Why is it everytime someone thinks an old time heavy was good they are accused of having "an agenda"

I wouldn't agree with Rocky ranked nr 5 on resume, but I wouldn't call it badly biased either. Dempsey, Marciano, Jeffries and Tunney all ranked that high, higher than the likes of Tyson, Lewis and Holy, starts to look like a clear bias to me, though.

 

Roflmao Gene Tunney ahead of Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson

Oh sure, the Flat Earth Society accusing round-earthers of having an agenda
Hell, I´ll find at least ten boxers on that list where the majority of that society would betting on one of these fellows fighting in-shape David Tua!
Round-Earthers having an agenda my ass....want some of what they ???

This content is protected

Then, after 100 pages of flat earthing in wonderland:

I don´t know what else to say then:

Btw, @InMemoryofJakeLamotta knows this exactly and is just provoking

Sure, its the common-sense-users coming with the agenda

 

In that case, I took the bait. Hard to know with this forum, though.

 

I wouldn't have any of those men in the top five but wouldn't have a problem with anyone who did (except Jeffries and Tunney) The way you're looking at it is very shortsighted imo. Everyone's criteria is very different, just because someone's doesn't match yours doesn't mean they're biased.

 

You can maybe shoehorn Marciano and Dempsey into a 10 based on résumé and not have it be suspect, but letting the other two piggyback gives away the play.

 

When all else fails, there's always immeasurables like "heart" and "intimidation" that can apparently defy physics as long as you slap a heavyweight label on the fight.

I shudder to think what kind of blood would be on the hands of the Tyson and later era punchers if they'd spent 95% of their careers fighting small cruiserweights.

That doesn't diminish what those old timers accomplished and I've got the utmost respect for them. Plenty of great ones. You can only fight your era and you're a product of it. If people want to rank them highly, great. That doesn't mean I buy it H2H in an unlimited weight division that has outgrown their own. I don't think Marciano's going to "heart" his way to beating Lennox Lewis. I don't care how intimidating Sonny Liston was; he's not scaring Vitali into submission. I wouldn't like Joe Frazier's chances of repeating his career success, being an attrition puncher, if he's the smaller man every time out.

It's not a knock on these guys at all to let their greatness in their era be sufficient, and I don't understand why anyone doubting the old-timers' potential greatness in this era is treated as insulting them.

 

Exactly!

 

When I see an obvious trend in those too highly ranked I do suspect a bias. It's not exact science, but then what here in these discussions is?

 

With regard to the IBRO Top-20, we're dealing with a large group of knowledgeable people, who COLLECTIVELY rank several oldtimers ahead of Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield - oldtimers that most of us wouldn't give much chance against said 3 boxers. Is this the result of obvious bias?

My guess would be - probably not! I find it hard to believe, that there should be some sort of conspiracy, that would result in oldtimers being ranked higher than more deserving (subjectively, to be sure) moderns. They are probably just expressing their honest opinions. Even someone like Tracy Callis (and Nat Fleischer before him) I wouldn't accuse of being disingenuous - he just has some very bizarre views, that we find hard to swallow.

I can only speak for myself, but I prefer to form my own opinions - rather than putting too much into what the "experts" have to say.

 

I agree that it's not a conspiracy or disingenuous. It's just that honest opinions in most cases do have a bias. Read Nobel laureate Daniel Kahn and you will get a good overview of the research about the many biases that effect people's judgement.

 

I completely agree! What I was trying to say, is that I don't think their bias is intentional - you know, as if they are being dishonest.

But belonging to the same group of "experts", they obviously communicate and exchange views, and are thus influencing each other. So while their Top-20 shows what we (again, subjectively) recognize as clear bias - they are themselves probably not even aware of this.

 

But are they that much worse than Wilder? Or Fury who does as much slapping as punching. I generally agree I tend to believe most fighters, especially heavyweights are overrated prior to the 1930's. There is little film , and a writer that saw Benny Leonard or Dempsey live probably was long dead by the time of Ali, or Duran. But in my opinion boxing, especially at the heavyweight limit has regressed significantly the last 10 yrs. One only needs to look at the form or technique of fighters from Louis to Lewis than compare them to the fighters of today, The difference is obvious , glaring.

 

I hear you regarding Wilder.

But look at Fury on his best day. Unreal.

 

I guess, because Fury represents modern heavyweight boxing, certain people are eager to put him down, in an attempt to "prove" how bad boxing is today.

He may not be the best heavy who ever lived (or even the best today - in a few hours we'll know more about that!), but at the very least he's a very mobile, illusive boxer, who knows what he's doing in the ring. He's certainly much better that the big oaf, people are making him out to be.

So it just so happens, that in the past 10 years, boxing skills have nosedived? If the difference is "obvious" and "glaring" - I suppose those who don't recognize this, are either wearing blinders or don't know what they are talking about, right?

 

Whatever works, works.

I'd agree with Flash that Fury slaps, can be negative etc.

Yet, his style and unique attributes just work. He is very effective and finds ways to win.

The focus on technique and decline / improvement is the one area I see both 'classicists' and 'modernists' fixate upon, to their viewing detriment.

I mean, a guy I use as an example is Sung Kil Moon. You see him and think 'how did he win amateur gold? How did he beat so many solid technicians?' But he did it, and was an absolute force.

The simple fact is distance management, timing and rhythm are the most important things in boxing, things which Fury has an excellent grasp on.