Is peer evaluation important/relevant to ranking older fighters?

Agree.

 

Only when it coincides with your own already formed agenda.

Otherwise find a way to discredit it.

 

It should certainly always be taken seriously, but it should also be balleced against other lines of evidence.

Human observation is notoriously unreliable, and liable to be impressed by certain factors more than others.

 

What did he say?

 

"Leonard recently had lunch with Calzaghe, and told reporters that the Calzaghe who fought Jeff Lacy in March would beat any fighter"

"Joe has got great punching power and has all the attributes you need," said Leonard."He would have held his own against all the greats I fought, like Marvin Hagler and Thomas Hearns. And he would hold his own with the others like Bernard Hopkins."He has the talent and heart and will be the undisputed champion."

He also said Calzaghe was the best he'd seen, but I can't find the quote.

 

:thumbsup

 

To be honest though its unfashionable leonard is right. Calz would have beaten all of the fab four,partly due to his size and partly because he is a truely great fighter. ( P4p duran,leonard and hearns were better,and they all have better resumes than joseph.)

Marvin hagler also stated that joe was a truely amazing fighter,as did manny steward. Nigel benn claimed he would have beaten hinself,eubank,collins,watson et al if he been around then.
When you start addding up the evidence from guys who shouldnt really have an agenda you have to take note.

 

Generelly speaking, I'd say that it is at these times peer evaluation means something. For example, the number of Shaver's opponents who named him as the hardest puncher they've faced, no matter if they won or lost against him.

 

Futch: "Maybe I'm prejudiced because I came along with Louis, but I think he would have beaten Ali."

This is really it. People tend to look more favourably upon those who affected them when young, during their formative years. Perhaps Louis would have beaten Ali, but as Futch implies, even the experts tend to go with the ones they "grew up with", so to speak.

Almost all of them will have a fighter they followed in their youth as the one who's not come close to being matched by anyone else since.

 

guys who fought other guys will always build them up to be the greatest thing ever. Why wouldn't they? That is the competition they fought. Never ever will you hear Hagler insult Hearns or Duran or Leonard since those are his generation. If they are the best ever then he fought 3 of the best ever and beat two of them. So peer evaluation means nothing. Most guys will say the guys they fought were the best.

 

I do put more weight on a fighter ranking another era fighter whom he never fought than if he ranks guys he fought.

 

On the flipside I grew up with Tyson and I know for sure that he wasn't the greatest of all time - I'm guessing the people who grew up with Ingemar Johansson knew he wasn't the greatest either - I suppose the difference being the likes of Ali and Louis are kind of like two of the Mount Olympus guys with hardly a hair between them in terms of greatness - I guess it's just who you like - my favourite fighter was not from my era and wasn't my dads favourite fighter either - he's just the guy who when i watch i think - this guy could beat anyone when he really wanted to

 

Many of those that did, that remember what a figure he was in the late 80's, rate Tyson very highly, though.

 

1 thing often discounted is 'Old Grumpy ******* Syndrome'. Anything new and modern is 'not as good as in those less threatening rose tinted olden days'

If Sugar Ray Robinson came along today, he'd be hated on the General Forum and be called 'overrated, fraud, cherry picker, and not in the league as fighters from 30years ago'