who's opinion do you value more?

would it be cheating if I said both, John?

 

As far as knowledge of the person, definitely the one who knew them personally, but as far as knowledge of their boxing skills, it depends on how much footage someone has seen. If there is little footage of someone, then I will obviously take the word of the person who saw them fight live, especially if those fights are not on film.

 

Obviously the gym rat; anyone can do research, but only few are the chosen who can actually hang around legends and drink in the essence of those unpublished nugget moments. Had Holmes not had such access to Ali, he would have never climbed so high.

So, Mr. Garfield, we sincerely welcome you to continue sharing the full wealth of your personal experiences.

 

A combination of both a historian's view and an actual spectator's viewpoint is the best...If making a choice, I'll go with the gym rat, who's 'been there...done that'...That is what I'll go with. That would be the better appraisal.

 

If the said gym rat's opinions and comments are even the slightest bit backed by something tangible, on film, anothers comments, etc i might take the gym rat but obviously the ideal is to gather as much as we can, footage, stories and gym rat stories as well.

At the end of the day if clear footage is available from pertinent parts of a fighters career that we can see for ourselves it is unbeatable. A picture tells 1000 words they say here.

Having said all this, if bugger all footage is available, lets use Charlie Burley for an example, then i will pick the gym rat who has seen Burley fight many times over any well read and studied guy any and every day of the week.

Is this clear enough Johnno?

 

Whatever JT didn't say I'll agree with!

I've no use for their opinion.

 

Good move, people would know something was up if you came down alongside the brighter side of things

:smoke

 

Or an accurate side!

The poster can choose whomever they wish as valuable, but when it comes to you a second look is in order.

In any event, I've said my peace. It would, however, be amazing if you are selected as a trustworthy example regarding boxing. I just can't see that one.

 

You really do have zero idea how you come across. There are people that take comments such as these above seriously you know and form an opinion of you from them.

Suffice to say both you and i know full well the above persona is the total opposite of the one from behind the closed curtains of pm's.

It might be time to simply be true to yourself as opposed to looking for a rise in public here.

Anyone looking on would think we are bickering (With you starting it) in John's fine thread, but again, you and i both know all you say above is tongue in cheek. It's just that basically no-one else does.

 

I think a lot depends on the character of the gym rat. The potentially is always there for the gym rat to be a nuthugger and embellish everything the fighter done, or to be envious or scorned and therefore give an unreasonably harsh assessment of a certain fighter.

There's also the danger that the gym rat will be myopic, not having a broader framework within which to assess things and his opinions might become too narrow in scope.

A gym rat with a broader knowledge of the sport and without any worshipping or hating fueling his thoughts can be a great source for information and can pick up many things that a well researched person will not have access to; i.e. first hand information, and information about matters that affect a fighter that aren't readily accessible to someone not so close to the fighter.

As far as the well researched person goes, they also have a lot to offer on the proviso that they don't selectively pick out their facts to suit their own biases and assuming their sources are reliable, and aren't themselves afflicted by some of the problems that the gym rat encounters as a first hand viewer (e.g. worshipping or hating certain fighters).

 

Of course I was just giving you some crap John.

That's all that was was meant by it, JG, nothing more, you know that through reading posts!

I really get a kick out of coming on here because of what JT posts. What he has to say is really quite well considered and accurate.

JT and me cetainly aren't bickering, John, nothing could be farther from the truth! I just got a little carried away this time.... I need to be more careful with words in the future!

JT is a good boxing poster, always has been in my own view!

 

:good

To answer the question as bluntly as possible, the opinion I value most is mine!

With sufficient fight footage for myself to study, there is no better source of information that my own mind in forming an opinion about what a fighter's qualities, skills, technique and intangiables are ... i.e. how great a fighter they were/are and forming conclusions on how great they could have become given the right opportunities e.g. had Jersey Joe been given the right training and not fought under journeyman circumstances from the start of his career ... had SRR received his title shot when he should've .... had Napoles received a lightweight title shot ... had Louis not had his reign coincide with war ... had Ali not had the layoff etc.

However, this is not to say that I am arrogant or ignorant in my outlook on boxing ... just that I believe myself capable enough to form valid and honest assessment of fighters and the fight game in general. However, inevitably I'm biased, but at least I know where my biases lie e.g. I'm an Ali fan, I'm a Sweet Pea fan, I'm a SRR fan, I'm a PBF fan ... there's certain stylistic qualities that they have that I'm partial to ... usually I can admit that and divorce my sentiments when appraising them honestly.

This is where I find it dangerous to 100% trust in the opinion of a researcher or gym rat, if you are unable to gain access to eye-opening footage yourself, where you can form your own judgments. The gym rat and the researcher are both laden with biases and unless they state them or their biases are easy to pick up in their work, you may be led down a path of inaccuracy when trusting their word 100%. That said, when it comes down to using the sources of info to re-evaluate my own position, I'll trust the gym rat, time and time again.

Anyone can read and research, put a fighter's career into statistics and numbers ... not everyone can live, breathe and sweat the sport from the locker room to the squared circle, to see the fear inside a fighter's eyes or to see the lion fighting inside the fighter's heart that brings him off the canvas to knock out his opponent and win a world title. Boxing is a dramatic fistic ballet, full of rage, aggression and violence and yet, somehow beautifully controlled by the science of technique, clashing styles, intangiables ... no researcher can reproduce these qualities through reading and merely watching tape alone ... this is where I value the gym rat. Okay, so I've watched hours of tape of a fighter, I can see their stylistic tendencies, their defensive deficiencies ... what did they do in the gym? How seriously did they take their gym work, what kind of man were they ... these things all add up to help me appreciate what I see on film and unless the researcher was both a researcher and a gym rat, the researcher's not likely to make me see anything new that I cannot detect on film ... but the gym rat is going to offer me a side to that fighter's personality, their character that taints the way they operate in the ring.

When assessing the honesty/integrity of a gym rat, usually, I'd form an opinion as to the degree that they respect great fighters or the degree to which they hero worship. Say for example, someone like john garfield ... I've ALWAYS found him to be highly respectful of greatly skilled fighters REGARDLESS of their eras. Of course, john, himself has his own opinion as to who was the greatest to step through the ropes, but I don't sense hero worship in his work ... more a great sense of respect and gratitude to have been in the presence of some of the sport's greatest representatives. That's the kind of opinion and insight that is of great help to me when matching up the greats of yesteryear versus some more modern greats ... if he rubbished modern fighters all the time, it would be a different story. I'd be more inclined to take his opinion with a grain of salt ... but that's not the case ... now take someone like senya ... very well researched, but very biased in his analysis. I've hardly seen him offer both sides of the coin or give an older fighter a semblance of respect in hypothetical match ups ... that obvious bias is more likely to make you prejudiced against his work, which is unfortunate because you can miss gems ... whilst, I'm much more likely to seek confirmation of my position from the gym rat, the researcher has many important pieces of the puzzle to offer if they can divorce their biases and sentiment from their work and allow themselves to present their findings in an honest, respectful manner, yet, the gym rat, especially the one with a true love for the sport and not just a love of their childhood memories and/or certain fighters is whom I'll ask to support, evaluate and confirm my boxing conclusions on any given Sunday.