. We're just unable to downplay their accomplishments and overall abilities and dissect them to the same degree that we do modern fighters (a common theme on these threads) where we are able to utilize our own subjective observations as part of the overall equation.

All I'm sayin'......

i see your point when it comes to fighters pre louis there is very little footage dempsey is really the only one from before 1920 who you cna find even a handful of fights.

flaws certianly are more apparent in todays fighters because you can see it so close up from so many angles

[Yogi]

I'll get back to you later, Sabbath, as my little guy has his school Christmas concert this evening and we're just about to head out the door for that.

[Sweet Pete]

It's his opinion!So what?While I don't rank Marciano in the top ten.I certainly rank him in the top twenty,and im not alone on that one.Marciano is easily a top ten heavyweight on almost everyone's list except haters.We can fantasy what would happen if Marciano faced Foreman,Ali,ETC.But we'll never know.The man's accomplishments speak for themselves.

He's certainly not top 20 P4P either, and #1 is absolutely ridiculous. His accomplishments speak for themselves? I guess Lopez should be #1, Rocky #2, and Ottke #3 all time then.

His resume, while good, does not merit #1 status at HW, at best top 5. His skills put him even lower. In P4P terms, he might crack the top 40 due to his smaller size at HW.

Anyways:

1. Ray Robinson
2. Harry Greb
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sam Langford
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Roberto Duran
8. Mickey Walker
9. Barbados Joe Walcott
10. Barney Ross

[Sweet Pete]

Sabbath, you have made some great points in this thread.

[elozano4408]

1. Bruce Lee

Sabbath, you have made some great points in this thread.

[randy johnson]

Lol Rocky Marciano is one of the top 10 fighters of all time?Well we know what type of people put him on their list don't we?