Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

He has no credibility because he insisted that boxing should be watched rather than simply read about? Congratulations, you just added to the many reasons you credibility is already in the gutter.

 

seeing bernard hopkins use his foul style of holding and leading head first is a great example of a misleading record. as his record may look impressive (although really not very impressive) his foul style tells you he actually should have got TD's and LDQ's on his record instead of the majority of his more respected wins. also one should remember stories like tarver was drained from trimming from the 220 he was for the rocky balboa movie even more than jones was drained from the 193 he was for ruiz before tarver.
also the elbows explain a big part of tyson's greatness and there are so many more examples.
the records are important for ranking and evaluating but watching the fights (the important ones) helps in the judging of the records.

 

True, but a month or so ago, you could've very well made the same assessment about Haye and Valuev if you only looked at their records.

 

If anyone has lost credability its you.

I never said dont look at the statistics, record/resume etc.... I answered the thread question which was `is it better to rank fighters without watching them ?`..... the answer is clearly no, waste of thread IMO.

Check back on my posts, its best to know the record & stats of a fighter as well as view them, thats what IM saying..... what YOUR saying is that its best to know the record & stats of a fighter WITHOUT viewing them in action.

Thats ******ed.

 

Sweet Pee, we don't speak about boxing in general, we speak about rankings. Of course you didn't realize that because you're too narrow-minded.
btw, are you BB's saviour? I didn't address you at all. :think

 

(1) Not at all. My point is clear and reasonable.

(2) It's not necessary to see footage of a boxer if the task is to rank his resume by achievements. If you rank a boxer higher, just because he had an interesting style, now that's ******ed. btw, no one really saw serious footage of Harry Greb, but there are lots of posters who have him within top 10 of an ATG list. How do you explain this phenom?

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


Where are they? Names please.

 

Your talking to the wrong guy.... Im one of the few posters that only rank fighters Ive seen enough decent footage of, doesnt mean Greb wouldnt be in my top 3 if I seen him fight or it doesnt even mean he wasnt the very best p4p fighter that ever lived..... it simply means that I cant put him on my personal list if I dont have footage as I judge on Record, knowledge of career & footage, everybody is different, I need footage.

 

Totally agree with this :good

This is why I find it hard to judge the early fighters like Greb, Langford etc. All we have to go on really is the written word and other peoples opinions.

 

As if the vid footage would change anything in credibility.

 

OK then, why dont you just read about all the upcoming fights from now on... I`ll watch them.

 

It seems like an absurd thread title and yet there is some sense to it.

Trainers and fighters study film. Bookies go by form and record (plus other historic statistical factors)... Bookies almost never lose.

 

Bookies watch fights too, dont kid yourself :good

 

Agree... and they may factor in a very basic scissors-paper-stone argument but they don't build their models based upon styles.

 

I don't rank fighters unless I've seen footage of them, if it's minimal but backed up with articles I've read from credible sources, then that's okay too.