How has your opinion changed on Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, Langfod, Grebb etc

Admit it.It is rather difficult.The only comparison I can give is with art in Ancient Greece over two thousand years ago.The Greeks had wonderful painters.Apparently one of them could paint fruit so realistically that the birds,thinking that they were real fruit ,would swoop down and try to peck at the canvas.For obvious reasons,none of the works of these painters have come down to us.So we cannot even begin to judge their true merit in a serious way.However, we mau judge the works of their sculptors,since there work has come down to us -either in a few rare originals or more often in Roman reproductions.Yes,we can see they are operating on a different technical and artistic plane.

I-and I suppose along with a few other forum members-have the same difficulty in comparing fighter,of whom no extant film exists to those whose fights have been preserved for posterity.I can only visualise how a fighter,I have not seen,by using the concrete visual image of boxers on film or seen close-up as a template.

 

Greb,on resume alone,had many atg scalps so must have been a phenomenal boxer for the time...

 

Jim Jeffries & Harry Greb were the BEST of the lot.... Sam Langford was also great, as well..... Guys like Johnny Sullivan, Jimmy Corbett and Robby Fitzsimmons were great in their own right but, I don't see them being able to fit into the "Modern" day boxing scene all that well... John L. Sullivan was by far the laziest man of the bunch.. And "Corbett & Fitz" would be light-heavies at best; today's heavies would slaughter them two guys with ease...:deal

MR.BILL

 

I dont believe Greb would have ever thought that Flowers had a snowballs chance in hell of beating Dempsey. Greb had a lot of respect for Flowers as a man but not as a fighter. He took Flowers lightly everytime they fought based on his numerous KO defeats. Knowing how analytical Greb was when it came to styles I think he would have have picked Dempsey to stop Flowers ten out of ten times. He had almost zero respect for his ability to take a punch.

 

I have always seen Langford as one of the better pioneers, I just did not realize how different he was. After studying some footage, I saw just how far ahead of his time Langford really was.

I once read an article where Ray Arcel was talking about working with Ray Robinson and Roberto Duran. The article was focused more on Duran, but he said both fighters had one quality very much alike. He said that both fighters always seemed to know just what to do. He made it seem as though these guys had figured out how to fight the way most of us figure out how to walk. He said that he felt like he had very little to teach these fighters, and it was more about keeping them focused. After watching clips of Langford, I think he must have been like Duran and Robinson. It is hard for me to imagine anyone showing him how to fight like he did.

I have always given Wills a similar sentence as to what I give Dempsey. That is outside of my top 10. I don't do it as a punishment for not fighting each other. I just thought it was the only way to properly judge the overall competition of their time.

I don't know about you, but I rate Holmes very high. If your ranking of Holmes is similar to mine, then I need to start analyzing Mr. Wills' career in a lot more detail.

 

Yup. Truly one of the most ridiculous records on record. He is the one guy I feel safe ranking so very high due to record alone.

And in regards to Wills, he was thought to be strong, durable, not powerful and somewhat ordinary according to Ray Arcel.

 

My opinion on Choynski has changed from him being more or less a journeyman of his time to one of the hardest P4P ever, a man who everyone from Johnson to Jeffries claimed to be the hardest hitting fighter they ever faced. And that includes Fitzsimmon's.

Most of this comes from listening to Janitor and his explanations on how he was one of the most handcuffed fighters of all time next to Barbados Joe Walcott and Langford.

 

Interesting, and I actually agree on Fitzsimmons in regards to todays heavies (at least some of them) I can't see Fitz doing well against a 6'6 Klitschko for example. However he would still be a three division champ and it would be easier with more divisions these days, light-heavy to light milddleweight most likely.