Very true. But I get the impression that these examples are all so well known precisely because they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Ironically, I don't think his style would be as suited to a street fight as a more convential boxing style.
Boxers are often among the least knowledgeable of commentators about their sport. Some ATGs have said preposterous things about hypotheticals and have made some dreadful predictions. I wouldn't give the roided Holy much chance against Louis and a clean Holy doesn't hear the final bell.
Arcel seems to suffer from some kind of nostalgia syndrome. I would give Dempsey little chance against Louis, Marciano or Tyson and practically NO chance against George.
So you say. They see thru the eyes of guys that are extremely successful at analysing and breaking down their opponents. They see im a way different than you or I or "experts"... Now, if you were to argue that their warrior ego clouded or distorted their judgement, that could be true.
This why my first word was SOME. What you say is true for some of the more cerebral fighters. They analyse their craft and they can provide insightful commentary on the sport. But many others, even some very accomplished boxers, are less than stellar when it comes to judging fighters of the past, or fights of the future.
I would say that all great, or even very good, fighters are instinctual in their analysis and that those instincts have carried them to their relative success. It's some you or I would never understand.
Unfair to compare them with modern HW's as most old timers wouldn't even be in the same division today.
I've seen plenty of apples to apples comparisons on this forum so I am just playing the rules set forth.
