who's opinion do you value more?

I would never trust either of them more than the other merely on the fact that one is a gym rat and the other a lab rat, so to speak.

I'd be happy to read both their opinions, do some research myself, weigh the considerations and base my judgement upon the sum of that.


A guy like Nat Fleischer has an extensive background of following boxing for decades, but his opinions on how some of the fighters of the 50's compare to the 10's/20's fighters are unfair in my opinion. Then, to name a random example, the poster SuzieQ has gone on great lengths to bash current heavyweights, but after he had seen Kevin McBride train, he was impressed by him and spoke highly of him.... needless to say, McBride is a journeyman or fringe contender at best.

The only conclusion is that whatever one's profession or background is - everyone has some bias. Boxing is too subjective. So it's best not to take any opinion for granted.

 

I think it depends on the individual, background,bias,etc... I know a lot of trainers and boxing people,Boxers and knowlegable fans and fact finders. I see some people with a lean for certain type of fighters. Some guys are smart and have boxing know how but can be real dumb and biased like Max Hellerman...he had Roy Jones as a God until he was caught (hit Solid) vs Tarver , he even had him winning over some Heavy ATG's but I have heard him say dumb things many times, yet he can site facts,records,etc. I have heard things from some old school guys (gym rats and experts)who have seen it all and they can sometimes be prophetic because they have been full circle, as long as they have an open mind to fighters of today and not be biased I think I will lean towards them

 

I think there's value and things to be taken in from almost ANY point of view. It's ridiculous to completely discount almost anything from any source, really.

On average I think I'd listen to the "gym rats" opinion, especially if he'd been one consistently for years like John specified.

There are nuances that you can see in person that even intense film watching and research and what not (Especially older film) just isn't going to convey.

Think about it.

Historian/researcher watches a fighter for a half hour at a time in the ring, fighting.

Gym rat watches said fighter for years on a continual basis training and sparring.

There's just so much more to take in there.

 

They can both tell you verry diferent things. The gym rat can give you subtle and crucial details of a fighters style that are not aparent through film while the historian can give you the best available opinion on whether a decision was justified in a fight that was not filmed.

I guess the smartest guys value every opinion but also take a critical view of them.

 

The observent gym rat , who hung with the fighter, travelled with the fighter.. knew the fighter before he was anyone , and saw the highs and lows
of a fighters career first hand is invaluable...

A lot of gym rats scan the whole gym essence yet dont often see a magnified picture of any fighter proper.. Hank Kaplan and Johnny Tocco are prime examples of guys who saw Liston in his hardest years from close range, They are gone now and a whole lot of knowledge with them.. I sat with them for endless hours but always wished i had asked more questions but felt pushy at the time.. Time is more precious than we all recognise..

God Bless..

 

Gym rats are too biased to their own. While they can give rare insight, they also offers favoritism and tunnel vision. I prefer the 3rd party research, with gym rat testimonials sprinkled in to fill in the blanks.

Another problem is there are some knock em' dead types in the gym that freeze or can't seem to bring it on fight night. Or there are some guys who look awful in the gym, but when its go time for real, they do much better.

 

I think I would have to give the edge to the gym rat as seeing a fight on a screen is no substitute for seeing it live,I used to go to most of the fights at the Royal Albert Hall ,The Wembley Centre and the old Empire Pool,most of these fights were televised,as I was usually front or second row my wife would video the bouts ,trying to spot me,I would watch the fights the next night,and the perspective you got from the tv was often in marked contrast to the fight you had seen live,Of course talking about the old timers like Jeffries etc ,people like Mendoza can add to our knowledge,if they remain objective,but I dont think there is any substitute for first hand experience,plus if you have the chance to shoot the breeze as you Yanks say,with the fighters themselves ,you can pick up the reason for the little nuances and moves they applied in action.No fighter thinks he lost a fight unless he is sparked out ,but you can sift the wheat from chaff and pick out the gems of info,so for me its the guy who has been at the cutting edge so to speak.

 

This may be akin to asking someone interested in the Augustan era of ancient Rome if they would prefer to sit down with a Edward Gibbon who remains the pre-eminent Roman historian of the modern era, or say, Agrippa who was Augustine's friend and a great general on the field.

Give me Agrippa. I like the details and the inside eyewitness information. However, if you want historical context and a macro-level view of how everything worked together, you want Gibbon.

I've read many books on the subject of pugilism and there are some stand-outs -like "Tunney" by Jack Cavanaugh and "The Devil and Sonny Liston" by Nick Tosches. But the best by far is Fried's "Corner Men" -and for one reason: it has extensive interviews with the trainers themselves and you just gotta love that. Danny Kapilow was no longer trained by Arcel when he caught Burton with a left hook in Pittsburgh, in 1945. Kapilow didn't know that he hurt him when out of the corner of his eye he saw Arcel running up the aisle yelling "Linka! Linka! Linka!" (yiddish for left hand). He didn't even know Arcel was in Pittsburgh. No historian would ever know that little gem on his own.

Both sources are tainted by human error. Both are not altogether reliable. Whitey Bimstein surely romanticized the past a bit. Historians get lost in data and overlook the drama in the details. To me, though, the beauty of history is the same as the beauty in boxing -it's in the stories. And the guys who were there have the pure stuff.

I also may be in the minority when I say that boxing is the most intimate of sports and a full understanding of it requires that you be there -if not in the ring, then at least in a gym (the shitty ones, the real ones -not the ones run by birds for white collar pretenders) for a long time. Someone, I think it was Klompton, accused me of being a lounge chair analyst. He was wrong on that one, but if I were, his slight would carry a bit of weight.

....Anyway, if you apply a rule of ceteris parabus, give me the articulate gym rat over the post-facto historian.

 

Magnificent. There's really no need to post my opinion, because this sums up everything I wanted to say, and then some.:good

 

I'd probably value the gym rats opinion more especially in the case of someone like John, but the thing that makes a little hesistant is someone like Nat Fleischer. He was around the fight game for what 70 years? Yet he was extremely biased and pretty much refused to acknowledge that some of the fighters from the 40's and 50's were better then some at the turn of the century.

Basically Meta5 summed it up perfectly though. The gym rat has a different perspective that allows us to learn about the personality of a fighter, his character strengths and flaws, how he trained etc etc. The fact that John has seen fights that weren't filmed (eg Sugar Ray Robinson in his welterweight days) makes him irreplacable and he offers something that a historian could not.

 

This post was pretty good... maybe I should give the guy more credit

 

I'll go with ( in no order):

Garfield

JohnThomas

McGrain (although I hate the guy)

My Dinner with (whomever he is eating with these days)

Senya (I don't like him anymore than McGrain lol)

Bummy Davis (I left them out of my own poll in something similar, a GREAT poster never the less)

Kurgan (a dick on some stuff, but I think he is OK )

Sweet Scientist (a lot like Kurgen)

Magoo (has great avatars... and really does look into what he says)

Booze (well he just makes sense a lot of the time)

There are others I've forgotten, to be certain!

I suppose if I had to pick a couple or so they would be (in no order):

John Thomas... (quite likely my favourite person to talk with on this forum)

John Garfield... (too bad you started the thread ... you don't tell me what to think, you just write posts I always appreciate and respect!)

MDWX... god knows why, but he does know his stuff!


I'm tired, so I'll stop with these three.

 

It's a crying shame you don't post more here META....

 

Nah, it was a one-off :good