Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Journeyman92, Oct 13, 2021.
Long title but you get the point.
It's a very difficult question!
I've always said, that if you have proven yourself to be the best in your own time - what else can we reasonably ask? You can't do more than that.
On the other hand, I somehow have a hard time calling someone great, even if he was seen as something special by his contemporaries - if we can see today, with our own eyes (from film), that he wasn't really all that.
Or even more difficult: a fighter thought very highly of in his own time... maybe even from before there was any film. What will I think of such a fighter, that I have never seen? Will his brilliance, as attested by those who saw him 130 or so years ago, be something that will weigh heavily on my opinion? Or will I more or less dismiss such reports, because they came from people, who hadn't seen anything yet?
But, then again, I started by saying, that we can't expect more of the old-timers, than to beat the best of their own time. So I'm struggling with what to think, really!
Lost to a lot of bums. Not a single big name win. Accumulated 6 losses in his first 15 fights 9-6. Yet highly regarded and a hall of famer.
I know he won the lhw title but it was vs a guy who won a vacant title during the weakest time in boxing in that devision.
a lot are very good excellent fighters, the question is more suited to the thousands who get overlooked, because sure you can argue some greats aren't really greats... but the arguments for hundreds of lesser heralded fighters to be noted as such is a stronger one, because there have been literally Hundreds of Thousands of fighters, so obviously there are thousands of Great Fighters.
but I think the 'current' stupification of Tyson Fury answers your question.
Conn beat something like 8 or 9 World Champions. Pretty impressive for a guy that couldn't punch and no amateur fights who turned pro very young. But I get it as it's all about opinions here.
Today I learned Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz, Young Corbett III, Fred Apostoli, and Gus Lesnevich aren't big names.
Also Bettina beat Tiger Jack Fox for the vacant title.
I struggle with Canelo. I believe he lost to Lara. He waited for G to pass his prime and still lost both. He selected a long time shot Kovalev while turning a deaf ear to Bivols offer at the same time. He didn't look all that good with a past it Jacob's who I believe he selected for just that reason. Just too selective ala FM.
Mike Tyson Let me clarify here. At one time Mike has great skills but for me he gets by more on early career reputation than actually winning against his top opponents. Then he loses to nobody's while still a young man b4 he calls it quits.
Jack Johnson a clutch an grab fighter who was bigger and stronger than most of his opponents and chose to only defend against very limited white contenders. Don't care for him. Puts me to sleep trying to watch him.
See, and you thought you knew a lot about our sport. keep well.
We are as one on Johnson, don't get it, agree with all you critique, and to think Nat Fleischer had him as No 1 !! keep well.
You as well!!
Nobody is going to be right here ,and nobody is going to be wrong ,everyone has their own criteria as to what constitutes a great fighter,it's totally subjective.
Kostya Tszyu. A notch below great.