How Does Manny Pacquiao Compare Against a True P4P All Time Great, Jimmy Wilde ?

A poll taken on ESB is never the best gauge. There are examples in life when it is unnecessary to be an active participant to have a reasonable or valid opinion. ESB seems to be (IMO) a near perfect reflection of its demographics. A poll of boxers (or athletes) would be far more valuable. ESB is no different than if we took a poll in the USA about whether the country was "good" or "bad". The result is a foregone conclusion.

Your most substantive point is also quite correct - it is permanently a most worrying enormity that produces more suffering than the good it supposedly represents.

 

That's true, but how do you know for sure that they weren't actually novice opponents? Great fighters from the 80s and before then used to take opponents with very few fights as warm-ups. And I'm pretty sure that boxrec have a higher percentage of fights up in the 80s.

 

Nearly all of those fights outside of the UK were at the end of his career. He was a regional fighter more so than international (IMHO). I understand the separation felt in the UK (and how deep the fault lines run) but the current gene pool studies suggest that you actually didn't have anything more distinct than the Hatfields fighting the McCoys.

 

I actually disagree on your first point. The 'demographics' on ESB are exactly those you want to poll, given that they're boxing fans. This infers knowledge of the sport's history, how many boxers are educated in the history of boxing? They know how to box, but they generally aren't fluent in its roots. There are obviously a few, Mike Tyson for example.

And your analogy is a little off, because we're not asking (for example) "is boxing a good sport?". We're merely comparing the achievements of two boxers, there should be no reasoning for bias apart from nationalistic favouritism or preference of an era. And to avoid those hurdles would be extremely difficult in an online format where anonymity conceals such information.

 

That would seem correct but it isn't anecdotally. If we asked the players in the NBA (which today is pretty homogeneous even with the increasing influx of foreign (non-American) players) who are the best players historically you get a very different result than if you ask the American basketball fan (using 2007/2008 census data - the "white" population (non-Hispanic) represents approximately 67% of the population of 304 million). Specifically, because of the demographics.

Same thing (IMO) is occurring on ESB. You are getting boxing fans who are more likely to want to write on an internet bulletin board about who they feel is or was great but not the kind of opinion you would get if you asked the actual fighter/athletes (that demographic composition is very different than here).

I am not suggesting that both groups are not biased. Only that the fighters/boxers have a better basis for evaluating talent, ability, and skill. Sure, most (fighters) wouldn't know or most likely wouldn't know all the different fighters through out history like a fan. But, if we played the video and let them watch they would be more likely to choose based upon what they see, whereas a huge number on ESB are judging based upon other factors - which is where your statement comes into play ....


{And to avoid those hurdles would be extremely difficult in an online format where anonymity conceals such information.}

I am suggesting that if there was an ESB census it would support why some polls look fairly ridiculous ...

 

Different climate back then, fighters fought every week or 2...their not gonna find an ATG to fight every week. More than likely they fought 3 good fighters are year, the rest are your typical bums & journeymens keep busy fights...

The guy obviously must be great, but incredibly hard to compare 2 fighters 100 years apart...

 

In terms of who is "better", rather than "greater", I definitely agree that professional boxers would be better equipped to evaluate past fighters. They probably wouldn't be too good at analyzing the resume of a fighter though. But that's irrelevant anyway.

And yes, a census would probably indicate why some poll results seem a little skewed.

 

Cheers.


Gotta run.

 

:huh

:good

 

wilde is the best flyweight while manny is the best asian ever...

 

Who did Jimmy Wilde beat whould be the 1st question? (sorry my knowledge pre 1970 is poor)

Manny has beaten 4 Atg's and Hatton (Hof) in 6 divisions...

for me that takes some beating in any era...also hes been THE MAN in 4 divisions.

again cant think of many fighters in history who have done that.

 

Ain't it true that in Wilde's time most English boxers get their records of win or loss by fighting in County fairs - meaning that they have to beat the best boxers of a certain County. Isn't it a bit like a very very very small pond to compare to todays standards where the best boxers have the scalps of other boxers from different nationalities.

Try to look into Wilde's resume and count how many English boxers constitute those fights he'd had.

Don't tell me that the scalps of those English boxers were better than todays Mexican boxers!!!

 

Would you say that a Japanese fighter fighting mostly Korean fighters as international?

 

The Bottom line is: PAC is also A TRUE P4P ALL TIME GREAT..
Lots of topics regarding Pac against the all time greats were discussed in here and the so called resident experts always had Pac losing. Truth of the matter is, Pac will give trouble to any boxers there is/was P4P.