How to rate a fighter who does not appear on film?

Resume.

 

Well, I normally ignore films when ranking fighters totally. By taking into account how a fighter looked at film a subjective note more slips in into the ranking. I want to be as objective as possible and so my rankings consist mostly on accomplishments, resume and longvity - if it´s close things like dominance, effectivness, over-/underachievement and if a fighter showed the desire to be great are also taking into account.

 

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, it's also hard to rate such fighters if we don't have films of their opponents. Given lack of film data about the fighter and his quality of opposition, what do we really know about him?

When I consider all-time greatness ratings of boxing champions, I tend to start my ratings from the 1920s or the 1930s onward. Earlier than that, there is just not enough reliable film evidence to tell us anything about the fighter in question.

 

I cannot agree with this. Do you not find it conceivable that from written accounts and resume you could form an opinion that, after seeing the fighter fight on film, you could disagree with completely? That is a fine way to rank fighters that there is no film of, but when there is film then surely you must have to watch them fight before you can make statements about how good/bad they are?

What you're saying almost eliminates both personal opinion and the function of the sport itself. If we base our opinions purely on written accounts and resume, then where is divergence going to come in? It's difficult to argue passionately for or against anything that you've never seen yourself. This would make boxing rankings almost homogenous, as everyone would know Sugar Ray Robinson is the GOAT from reading it somewhere. Surely the whole point of the sport is to be watched by fans?

If you yourself wrote a list of the best 25 fighters of the past 25 years, and had James Toney in it but had never seen him fight, how would you justify this when someone asked what attributes made you put him there? It's pretty bizarre to say things like "great defence" etc when you have no examples you like of his defence in action to call upon to support this?

We rate boxers that there is no film of because they should not and cannot be ignored, but to ignore film when it's there for us is just plain crazy, or a man could read boxing books for a year and then be a boxing genius having never watched the sport!

 

Solid Post. I agree completely:good

 

My sentiments exactly. Often your own opinion of attributes is what you use to separate fighters when rating them. For instance, you may struggle to determine who was better between Roy Jones and Thomas Hearns p4p (I wouldn't, this is just an example though), and if you think they are even in terms of achievement and resume etc, then it comes down to a personal decision on ability - which you can only have if you've seen them fight. I personally value defence very highly in boxing, so I tend to go with who I have seen showing good defensive abilities, as a fighter with a good defence is always a safer bet h2h, plus I just find good defensive work aesthetically pleasing. If you remove opinion based on evidence, then boxing becomes a book science to be learned rather than experienced.

 

It depends whether or not you're going to attempt to do a fighter justice, to give them the time of day.

With fighters of whom there is no film of, it's essential to read a lot of varied accounts; newspaper reports, fight summaries, colleague opinions and comparative descriptions. If you drill this method into the unknowns then you can get a decent picture of someone who is not on film despite what one may preach.

If there is film of the men who the 'un-filmed' fought, then that can also prove a good measure to decide their worth ala Harry Greb.

However, for many the idea of researching a boxer and/or an era that looks distinctly primitive is the foundation of revisionism.

There are those that swear down on the evolution of boxing, that there was a time in the 1940's when men finally understood how to conduct themselves correctly, so the idea of the spindly Bob Fitzsimmons will never float while there is that natural chronological agenda.

 

Do I? If I know a fighter beat very good opposition than I know he was pretty good. Why should I disagree with the standing of a fighter if I´m not impressed with him. I´m totally unimpressed when I see Monzon fight but when I look at his body of work than I know he was the greatest mw there was. On the other hand I´m totally in awe when I watch Tyson fight but when I look at his resume I´m not in awe anymore.
Accomplishments and resume are facts, going by how a fighter looks on film is not. I stick with facts.

Does it? People argueing who the GOAT is all the time and there is a fighter with Greb that we have no film of and most people thing he should be included in this discussion. Others think Langford should be number one even though there is only very limited footage. Is there a problem with either?
And no the point of the sport is not to be watched by the fans. The point of the sport is to see if one fighter is better than the other. That it has fans is a sideeffect of it beeing an attractive sport but not the goal of it.

I don´t justify rankings on things like "great defence" but on resume, accomplishment and longvity.
So, when I rank Toney in there than because would he did in his career and not how he looked in doing so. Because that would be totally subjective but I stick with beeing objective.

Well, he wouldn´t be a boxing genius but he definitly wouldn´t be far off with his rankings. He wouldn´t catch what makes this sport so fascinating and he wouldn´t be able to analyze a fighter though.

 

Resume/accomplishments should be taken into account first and foremost, with other factors coming into play. When rating fighters I like to do it on an era by era basis so all of this talk of different eras, rulesets, technique, lack of footage, etc. is nullified. However, when rating fighters of similar eras, ability and performance certainly comes into play.

 

You see I don´t rank fighters in a list but in a tier-system so when I can´t decide if a fighter is clearly better than the other than they are both in the same tier.

 

You don't have to have seen film of the Roman Empire to know it was one of the greatest civilizations ever. You don't need to have seen film of Harry Greb to know that he was one of the greatest fighters ever.

Watching film is great but you have to weigh this with expert opinion: not something so popular these days. Remember that if judging by film is so easy then why aren't posters on ESB cleaning out the bookies on a regular basis?

Many of these experts dedicated their lives to boxing and reporting it etc... You have to take into account what you are being told. People often slate the lists of guys like Fleischer but I'd take his word over many of the keyboard experts in boxing forums who can watch fights of every fight ever filmed.

 

I think this approach probably bears the best results.

 

Resume and reviews.

Say you had never seen Hopkins on film, you could gauge from his resume and from views that he's a class fighter, what his styles like etc.