How would history remember these fighters if there was no film?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by janitor, Jun 26, 2008.


  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,630
    27,327
    Feb 15, 2006
    Lets imagine that there was no film of the following fighters-

    Roberto Duran

    Mike Tyson

    Lennox Lewis

    Roy Jones

    Winky Wright

    Say the only sources were their records and the testimony of people such as ourselves (you have seen them all in action).

    1. How would they be perceived based on their records and typical tesimonies?

    2. What would your testimony add to that?
     
  2. Jd!

    Jd! showthread.php?t=74250 Full Member

    385
    0
    Aug 24, 2007
    tyson would be considered the potential greatest of them all

    duran would possibly be considered less than what he is

    lewis would be held in less regard - altohugh in 10-20 years his resume and achievements will take over and he'll shoot up the heavyweight rankings

    roy jones would be considered the second coming of harry greb - in a way, whereas greb has the resume that makes him such a big conundrum, jones would have the skillset and ability, plus his two wins over bhop and toney would make him VERY difficult to rank, especially as his resume isnt the greatest, but his achievements are VERY strong.

    he might find himself elevated up the p4p rankings in time.

    winky - i dont know enough about to warrant a guess, i'd have to say he probably wouldnt be considered anything on the previous fighters without any film.
     
  3. radianttwilight

    radianttwilight Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,539
    18
    May 5, 2007
    I'll comment on Tyson. He would drop alot IMO, because people would only look at his resume and see that he lost to the best fighters he fought. Because we have film, though, it's clear that as early as Bruno I he was slipping from his dedication - he wasn't using the jab, punching in his combinations, or moving his head.

    The unbiased, savvy observer can tell that the Tyson who fought from 1989ish onward was not the same machine that fought prior to then.

    In a way, we'd become the Nat Fleischers of our era - we'd claim that Tyson only lost when he lost his inner fire and wasn't at his best, but the paper facts would look like he just got owned by underdogs...Tyson would be just like Dempsey, actually, except a thicker resume.

    On paper, he would have blown out a long list of nobodys (remember, his opponents wouldn't be filmed, either, so many would label big men like Biggs, Tucker, Smith et. al as a bunch of big oafs) before being crushed by an even worse nobody (Douglas, who on paper is a terrible fighter, but on film he looks very good when "on") and the best fighters he fought (Holyfield and Lewis).
     
  4. ChrisPontius

    ChrisPontius March 8th, 1971 Full Member

    19,404
    278
    Oct 4, 2005
    Lewis would be the greatest of them all.

    You see, he survived punches from big hitters like Tua, Briggs, etc, so the McCall and Rahman fights clearly were fixes where he laid down for money. Although no actual fight reports mentions this, several years after his legacy is sealed, unknown eye witnesses suddenly testified to it.
     
  5. Maxmomer

    Maxmomer Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,373
    42
    Jun 28, 2007
    Ah, come on, man!
     
  6. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    What about McCall! He obviously wore the cuffs in most of his fights as evidenced by the fact that he was never off his feet, or troubled by another fighter, but simply held back, and relied on corrupt judges decisions. When he got his chance against Lewis, he knocked him cold. IN the rematch his acting was so bad that he simply refused to even throw a punch or raise a guard and the ref stopped the fight (although, i wonder whether this would be construed as more fiction than fact).

    Another interesting fighter could be Joe Mesi. May have been anything if the Vlad Klitchsko hadnt drawn a Jack Johnson style reverse colour line.
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,197
    48,462
    Mar 21, 2007

    What an excellent and interesting thread. No clue. But what interests me is what a hard time historians and those with an interest would have convincing people that Tyson and Jones were as special as they say.
     
  8. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    Depends really. I mean Tyson would be rated extremely highly if you listened to what people said, because everybody would be going on about how he destroyed people early on, but if you look at his record he would be rated lower than he is because of the lack of names who you would regard as elite.
     
  9. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,630
    27,327
    Feb 15, 2006
    It was those two more than most that I was thinking of.

    Fighters that obviously had something verry special that would rely on good quality film to convey it.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,197
    48,462
    Mar 21, 2007

    I totally disagree with this.

    Tyson's paper record shows he failed v every prime great he took on. It's how impressive he looked on film that leads to his consistant high rating.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,197
    48,462
    Mar 21, 2007
    They also have this in common - no great wins for Tyson and very few for Jones. That is, they have nothing like the wins that their talent "deserves".

    Let me reverse the question - which fighters do you think would have their reputations vastly enhaned if their body of work was available on film a la Tyson?

    Tougher question, I think.
     
  12. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    That's what I said. :huh

    If you didn't look at his record and hadn't seen him fight, people that did would go on about how impressive he looked KO'ing journeyman.

    But if you looked at his record you would see a lack of names and defeats against the elite fighters he did take on.
     
  13. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,630
    27,327
    Feb 15, 2006
    Tough indeed.

    I think the following fighters would go up significantly if their best stuff was on film.

    John L Sullivan
    (I think we would see a terrific puncher with fast hands who was verry polished)

    Young Griffo
    (Rattlesnake like reflexes/Roy Jones effect)

    Bob Fitzsimmons
    (Seeing those sudden finishes against much bigger opponents in technicolour could only help him)

    Tommy Ryan
    (This is a pound for pound great who is virtualy forgotten by the modern fan)

    Barbados Joe Walcott
    (If we could see him beating up light heavyweights like Choynsky and Gardiner his credentials as a pound for pound puncher would be huge)

    Sam Langford
    (If his body of work was there to be seen in detail I think a lot of people could have him in their top 10 heavyweights)

    Harry Wills
    (I think there must be a lot of layers to his game that contemporary acounts dont do justice to)
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,197
    48,462
    Mar 21, 2007
    Oh yeah!

    Sorry dude.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,197
    48,462
    Mar 21, 2007

    These are fine picks. I especially agree with Joe Walcott.

    Some others:

    NP Jack Dempsey.

    Joe Gans.

    And maybe most of all, Peter Jackson. Jackson would be the guy who would receive the biggest boost in terms of all time rankings etc., if you could see all his bouts on DVD. I bet he'd find his way into top 15's across the board, at a guess.