How Futile is it..

To try and rate an old boxer when film is not available?

Without film, you are left with accounts of the fight... well, just how accurate are these accounts?

Did the writer like the fighter, did he hate him?

Even if we see writings from ten people that state a fighter was "the greatest" in their day and age, does that really mean anything? Maybe those ten people were already partial toward the fighter in question.

Basing anything on a written account doesn't really accomplish much, in my view. Boxing is now, and always has been, way too biased for that.

Anyway, it's just an interesting matter to consider for the fans of boxers before film crept in.

 

Yep and if all sources are in agreement, does that make them accurate, or does that make them biased? If ten write in support, and ten write against, who are you going to believe?

Boxing is one of the most (perhaps the most) biased sports on earth. The thought it was any less more so in the past is based upon nothing.

If sources agree about a particular fighter, how can you say they wouldn't have agreed about them regardless of what transpired? Human opinion is a very powerful force.

 

What did they base their opinion on?

 

I suppose, the post is mainly geared toward those who read a great deal about older boxers. They're hardly "ignorant", but some do tend to "puff up" boxers a bit.

 

Christ, now a John L. avatar shows up in this section.

 

The guy looks pretty menacing in that top hat....atsch

 

Back to reality...

 

Stupid - it was termites and ants.