Jack Dempsey says Max Baer was possibly the GOAT

I get the point he's making

I've seen argument before: Joe Frazier said "The greatest fighter I ever saw with my own two eyes was Eric Crumble". Do you know more than Joe Frazier??? I thought not...

Boxers, trainers, promoters etc. opinion's are JUST opinions. Not gospel and no more valid than their knowledge, experience and objectivity dictates. Frankly many boxers make for shitty historians so I certainly don't count their opinions more or less valid than many on the forum.

 

Think of it as a three pronged approach!

 

So your argument is that we should rate fighters primarily on ring records.

That would more than favour the old timers.

For example, Roy Jones would not be close to Harry Greb's best opponent going into the fight.

 

Everything anyone ever said regarding such things as "greatest fighter", "pound for pound", "greatest I've seen" etc. is bollocks.
It's hyperbole, pure and simple.

:good

And that's especially true of everything we've ever seen written on these forums. ATG ratings etc. :-(


^ And this post is about the truest thing you'll ever read here. Seriously.

 

Right. Dempsey was working with Baer. When someone is working with a fighter their comments as to how great they are or can be are often feed to the press to generate interest. A third party opinion about a fighter who has no horse in the race means much more.

Baer had great power, but little desire and had modest ring skills. He was an underachiever, but even on his best nights it would be hard to make a case from him being an all time top 10 heavyweight.

 

This just isn't true.
"Achievements" are almost completely subjective when discussed around here, especially when based on "who they fought" or 'quality of opposition'.

It always boils down to opinions.

 

False. If a fighter wins a title it is fact. If a fighter goes up a weight class and wins a title it is fact. If a fighter beats someone who outweighs them considerably, it is again a fact.

 

True, those things are FACTS. :good

But most people here don't strictly consider those things when they talk about "achievements". Or they find ways to twist and manipulate the facts to grade their ATGs. And usually they base their own version on "quality of opposition", which is usually just based entirely on their own subjective opinion.

For example, many people will say they rank wholly on achievement, but they'll have a guy who made 1 championship defence above guys who made more defences.
Some people say they rank wholly on achievement but then insist that Joe Louis (longest title reign, most championship defences ever) belongs outside the top 10 or even top 20 fighters ever !