The old line I need to see more of him to judge.

We've all heard people say this on modern fighters when being compared or contrasted to previous champions.

I agree with it to an extent, but once a modern fighter has become a champion, and defended his belt a few times with 30+ fights and reached the age of say 32-35, why can't you compare him?

One thing I never quite understood is this. Some historians are sold on fighters with no film, or very limited viewings. Yet at the same time, they will tell you " I need to see more of modern fighter XYZ to judge. " when in fact he's seen the modern fighter many times more on video in comparison to past greats.

What's the disconnect here? He's seen the modern guy more, so outside of waiting for a legacy type of fight, which doesn't happen frequently and when they do often match a younger man vs. a past his prime great, should his or her own eyes be enough to qualify greatness?

 

I've never actually encountered that.
Usually when someone say "I need to see more of him to judge" I assume they haven't seen much of the fighter in question, OR they are referring to a young fighter who hasn't fought much at the top/championship level.

I don't know many people are saying that about established champs who they've been watching a lot.

 

I dont see a disconnect at all because if you take someone like Greb who has no film but had 200 fights before he won a title and compare that to someone like Joshua who has 20 fights and has never been the distance and whose toughest fight was a life and death struggle with 40 yr old safety first jab and grab fighter in his last fight then its to say that with Greb you have a pretty good idea of what hes capable of and with Joshua we need to see more of him to know where he stands either all-time or head to head.

 

True, however those who say I need to see more could apply the same to the fighters they hold in high regards.

For example there isn't a lot on Kethcel. I'd like to see more of him on film, but the film there is on him doesn't help his case. By contrast the same guys who says I need to see more on Golovkin has already seen him at least eight times.

 

" I agree with it to an extent, but once a modern fighter has become a champion, and defended his belt a few times with 30+ fights and reached the age of say 32-35, why can't you compare him? "

I wasn't referring directly to Greb, who's at battle tested as they come, nor was I talking about Joshua who doesn't even had 25 fights.

It's not specific fighter here, just the use of the language of I need to see more of XYZ.. before I judge him when he already has many times.

Minor edit, Wlad was 41 vs. Joshua, but who's counting!
.

 

Tbh take Golovkin.

Depending on his next few fights depends on how he's remembered. It's not lack of footage, it's waiting for things to pan out.

Golovkin beats Canelo and then Saunders and retires, people will remember him as one of the best in history

He loses to both by stoppage people will remember him as a hype job.

 

Exactly if Joshua were to beat Pulev,Ortiz and Wilder we can confidently say he is a very good champ,but if he were to be ko'd by Pulev there would be an extreme reaction to evaluating him.The jury is still out. We know Greb was great because of the scalps he has on his belt. Joshua has one real win and that was over a man of 41!

 

You need to know what you are talking about. As a classic example look at Kovalev. The smart historian would realize although he looked powerful he was never tested. Would he fold when in a tough losing fight or show great ability to rise to the occasion? The amateur would be impressed with his great power and leap to exclaim here is an ATG who not only would beat all light hwts but would KO both Dempsey and Marciano!!!!

If you are an intelligent poster you will understand the difference. Never a need to rush as great ability is only proven in the ring over the long term. Amateurs rush.

 

Seems a bit unfair that one of the most dominant champions of his era would be remembered as a "hype job" if he lost against two younger, highly-ranked opponents as a 35/36-yo middleweight though, no?

 

In an era of multiple titles that's just the way it is.

If he loses to Canelo he's never beaten the man that beat the man. In terms of history he'd be about as relevant as Liston would be if he lost to Patterson in his title shot.

A bit like Mugabi.

 

So many different motives that there's really no way to make sense of it but on a case-by-case basis. It's completely sensible to want more and better data points in some contexts but the truth of the matter is that no amount of fights will ever be enough for many people in this forum, no matter how great a fighter looks or how many ranked opponents he beats. Instead of giving respect where its due, they'd just resort to complaining about the alleged diluted quality of opposition, steroids, soft matchmaking, etc. People seem to have a lot of emotional energy invested in keeping their favorite "ATG" past fighters on pedestals, and building them up into mythic heroes whose abilities will never again be equaled.

 

Once an ATG always an ATG.

 

How is that a fair comparison? Mugabi lost to an older fighter when he was in his physical prime, at 26. And from what I recall, he didn't beat nearly as many top ranked middleweights as Golovkin has.

Of course questions will always remain about how he would have handled the best middleweights of all time in his prime, and those questions will only be compounded if he doesn't end his career undefeated. But Golovkin clearly established himself as the man in the division a long time ago, and has demonstrated high-level skills and immense physical talent. Only a few fighters in the upper weight classes have had reigns as dominant as his in the past 40 years.