Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by BlackCloud, Apr 20, 2017.
I found 8 that qualify ,there maybe other,earlier fights that were against heavies. I don't know.
I think there was quite a few earlier ones from memory, but the point you make regarding lack of quality heavys cmopared to others is still correct (though i think most, no necessarilly you, put too much weight on it). Many top contenders today fight plenty of heavyweights but struggle to put together more than one or two top contenders of any note. I think plenty of todays light heavys and cruisers and probably even middles or welters would beat many top 50 heavys today. Some would get top 10 rankings (some actually usually do when they get too old and fat to compete at the lighter weights). A good fighter is a good fighter and if that elusive time machine is ever discovered i would be prepared to lay huge money to bet that in a tournament of the top 128 fighters whoever lived will throw up some huge upsets which go against plenty of the ESB favoured fighters. In fact, i think that i would bet that in a 10 year period (say 1 title defence a month) the winner of those all time tournaments will go on to lose a fight to someone outside the top 128 at some stage.
It's a reasonable supposition.
Somebody who not only studies and writes about the past, but who does research, and is following certain methods in his/her research and writing. Say, Alexander Dumas studied and wrote about the past, but he wasn't a historian.
I think but not quite sure that Mr casey re did his ratings
So would you say that a boxing historian who has made a career out of writing, studying and researching into the careers and lives of historic boxers from the past would invariably tend to look upon those boxers more favourably when asked to compare and rank them with modern day boxers?
Two of those eight were the chronic stage Dempsey in ten rounders. Give what credit your choose for those but I don't give tremendous amount. Then we have Gibbons' retirement fight and the exceedingly middling Heeney. That does not a great heavyweight resume make in my opinion.
I'm sick of this hackey old timer plate-guarding horsesh*t. It stretches the bounds of incredulity. I know theses folks have a narrative to protect (and thus their stewardship and authority over the narrative) but I refuse to be so stupid as to take it as objective or anything less than self-serving.
I'm not concerning myself with the quality of Tunney's heavyweight opponents ,just this part of your post that implies he only fought 2 fights at heavyweight.
"Gene Tunney fought one lameduck heavy champ and then ex-champ 20 rounds in his entire career. Outside of that, his heavyweight career is ZERO".
Tunney fought the following heavyweights.
Jack Clifford x2
Dan O Dowd x2
Jack Burke x2
Italian Jack Herman
Jack Dempsey x2
That's 15 contests,and there may be more.
Are you therefore saying that Mr Casey does not do research?
What are the certain methods that he would need to follow to qualify as an historian in your eyes?
Dempsey was not prime Dempsey, of course. But he did manage to beat the 3rd best fighter in the world (him and Tunney being 1 and 2) so it was still two very good wins. Technically, the Mike Tyson that James Buster Douglas beat never managed to do that, neither did the Ezzard Charles or Joe Walcott that Rocky Marciano beat, the Liston that Ali beat, the Schmelling that Louis beat, The foreman that Ali Beat, I cant remember any of Wlads or Vitalis fighters opponents doing this though surely some would have, it wasnt prime Dempsey but it was a pretty good win. I agree with you that it is a shallow resume and wouldnt have him anywhere near that high but you sound like a a hackey whippersnapper plate guarding hore**** if you dont at least some of the deficiencies that we are stuck with due to modern alpha bet bodies, multiple weight classes, lack of desire due to the better modern economics and politcal correct spoilt bratt attitudes of entitlement.
Actually a more serious point which just crossed my mind then.
I have been watching quite a bit of US news channels for a bit of a laugh lately. Those left wing looneys you guys have over there i think you call them snowflakes, that teach all our kids and infiltrate all the main cities like New York and California (which should have had awesome young latino expats coming through at the moment) and even seems to be getting to black communities like Detroit and others in quite big numbers. Democrats (through obama) Has given the US 8 years of softening and political correct cry about everything attitude which seems to mean that the idea of tough streetworthy kids seems to have gone and been replaced by drug addict welfare bludgers. And even the coppers, dont seem to issue street justice anymore because as soon as they do they are met with a million dollar law suit and a struggle against a racial discrimination complaint. Socially, you might argue that this is a good thing, but surely it has greatly affected the current US pool of fighters to draw from since tough environments used to breed the best fighters.
Now do you think it is a coincidence that this political corectness/spoilt bratism that has arisen has coincided with the decline in US boxing. I mean lets be honest, you used to have 9 of the top 10 fighters in most weight divisions. Now you are lucky to have one or two. the standard of US fighting has badly dropped. Could this be the reason?
I know that the fall of the soviet union obviously would always have an affect but lets be honest, Holyfield, tyson, bowe, Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Ali, Norton, foreman, Douglas, Smith, Witherspoon, the list was endless. I know the brits Had lennox but now they have guys like Haye, Wilder, and it seems like they always have 2or 3 of the top 10. I mean even us Aussies and kiwis seem to crop with local level fighters that seem to beat top 10 opposition. I mean our local level is so far below the top 90s and even 00s fighters it isnt funny. Half the time our top 10 fighters get challenged or beaten by average rugby league fighters. Sonny bill williams can barely fight but he won and held the New Zealand heavyweight title, maybe he still did. Shane Cameron who was at one stage top 10 opposition and nz champion (i think) was beaten by an old semi retired light heavyweight in Danny Green. No way has our standard risen, yet we now regularly seem to command one or two of the top 10 positions, so please dont doubt that US Boxing quality is at an all time low. In fact it is heading towards a par with Australian and English boxing which petty much dropped in quality around the turn of the century
what are the methods in the research and writing?
Do you think say, mendoza, qualifies as a historian, he does seem to do a bit of reasearch and writing and i think from memory he joined some sort of historian society?
Picking his write-ups on a couple of fighters from the epoch I'm most familiar with, just to give an example.
"Bronx: Young Griffo, boxing’s forgotten genius"
The bout was ruled a draw by George Siler, in accordance with the articles of agreement in case of police interference. Griffo didn't KO Weir. Term "Turkish bath" in contemporary accounts was used to point out how hot it was inside the building where the bout was held, there was no mention of Griffo being drunk previous to the bout or him being absent at the appointed time.
"Ted (Kid) Lewis: The Aldgate Sphinx"
Lewis weighed 143 pounds. NY Evening World, NY Evening Telegram, NY Press, NY Times, NY Tribune, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Associated Press scored the bout for Gibbons. NY Sun and NY American scored for Lewis. NY Herald and Brooklyn Standard Union scored it a draw.
See Adam Pollack's books as an example. Look up and provide the evidence for all versions (with exact quotes and source references) and let the reader decide which one sounds most realistic. If you want to put in anecdotes/myths, feel free to do so, but point out why it's not true or, at least, that it hasn't been proven true.
Certainly, I find his content hysterical.
I'm not all that bothered by a list; more the reasoning that went into building it.
Since I am a big Hagler fan, I am half-tempted to email Mr. Casey and ask him for his rationale for placing Marvelous at #15...