How much footage of a boxer would you need to feel comfortable ranking them h2h?

In a H2H sense, no film breaks it for me. About 30 minutes or so is good enough if it's against good calibre fighters. But rating them, well you can always rate if you do enough digging. If you don't have film of them chances are you might have film of there opponent's that can help with the H2H process. One that makes me miserable is that this is all we have of Venice Borkhorsor...

This content is protected

 

NONE!!!

there is PLENTY of COMPARABLE Footage of Greats & TOP Fighters to allow for 'Cross Record Checking' - Who fought Who, how they did Win or Lose and times the other multiple TOP & Noted Fighters they fought.

it isn't science, it is simple research, assessment and conclusion - science enough - so to speak. this is How History is Observed and Understood.

MOST GREATS and TOP Fighters until the 1950's were never seen on Film... "mores the pity".

 

This content is protected

 

If that was all I had to go by, I'd want 2 or 3 good fights somewhere near the fighter's prime, against ranked competition.

 

I think he means there’s very little footage of him(only one fight as far as I know) yet he’s rated by most as an elite fighter-rightfully so-but the topic nuances the question.

 

Personally for me. I at least want to see two or three fights in their entirety against medium to high level competition.
For me highlights are just what they are, " highlights " . It's so easy especially today to take a few great moments of a fighters career and make him look like the greatest fighter in history.
But when watching a fight in their entirety, one sees the good and bad traits a fighter has.
Then I can have a reasonable and accurate opinion of what the fighters abilities are and how those abilities match-up against other great fighters .

 

This.

 

Pretty much most of their fights, if no footage there's no point because then it comes down to all myths mostly

 

I would like to watch at least one victory and one defeat

 

NO it doesn't, it comes down to RECORDED REPORTS and Cross Record Checking... the amount of tangible & accurate information is staggering for most TOP Fighters... and as you do with any research you gather, compare and conclude, often just as good an assessment as any footage.

Which I stated before 'IF' some opponents of said fighters are filmed then that only adds to to the assessing of the fighters where no film is available.

it is both obvious & simple, the Recorded History lays it out CLEAR, if you've got enough of it, and for TOP Fighters there is more than enough!

 

The way the sport was viewed way back then is totally different to now as the sport has evolved, What the reports may have been claiming was great speed, technique etc really might not have been at all,it just was for then.

Sometimes it's better when you don't actually see certain things because it never matches the hype.