Is Ray Arcel the most credible boxing expert of the 20th century?

On paper, yes no doubt.

So what does that mean?

It means that you take what he says seriously.

You don't necessarily end up agreeing with him, but you take him seriously.

 

He might have been too busy doing his job to go around the country and watch all the top fighters, to have an educated opinion on them. If you've seen just a couple of bouts of certain fighter that doesn't make your opinion about him credible.

 

The "most credible boxing expert", what does that mean ?
What is a "boxing expert" supposed to do ?

 

Sorry but I am not buying it.

The top trainers today have a huge depth of knowledge about the current contenders.

They know their idiosyncrasies, who handles them in sparring, what their training habits are.

They watch them whenever thay can.

It is their business to know these things.

 

As far as boxing goes, Ray probably saw more than most during his lifetime.

However, like all oldtimers he tended to idolize the boxers from his youth... so while his opinion should be respected, it should also be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Don't compare the TV era and easy and fast traveling of today with that of the first half of the 20th century.

 

So, is a "boxing expert" a guy who has seen the most fighters in the flesh ? Is that what it is ?

 

Probably more somebody who has been around the scene.

 

What does that mean?
The fights are the scene.

 

Like anyone's. Which makes the certainty of some on here of their's being right quite laughable.

 

One of them. Arcel was a certified genius.

 

Arcel rated Dempsey, Ali and Louis top three all time hwt champion.

 

No more an "expert" than Eddie Futch, IMO.

 

He was also living and working at the epicenter of boxing in the 20's New York City.