I'm the proud owner of boxing's longest streak of fights without a KO/TKO defeat. Who am I? This thread is a good example, of why I don't really care that much about all the "greatest" lists, that are out there! While no one (so far) here gives Ketchel much of a chance to beat Benton, I'm pretty sure most would have Ketchel higher on an all-time MW list. IBRO has Ketchel in 6th place at MW - with of course no place for Benton in their Top-20. Even if they expanded it to a top-100, I doubt too many would give Benton much of a thought! Don't get me wrong, I admire the oldtimers as much as the next guy! I just find it hard to take these lists too seriously, when I see boxers from 100+ years ago (who probably wouldn' even be in the top-10 of their division today!) ranked close to the top on these lists. Ketchel is just one example - and one of the few from the early part of the 20th century, that we can actually study on film. But even though we can all see, that he couldn't box for ****, we somehow want to attach the term "greatness" to him. Based on a résumé that shows a lot of wins over fighters, that must have been even worse than himself? Makes no sense... but maybe that's just me?
Harry Stone 212 Benny Valger has 207 Also, Jack Britton was stopped in his 2nd pro bout and fought another 348 without being stopped. Harry Greb had a streak of 251 bouts without being KO'ed. He was stopped the 2nd time in his 48th bout, then went the rest of his career without another stoppage.
Stone and Valger both retired without ever suffering a KO defeat... but we are looking for a man with an even longer STREAK than 212, without a single KO defeat
Yes - it is of course Britton with 348! You have obviously given this a lot of thought, and raise a lot of very interesting questions. Concerning oldtimers we have no footage of, it's pretty obvious, that we're in deap trouble (with regards to how we should rate them, compared to modern boxers)! If we're talking about boxers from around 1900, then I'm afraid 120 year old contemporary newspaper articles won't help us much - as those were written by reporters, who had no idea of what was to come. I have seen John L. Sullivan described in such glowing terms, that you'd think he was an earlier (and better!) version of Pep and Robinson rolled into one... which I find highly unlikely! Also more recent oldtimers (like Fleischer) heaping praise on fighters from their youth, should be taken with a grain of salt... as early impressions are often the strongest. So if we can't rely on those mentioned above, to tell us what is what - then who should we listen to? The young wannabee "historians", who think they are cool and sound really knowledgeable, when they come on here talking about how boxing skills have deterioated, and how boxing is dead/dying, etc.? No, I don't think so! What you should do, is watch as much old footage as you can (from Corbett-Fitz onwards), follow discussions here between non-biased posters... and from that form your own opinion. And, for God's sake, don't get hold of renowned historian Mike Silver's book The Arc of Boxing - which paints a ridiculous skewed picture of modern boxing. I would respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Edwards here! There was practically no international competition going on during the 1940s. Everything of interest took place in the US, with very few outsiders joining the mix - largely because of WW2, of course (which also resulted in a huge dip in the number of active boxers, worldwide). Of the 18 men he mentions, only two (Cerdan and Gavilan) originated from outside the US... which should tell us something. Yes, some of the best fighters ever boxed during this decade - but if we look at The Ring's end-of-year rankings over the whole decade, the Top-10s in the 8 original divisions look surprisingly "thin". At HW, we find a total of 44 different men ranked during the decade - with 40 being from the US: The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1940s - BoxRec Louis was of course champ for most of the decade, and there were a few good fighters below him. Such as Conn, Charles and Walcott... but, overall, not much to write home about. Taking a closer look at the rankings, you almost feel, that the people who made these liste must have been scratching their heads to find deserving boxers to put in them. Take, for example, Johnny Flynn, who was ranked as high as #4 in 1948 - based on a 40-28-2 Bing
