Ray Arcel on the black fighters of the 30's.

Should probably be at least 50% if a heavyweight. (not that I agree with this, just saying)

 

What would you think of a supposed ATG white NBA player who faced no teams with black players on the court? What would you think of a supposed ATG white heavyweight fighter who faced no black opponents? What would you think of a supposed ATG white lightweight fighter who faced no latino opponents?

For whatever reasons that could be the subject of a different thread, black men are among the most dominant in most sports. If you didn't face them, you excluded your best competition. In boxing among the bigger guys, the best are often black. In boxing among the smaller guys, the best are often latino. Often is not "always," it just means often. I think that's what he was getting at.

I personally wouldn't disrespect the guys who didn't have much choice, but I'd still put an asterisk after their name.

 

I'm fine with it being his opinion, and that it has some validity due to Arcels 60 years of boxing training at the highest level. He saw and Sharkey saw and Schmeling saw Dempsey live in the ring...neither you or I did...so their opinions surely have more weight than mine or yours.

And that's my opinion.

 

It depends on the context. If your era doesn't have any great black fighters or Latino fighters, then I wouldn't say it mattered at all. Tunney, Loughran and many other greats from the 20s never faced black fighters but it doesn't really affect their legacies in the same way it did to Jeffries before he fought Johnson. It just makes them assholes for not facing black guys.
It's still silly to suggest that someone NEEDS wins over black opponents to be considered an ATG.

 

So you trust Arcel's opinion on Dempsey more than your own?

Of the fighters where we have extensive footage, I like to form my own opinion, based on what I can see with my own eyes - rather than on some oldtimers reminiscing about the "good old days"!

 

Let's look at one example.

The lightweight division of the 1920s, was one of the strongest divisions of any era, and any weight class.

Perhaps even the strongest of the lot.

This was an era that was not entirely hostile to allowing title shots to black contenders, but it was still an era dominated by white fighters.

Now should we put an asterisk against the name of men like Benny Leonard?

I lean towards no.

 

Interesting quote and certainly made by a man who knew boxing better than most

 

I absolutely trust his opinions as he saw them in the flesh and live. You've only seen a small record of their fights that have been saved on film. He saw Dempsey way more than you ever did. His data set on which to form an opinion is orders of magnitude more than yours.

So yes, I hold his opinion higher than mine and yours. Unless a guy was purposefully biased due to racism or personal dislike. Which Arcel wasn't.

 

Yeah, we should bin off Arcel and listen to you instead.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that when we come across an old-timer as obviously biased as Arcel... we may be wise to take his opinions with a grain of salt!

 

I've seen and heard videos of interviews with Arcel and he seemed very sincere in his opinions. Now a boxing promoter would be a different story!

 

Was it Artel who said that 1919 Dempsey was better than Louis and Ali? Might be attributing the wrong quote to him, but I know there was one historian who said something like that.

 

I wish that he had given more indication of which weight classes he was referring to.

 

Depending on your weight class and your era, I would agree. If you came up as a lightweight or welterweight in the mid 90s through 2000s, and didn't face a substantial number of Hispanic fighters, I would certainly question your resume

 

What makes you think you know more than an old timer? What qualifies you?