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

Thing is I dont need to watch something and then wait for someone to tell me what I just saw. There is no substitute for film. Secondary sources are fine but everyone has an agenda and quite frankly boxing is a very subjective sport that has many variables when assesing a specific fighter. Look at Emanuel Agustus; his resume doesnt amount to much, but his talent level cannot be denied. You simply have to see it to understand.
I'm not saying resume and other "expert opinions" should be undermined conversly I'm saying that film should always play and intergral part of any assesment in addition to other criteria especially if the film is available. Boxing is a qualitative sport and therefore any assessments made derive from one's opinion and cannot be deemed as factual assertions. Taking that into account I'd rather base my own opinions from what I've seen rather than what other people have seen.



By the way many of these "keyboard experts" have the benefit of information at thier finger tips.

 

It is not important how you look, the results are.

 

You've expressed it beautifully, ic. Couldn't agree more.

Actually, I carry it a step further: I have to have seen the guy train and fight live.

 

There is no dobut an advantage to be able to see a boxer on film or video. We can observe and make our own decisions about his talent than we can about a boxer who little or no film exests. This being said our only information on many great boxers is the written word. I see no reason not to trust the written description of boxers of the past. I also beleve that resume and acompishment cary more weight than head to head when forming all time great rankings. Head to head is also where the lack of film makes it chalenging. For example Benny Leonard who very little film exests vs. Roborto Duran or Pernell Whitaker both of who film/video exests of most if not all of their careers. Forming an opinion about Duran vs. Whitaker is much easier. All I have to do is youtube either of them. I can probbly see a few complete fights and sevral hi-light videos of both of them making an opinion easier to form.
Film/video of a boxer helps I will not argue against that but the lack of film should not keep a boxer out of your rankings.

 

If it´s about analyzing and judging a fighter you obviously are right but when it comes down to rank a fighter it should be as objective as possible and when you go by how a fighter look inside the ring you will always be influenced by your own preferances and prejudices.

 

Well, h2h is something totally different. I don´t make any h2h lists because it´s imo too much speculation but I like discussing hypothetical match-ups and to do so you have to watch the fights of both fighters. Imo you can´t talk about a h2h match up when you haven´t seen a fighter fight, I don´t participate in this kinds of threads due to that.

 

You're not the only one who has been bothered by this.

 

In the case of Harry Greb you can see some of the fighters he has beaten and lost to on film, Tunney for one and many others like Mickey Walker and you have to shake your head....Greb was amazing, also the reports of other historians

 

Hi Ironchamp

We are not as far apart as it may seem.

My argument is that all sources should be used. But that we must be very, very careful of dismissing expert opinion. If a great critic tells me a painting is a masterpiece then the chances are it is, even if I can't see it. If a doctor tells me I've got pneumonia then the chances are that I have.

Now if a guy tells me that Ricky Hatton is a great fighter even though he's never seen him then that raises an issue for me. if he tells me that Harry Greb was a great fighter then I accept it. Why the cotradiction? Because the weight of evidence is simply too much. And this is my gripe. Many, many fans simply ignore the weight of evidence and pick a guy they've seen on youtube to beat Archie Moore or Sam Langford. Everyone has an agenda, but 10 experts are more likely to give you some balance to add to yuor own opinion rather than a kid with a broadband connection and a hotline to youtube.

In my experience, the more you know about something the more you realise you don't know (another contradiction, I know). If Ray Arcel believed soemone to be a great fighter and the film didn't convince me then I'd be more liekly to doubt myself than Ray.

 

Agree most h2h lists are simply a guy putting his favourite at the top and then constructing an argument as to why as an after thought.

 

Thank you John Garfield,


But isnt that how Nat Fleisher and the other boxing experts of the day reached thier conclusions? It just can't be about records alone. Any one with access to boxrec can tell you who beat who but it doesnt necessarily make them an expert.

Jersey Joe Walcott was 38 years old when Rocky Marciano beat him for the title but Joe at 38 was far better than Ali at 38 or Tyson at 38. Seeing the film allows you to get a better context of the fighters and when giving an objective analysis. Without film you are simply basing your "objectivity" on the opinion of a historian or a expert who actually watched the fight.

Nat Fleisher used to claim that Jack Dempsey had the fastest hands he'd ever seen at HW, given his stature it'd be hard to refute that claim since he'd seen everyone from Dempsey to Ali. But with film, you have more to go by you can either confirm his assertions or refute them on the basis of what you see.

Fernando Vargas is a pretty decent fighter but he came up short on many occasions. Andrew Golota for his many faults is still a pretty talented big man who on his best night can give many ATG fighters a real tussle but his he's not known for his wins because quite frankly he hasnt beaten many great fighters. Should his record indicate that he was simply a perennial trail horse when infact he was talented enough to be touted on some occassions a threat to the title holders/Champion?


By the way Ezzard- I would doubt Ray.

 

But most experts point out the discrepancy of Walcott at 38 and Ali at 38. And geenrally if you research enough you'll find out the bad decisions, the possible dives etc... besides I'm not sure anyone advocates ignoring video and live evidence.

Dempsey was quick of hand and foot, quick enough to make it debatable but yes here film helps, but then again different eras and different training and extras often make such comparisons unreliable, but anyway...

Thing is Iron, maybe you're a boxing trainer, ex-pro, or an insider in the sport... If so then you're on another level to me and I'd accept that... Otherwise to reject the words of an Arcel or a Futch or a Blackburn you'd need an airtight argument and a leap of faith.

You do listen to your doctor though, right?

 

Most lists in general fall into that trap.