Top 5 Fighters on Film

Yeah, but that's the second part of my question. Saddler might look less than great on film but obvioulsy he looks good enough to get the better of Pep. See my point? Are you talking about aesthetically pleasing? Or do you mean good at doing boxing? If it's purely good at doing boxing then you're in a world of horrible anomalies. Saddler might have looked horrible. But Saddler beat Pep. How important is it that he looked ugly on film?

 

Are you talking to me? How do you mean, about Langford and the double standard?

 

How a fighter rates p4p all time and how a fighter looks to me on film wouldn't really relate to each other, at least not on my list.

Pep is very aesthetically pleasing to watch - jaw-dropping - my point is, are we after the msot jaw-dropping looking fighters or the most affective? Because they wouldn't be one and the same.

Also, what about execution of style?

 

Hell no, but Pep and Saddler are both top five for their weight division, DeMarco isnt in that argument. What i'm saying to you is, if two guys have a prolonged series and one guy dominates it, the onus is placed on the other fighter, at the very least to overhaul the first fighter in discusion. Pep has achieved this.

I picked them specifically because an argument exists for Saddler being being better than Pep - he dominated him - but he looks less good on film. Who looks better on film when Pep is being bullied in the ring by Saddler?

 

I absolutley agree with you that the series is reversed under modern rules. In fact, after going 2-0 Pep probably wouldn't bother meeting him agian and if he did it would be 3-0.

Obviously "better to watch" and "better" aren't the same thing for you but I think cross-over exists. Or maybe I just haven't seen the right Pep fights.

 

And in none of the other fights did he dominate and Saddler dominated the series. Saddler dominated him. But maybe it's like the Great A says and it's a horirble style match up, but I do have a problem with someone being labelled clearly better and having "no argument" for being ranked as looking better on film when we have Saddler beating Pep on film.

You've mentioned rough-housing, where does that leave a guy like Fritzie Zivic. Zivic, for his ruleset, could he be amongst the most impressive fighters in history on film? He fights so ugly, but he gets maximum return out of his ruleset, his sport.

What about Joe Frazier? He's not going to get a lot of mentions in this thread but i'd say in terms of pure execution of a given style, his performances against Foster and Ali I are as perfect an execution as i've ever seen. But his style is less impressive than Ali's on film. So is Ali better against Williams than Frazier was against Ali, on film? How to judge, and where to the intangibles lie and which ones to exclude?

Comparing fighters on film is agony. For example, I'd say that Hopkins is one of the most skilled fighters i've ever seen on film, which quite clearly doesn't make any sense.