Marciano's Body Frame could easily be Tua and Tyson

It is true that they have done as much as you can ask of them without getting into speculation.

The problem is that it means Ruben Olivares cannot be deemed more special than Mario D'Agata or that Chucho Castillo can't be labelled superior to Raul Macias. They both achieved versus the best available didn't they? So who is really to say?

But it's total nonsense.

Furthermore, following your position to its natural conclusion, the greatest fighters are simply those who do the best numbers. If that's true we can all pack up and go home after producing some thorough spreadsheets. Spreadsheets which might show that Miguel Cotto is a greater welterweight than Sugar Ray Robinson. Spreadsheets which will certainly show that Floyd Mayweather is a greater fighter than Robinson, with a full stop.

I'm a huge advocate of data and of charting contenders bested etc., but the argument that the eye test has no place, that dry statistics evoke the best understanding of boxing is anathema to me.

And interestingly, it is an argument that almost never appears outside of when people are discussing heavyweights. I have never, in a discussion about banatamweight history, been told that D'Agata and Macias could be better than Olivares and Castillo, and we don't really know who was better. That's because we do.

And you know what, there will be occasions where we are wrong; boxing proves that every now and again someone like Baltazar Sangchilli WOULD miraculously win a trilogy over Eder Jofre.

But for the most part, people only want to discuss that unlikely occurrence when it comes to one of their very own favourites.

Funny that, isn't it?

 

I think that's fair enough but I think there's a certain amount that could be agreed even within these confines. So for example, although it's reasonable to say that Charles may shock the world by defeating Joe Frazier, it's also fair to say that the majority of what we will call boxing experts would make the Frazier that had just thrashed Bob Foster and battered Muhammad Ali a serious favourite over the Charles who had just lost to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes.

And in saying that boxing throws up true shocks occasionally, we've just about covered off the fight without crossing your line.

It absolutely is, and your'e right, it absolutely is applied dishonestly on the internet. However, it is not applied dishonestly in real life. The lack of anonymity I guess. I only have two or three people I talk to regularly about boxing but one of them sits next to me at work and he isn't really interested in who Joe Louis beat and how and why and who Mike Tyson beat and how and why, he's more interested in how Louis and Tyson look to him. He picks Louis and I don't think he's being dishonest when he does it. I know this because he makes similar picks about fights that are coming up, in a similar way, and takes his lumps as he goes.

Sometimes we, you, me, all of us, are a little guilty of group think in here. What passes for normal really isn't that normal.

In fairness, advantages and dis-advantages are a little more stated at heavy than at other weights, for a variety of reasons. But some fighters just look incredible.

 

How in the hell can this even be necessary? It's bizarre **** like this that makes me think that you are trolling. How can the idea that Rahman fought a higher level of competition than Macriano require explaining? What a ridiculous waste of time.

RAHMAN'S COMPETITION.

Top Tier: Lennox Lewis x2, Wladimir Klitschko
Tier Two: Alexander Povetkin, Evander Holyfield, John Ruiz, David Tua, Oleg Maskaev, Trevor Berbick, Corrie Sanders.

Better than Rocky's competition.

 

If you think that Marciano faced better fighters than Muhammad Ali, i'm not going to argue with you. If you think that Walcott, Charles and Moore were better heavyweights than Foreman, Frazier and Liston, i'm not going to argue with you.

Jesus. One argument is about whether or not Marciano fought at the very highest level of competition possible, the other is about whether or not fighters from the 1950s could pull surprises boxing against the best heayweights of the 1970s. Unless Janitor's argument is the same as yours, that Walcott and Charles represent the highest possible level of competition in heavyweight boxing, which it isn't, it's a different argument.

You've decided to involve yourself in the discussion that Janitor and I were having on a different matter, but have managed even here to confuse yourself with selective reading. I've already answered this question, and no, nobody "knows."

Are you kidding?

Janitor pointed out that the eye-test is dishonestly applied:

I agreed with him, but pointed out that this phenomenon was something that took place generally on the internet:

I then recounted an anecdote from my own life which demonstrated this. Then you come flying in with "OH DEAR OH DEAR WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? HE'S NOT A HISTORIAN." I know chok. I know he's not a historian, you idiot. No claims are made on his behalf, no points are being attached to his conclusion in the discussion outside of the one described.

Listen: you don't make any sense when you talk, at least not to me. About 30% of the time you post like someone who hasn't actually read what's been written. You post like an idiot, or a troll. Just read what I write. There's no mystery - it's all in the post. You don't have to start pursuing the subtext with rhetorical questions. And please, please think before you post. Don't just grab a line that you think might help you and leap all over it like a drunk karate student at a disco. 9/10 it just results in an embarrassing diatribe that I then have to try to pick apart and explain to you why you're stunningly incorrect. Again. What is that "he's not a historian oh dear oh dear" nonsense about? When you go back and read my post in the light of the explanation, don't you feel an absolute fool? Why do you need me to explain to you that facing Wladimir and Lewis makes Rahman's competition better than Rocky's? Children with a passing interest in boxing could grasp that concept without being told. It's all very bizarre.

 

Naturally.

The final irony is that good contenders are far more likely to know what it is like to face great competition than great fighters because great fighters just aren't always "lucky" enough, to have great opposition. There are plenty of exceptions of course.