How can you rank fighters you didn't see on tape?

To avoid a misunderstanding, my ID was "Confucius"

I don't troll, so please do not misunderstand me for someone else - if he's a troller

 

The vast majority of the biggest early 20th century boxing enthusiasts don’t seem to put much emphasis on video footage even when it does exist. Instead, they rely on fighters’ records and the testimonials of others, first and foremost. So it’s not hard for me to see why they feel so comfortable rating guys they’ve never seen or barely seen.

And if you already hold an ideological belief that the greats of the past would do just as well against men of any era, there really isn’t much need for film in figuring out how to rate or rank fighters.

I disagree with that approach but I don’t mean any of the above as an attack or criticism.

 

As I elaborated later, I don't think even tape is enough. If we watched, say, a fight with unlimited rounds, then we can't divorce the slow pace from the context.

I have limited boxing experience in terms of training (though I have watched a lot of boxing), but I do have a lot of experience in TKD as a practitioner and competitor. And I can tell you the rules context completely changes the character of the fight.

For instance, when I was brought up in Korea, we sparred full contact, no gears, and for 10 minutes or more uninterrupted. So people were ultra-cautious, and there was a feint show. No one wants to get hit with a full-power roundhouse anywhere in the body without pads. Moreover, there were tons of punches thrown - almost as many as kicks, if not more. This is because even body punches are devastating and can crumple you when they land.

Fast forward to later when I moved to the U.S. We wear full body armor and head-gear, and fight just 2 minute, 2 rounders. So everyone goes all out, indiscriminately, as getting hit or gassing out is less concern. And nobody throws punches any more, because even Mike Tyson couldn't seriously hurt you with those body armor on.

So to watch a fight properly, I think you have to be a historian, too.

 

Some people don't even rate fighters they haven't seen fighting up close in the flesh..
I understand that approach too.
A hell of a lot is lost through the camera lens, to be fair. And even moreso with the older film and older television footage.

 

I remember this guy as confuscious from old threads.

He knows ALOT about lower weight classes, especially Korean boxers.

 

Of course--context matters. But how it matters exactly, and what the implications are for thinking about how fighters would fare against others from different eras, is disputable. A lot of us disagree strongly about whether it would be easier for the greats of the past to thrive in modern boxing (without developing new skills) or vice versa, or whether it would be equally hard for fighters of any era to adapt to the conditions of another era.

 

OMG, you bring up my favorite can of worms!

This is a recurring topic whenever I talk boxing in real-life or online. For instance, I recently had a debate with a close friends about how earlier boxers would do against modern boxers, and I insisted that boxing was a bit different in that the past greats could compete now easily - even if no adjustments were made. That is, the "progress" argument is wholly irrelevant to boxing compared to other sports. So I'd be interested to hear why you'd think there is any reason to think why past greats wouldn't dominate today.

Briefly, my arguments were threefold in terms of how "progress" arguments that may work in other sports won't apply to boxing:

1. Boxing is incredibly old - perhaps even coeval with civilization - so there is little technical innovation.

There is no "split finger" fastball equivalent in boxing. I don't see anything that today's boxers do technically that, say, the best boxers from the 40s did not do. Do we see something from, for instance, Floyd that Ray Robinson couldn't do? If anything, there has been technical regress.

2. "Bigger and stronger" athlete argument- the size argument - is not relevant to boxing due to weight divisions, except maybe the heavies.

There is no equivalent argument of "LeBron could dominate Elgin Baylor because he is so much bigger and stronger" in boxing - again, save heavyweight.

3. "Greater competition" through globalization or social equality/integration is also irrelevant in boxing.

In fact, today's fighters have even less competition - far less. For one, they fight less often - some fighters fight once a year; whereas everyone fought on a nearly monthly basis back then. Further, today's fighters compete against a smaller competitive pool. One of the reason is the multiplication of world belts and weight classes. This allows top fighters to duck one another. Another is that some segment of the population within each nation (namely the rich or even middle class) - and some nations altogether - have tuned out boxing altogether. So the registered fighter pool shrinks dramatically. So there is no boxing equivalent of Tiger Woods is better than Arnold Palmer, because more minorities participate - or more nations participate.

Could Floyd remain undefeated if he fought in the 80s? LOL? (Heck, he clearly lost to Castillo, and I think both prime Mosley and de la Hoya would beat him, but that's another topic).

So the onus is on the opposite side to make a credible case that a Ray Robinson couldn't dominate today's welterweight scene or a Charles couldn't dominate today's middleweight scene. (I am using 40s fighters as the furthest referent points for a reason here; it's harder for me to measure turn-of-the-century fighters whose tape volume and quality are iffy.)

 

I like and agree with a large portion of this...but having recently rescored Castillo vs Floyd as a forum in the FOTW thread there are many who make the claim that Castillo won...yet our cards reflected Floyd winning all but one of them...small sample size, but not sure you can make a case that he definitely won (no gift or robbery l)....perhaps a close fight that could be scored in different ways....but personally I think Floyd won

Edit: Floyd won on 6 out of 10 cards. There were 4 for Castillo not one as I said above

 

I guess it depends where you draw the line between old and modern but I generally disagree with your position.

I think arguments about the age of boxing as a general competitive activity can be highly misleading, as it has clearly changed so much in the past 150 years alone. I've argued elsewhere that I think certain societal advances in the 20th century (in technology, transportation, communication, etc.) made it a lot easier to spread and build upon good ideas. I think that the boxing of hundreds or thousands of years ago wouldn't hold up well at all in modern conditions, and I feel that way about the boxing of one hundred years ago too. I don't see any reason to believe that the heavyweight champions and leading contenders of the 1890s-1910s would be as successful today as they were in their eras.

Globalization helps too--I don't see how it could possibly be "irrelevant" to boxing's talent pool. And I'm not convinced that taking on paid fights less frequently or the proliferation of belts somehow lowers the quality of today's talent pool.

Robinson and Charles are generally regarded as "modern" fighters and transcendent figures (in the right weight classes, anyway) who would likely thrive in any era. But that being said, we've seen some stylistic changes since their day even (I think their opponents today would be more defensively-oriented and more likely to fight from range, behind frequent jabs and tight defenses, etc.). It might be harder for them to look as dominant and as impressive against guys who aren't nearly as willing to open up and exchange as many of their opponents were.

I also would bet against Mayweather going undefeated in the past, but as an aside several of us who recently rewatched the fight didn't feel that Mayweather clearly lost to Castillo.

 

I was using "boxing is really old argument" for an effect rather than to argue that those who competed in the pre-Christian Olympics in boxing could compete now with today's rules!

And I specifically exempted heavyweights as an exception.

So we have no differences on these matters.

For potential differences: I guess a lot depends on how you define "modern." You want to be rather expansive with the term and include even Robinson and Charles. Fine. Then our disagreement disappears, too. But most folks who participate in these debates - at least online - do not. In fact, some of the younger guys even think 1980s fighters are "ancient" and cannot compete today.

So our only real differences reside in your claim here:

"Globalization helps too--I don't see how it could possibly be "irrelevant" to boxing's talent pool. I'm not convinced that taking on professional fights less frequently or the proliferation of belts somehow lowers the quality of today's talent pool."

I find this at face value rather a strange claim.

First, there is simply the raw data that the overall number of registered professional boxers have dramatically declined in top traditional boxing powers, including the U.S. This is unsurprising, given that boxing is seen as a poor man's sport and poor nation's sport. The NYT had a rather lengthy article on this in the context of South Korea in the 80s, I recall - before South Korea's modernization really took off. This numerical data really cannot be challenged. So the only way to attack it would be to claim that today's fighter pool is qualitatively better even though quantitatively smaller. This is a difficult - albeit impossible logically - argument to sustain.

Second, how can you say that proliferation of belts and weights does not decrease quality of competition? It means top fighters can duck one another altogether - and at least duck one until one is past prime (a favorite tactic of Floyd, for instance).

Finally, as an aside, fine, some respectable folks do score the fight for Floyd. So this is no Park Si-hun v. Roy Jones or Famechon v. Harada I. But I've seen no online poll in knowledgeable boxing forum - or a head survey of boxing experts - which puts Floyd as the winner.

 

Can you show me this thread? I'd like to see what the people who scored it for Floyd thought.

 

By the way, I have changed my opinion on many fights upon re-scoring with pen and paper!

 

Tight defensive fighters existed in every era
..... AND ...
plenty of modern fighters had been "successfull" despite being willing to open up, and even leading with their face.

Mayweather looked excellent and dominant against Gatti and Hatton, for example. Because those guys were open.
Carl Froch was considered a top recent fighter, and routinely led with his face.

Fighters who leave themselves open and exchange are eternally popular to the mass audiences.

 

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ather-doubleheader-castillo-i-and-dlh.623558/

 

Awesome; thanks!