What would you say is the best individual showcase of talent division by division?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Dec 27, 2011.


  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Good enough for you, just not me :good
     
  2. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,469
    Sep 7, 2008
    I wasn't referring to standards in observation. Only that going with what we know to be true is far more gaugeable than hypotheticals when ranking.

    Each to their own, don't get me wrong....
     
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    I completely agree.

    If fighter a spent longer at top and compiled a better resume than fighter b despite fighter b being some h2h monster, i'd put a top.

    If however a and b had a similar mix of legacy and resume but I think a does better against more people than i'll give a the nod.

    I know we've been through this before so apologies if I already asked, but how do you measure how good an era is? Infact how do you measure the era itself? How long is an era and what's required to make it better than another?
     
  4. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,469
    Sep 7, 2008
    Just my own opinions as to how strong any given fighters level of opposition is.

    The 'era' is just how long a space of time I'm judging; some era's have their obvious bookends. Depth in competition determined by knowing if the quality of the fighters competing against/at the same time as 'fighter A' that I'm analysing.

    It's all pretty open ended I guess, I just dint include hypotheticals between fighters from
    different era's amongst my criteria :good
     
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    so you're still basing your system on your own subjective observations and opinions? E.g you don't credit watanabe with double victories over poon?

    I like it when people base systems on their own observations because otherwise, what's the point?
     
  6. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,469
    Sep 7, 2008
    Of course! And good example :good

    But just on things I can accurately gauge. So, (totally hypothetical) if I found it hard to split Mike Spinks and Ruben Olivares I wouldn't say 'well, I reckon Olivares' inconsistency means he'd fare less well against the greats of his division than Spinks would'. But I could say 'I rank Spinks higher because he was more consistent than Olivares'.

    That isn't a genuine argument, just an example so you can understand where I'm coming from :good
     
  7. TAC602

    TAC602 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,672
    6
    Oct 3, 2011
    Even resume can be heavily debated and subjective. Some focus on the very best wins - and in some cases the best single win, even - others prefer depth and longevity. Two people may not agree that fighter A even beat better fighters than B. When there is a lack of film footage in a case, it becomes even more complicated.
     
  8. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    Record is subjective definitely, it's all about your subjective take on the worth of the fighters faced at the end of the day.Unless you are rating fighters worth strictly by number of ring rated number ones faced or alphabet champs faced etc


    Which i'd say isn't very useful a way to do things in the first place.
     
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Fair enough. If that were an argument i'd point to the round robin result in my head as opposed to consistency so good example :lol:

    I don't like it when people are a stickler to official results despite scoring the fight differently.
     
  10. TAC602

    TAC602 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,672
    6
    Oct 3, 2011
    Precisely.
     
  11. quintonjacksonfan

    quintonjacksonfan Active Member Full Member

    1,338
    1,117
    Jul 21, 2004
    Chavez-Rosario should get a mention
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    Whilst I agree that isn't the most useful, I think it's a pretty good starting point (seeing which ring opponents, hof, revenges and titlists one faced) once you narrow the field down it gets easier to judge the worth.

    For example with langford and greb and company you can easily get swampped by the 300 opponents, but once you slim down to 60 or so meaningful it gets much easier to judge, imo.
     
  13. TAC602

    TAC602 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,672
    6
    Oct 3, 2011
    It's definitely resourceful to some degree. Beating a slew of rated fighters is a very good accomplishment, but of course it's always better to further catch a good idea of them on film to get a picture other than knowing that they were #3 in a division in 1971 or whatever when Fighter XYZ KO'ed him in the 5th round.
     
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,173
    Sep 15, 2009
    I agree. That's why I wouldn't rank a fighter based on it, despite it being something I would aim to discover.
     
  15. scartissue

    scartissue Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,419
    12,831
    Mar 2, 2006
    Jumping in here late guys and just putting a few fights together in my head. I'm using the criteria of not so much exciting fight as simply unbelievable performance against a top-notch fighter.

    Heavy - Muhammad Ali-Cleveland Williams - Ali made Cleve look absoultely pedestrian

    Lt Heavy - Roy Jones-Reggie Johnson - I'm no fan of Roy but I didn't expect that kind of a whitewash on Reggie.

    Middle - Robinson-LaMotta V - Competitive until Robbie pulls away SRR peak fight IMO

    Jr. Middle - Terry Norris-Don Curry - Norris' chin was suspect but he handled everything Curry thrrew and ground him down.

    Welter - Wilfred Benites-Carlos Palomino - greatest job of counter-punching off the ropes I ever saw.

    Jr. Welter - Antonio Cervantes-Esteban DeJesus - no one ever dominated DeJesus. Even his Duran losses were competitive but not this. I think I gave DeJesus 2 rounds, that's all.

    Light - Rodolfo Gonzalez-Chango Carmona - Carmona was a feared monster at the time and Gonzalez beat him into the ground winning every round.

    Jr. Light - Floyd Mayweather-Diego Corrales - I thought they were neck and neck before the fight. What a paint job by Floyd.

    Feather - Willie Pep-Sandy Saddler II - One of the most brilliant displays of sheer boxing I've seen.

    Bantam - Tough one. Very impressed with Jeff Chandler-Gaby Canizales. Very competitive and how Jeff handled those body shots I'll never know. Really pulled away in the championship rounds to make it an amazing performance. Likewise was Richie Sandoval-Jeff Chandler - Richie ripped apart a dominant champ in that one. Although his issue with eye problems may taint that one a bit.

    Fly - Venice Borkorsor-Betulio Gonzalez - admittedley, I am picking a fight I have not seen, but read up on in depth. Would not pick a fight sight unseen except for the fact that no one ever beats on Betulio Gonzalez. Canto couldn't do it in 3 fights nor did any Fly of that talented era, but Borkorsor ripped him apart. Anyways, that was my 2 cents.

    Scartissue
     
    Amos-san likes this.