Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

It is often said by people that they cant rank fighters if they havent seen them fight. It sounds good and it makes sense, but is film really as good a guage as you would think?

Take for example a David Haye vs Wlad Klitchsko. If we look at their records, it clear that at the moment, Wlad is fighting better fighters and winning more emphatically. Even with the little evidence we have, Haye's record is not impressive and if you knew nothing about these fighters, there is no way that you would favour anyone but Wlad to win. On paper, i think that realistically the most logical prediction is Wlad by UD.

Looking at film though, many people are blinded by some spectacular KOs of Haye and quite a lot of people are actually selecting him to cause problems or do well against WLad. I myself think that film shows Haye to be badly open to Wlads straight shots and long hooks and i think that Wlad will KO him. Others obviously have other views, but realistically, is any method better than the other. The on paper method actually seems to produce the most uniform predictions and is probably the most succesful method, as using film it is very subjective and often a 5050 proposition.

Wlad Haye is just one example, there are millions of others and no prediction method is ever 100% correct, but, like it or not film can be misleading. It is impossible to watch the class factor and you never know when fighters can or cant step it up. The only thing that can hint at this is their actual record and results. A good example, i can think of is Jimmy Thunder who looked a world beater early on on film and at certain times, but his record later showed that he simply wasnt. So, my question is film as important in picking matches as many people sem to think it is? I tend to think it isnt. Quite often boxrec warriors have as much success in tipping fights as those who study film and know fighters styles etc.

 

Looking at the fighters fight is how you can predict upsets though. Looking at the records will only tell you who the favorite should theoretically be.

 

Watching makes it more interesting too:good

But one of the points i am getting at is that the records may be easier to tell who will win. So often i hear people say (for example) that they cant rate Greb because they havent seen him. Or jeffries wasnt skilled enough (due to his fight against johnson) etc. If what you are saying is correct, then when picking fantasy fights, it is best to go off the record as this will tell you who the favourite should be. The favourite wins more often than not. If a fighter looks poor on film, should this outweight the fact that he has beaten better fighters than another fighter?

 

Yep. Because after watching Vic Darchinyan you wouldn't think he's top material.

 

Ask trainers who study films diligently if it's better or not. And when you read about fighters like Harry Greb, without actually seeing them fight...you have to go by not just the records but what those who did in fact see firsthand.

 

Which could be a hard task cause no one ever really witnessed.

 

No one ever witnessed? I'm not sure what you mean. He got boatloads of newspaper decisions...he was being watched. That's what I meant, their accounts. Eye-witnesses.

 

The main problem with film is that people ignore opponent quality. Here's a good example:

Nassim Hamed looked amazing on film during his initial run. So did Roy Jones. The fact is though, both of them were fighting journeymen at best - it was easy for such great athletes to look amazing against them. So, in that part of their careers, against stiffs and bums, the film meant nothing other than that they would dominate stiffs and bums.

Later on, Jones stepped up to fight the best in the division, and went on to school Toney and cruise past Hopkins. He also slaughtered respectable contenders in total shutouts. Hamed, on the other hand, struggled against Kevin Kelly, and then got a boxing lesson from Barrera.

The film of these fighters against journeymen was not that useful, because the skill gap was so great. The film of these fighters against top opposition was very useful. It told you that Hamed was a banger who wouldn't actually box, but rather showboat and then try to land one-punch KOs relying on his speed. That works against bums but not great fighters with sound defence. The film showed that Jones would throw combinations that were good enough to hit and hurt even the best boxers, it also showed that unlike Hamed he was very good at staying out of trouble even against very skilled fighters.

So IMO if you use film properly, it can only give you more information and thus better judgement on a fighter. I sometimes bet on boxing matches, when I think there's an edge, and I would never do it on a fighter I haven't seen (unless odds got stupid like 20-1, then almost anyone has a puncher's chance). The important thing is to keep in mind what the opponent quality is like. A boxer looking great against a stiff is not that meaningful; looking pretty decent against a champion is very meaningful (e.g. Azumah Nelson vs Sanchez).

The other thing you can see on film is technique and mistakes boxers make. Freddie Roach said one reason he was so sure Hatton would lose to Pac is because of all the mistakes he saw him make on film, for example. Top trainers always study film of upcoming contenders for their fighters. If it were useless then they wouldn't bother.

 

Looks can be very deceiving like Jersey Joe already pointed out. So, for ranking fighters it may be better to don't watch the fighter you intend to rank. But if you want to train for an opponent you need to watch him fight to analyse him.
It really depends what you wanna do. Rank him, make a guess about a fight or beat him.

 

Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

Absolutely not.

My reasoning ?..... How many times have you read or heard about a fight, then watched it & had a completely different view of what happened ?

I do agree that record/resume is very important but I prefer to judge with my own eyes, I like to compare the available footage with both the fighters record & all that was written about them, mix it all together & rank them accordingly.

 

There is your answer to your own question.

Without question, its better to view.

 

No

 

no

otherwise youre just looking at statistics

you might as well have a discussion over whether 28 is a higher number than 25 if all youre going to pay attention to are the figures

 

So you'd rank a complete bum very high just because he got an exciting style?

Congrats, you just took away the rest of your credibility.

 

I know the consensus rates 28 somewhere between 27 and 29, but I think it's overrated.

28 doesn't make my top 50, to be honest. Not enough depth.
I have 25 about where everyone else does.