Why don't some classic boxing fans and historians give modern fighters credit?

I don’t think a single person does this.

But we know what you’re trying to say. They’re correct when they align with you, and are wrong when they don’t. We get it.

The truth of the matter is more complex in nuance. Veracity and the boldness of a claim balanced against contextual relevance matters. For example; if someone like Ray Arcel says that Jack Dempsey was not only good, but was the best fighter he ever saw, then he must’ve absolutely been a damn good fighter.

 

That is certainly a possibility. Another could be that Ray was 19 years old when Dempsey crushed Willard, and therefore a young man throughout his reign. You know, first impressions... which can lead to unrealistic fanboyism (Nat Fleischer is a perfect example of this).


Not saying this to put down Dempsey, who was obviously a great fighter!

 

Ray Arcel, a man whose profession was to basically gauge fighters and get them ready for battle, and was one of the best to do it in the last century, couldn’t have been susceptible to such misjudgments, could he?

Wouldn’t he be one of the last people on planet Earth to commit such an error? He had to scout fighters, judge their abilities, and improve upon them. How could a man like him misasses a fighter to such a drastic degree? It’s one thing to overestimate a fighter a little, but to call one the best ever, if he wasn’t actually all that great? That just doesn’t seem to add up.

 

“Dempsey would have absolutely beaten any fighter who came after him – without a doubt. I know all about Joe Louis and how he knocked guys’ teeth out. I have every respect for Joe – I rate him number two. But Dempsey would have killed Louis, George Foreman, any of those guys. What Jack had was God-given – you can’t develop the kind of talent he had.

Marciano? Same result. Dempsey would have murdered Rocky. I tell you, Jack would have chased everyone out of the ring. I trained Max Baer a couple of times and often got asked how good that booming right of his was and whether it was as good as anything Dempsey had. Are you kidding? It wasn’t even close.

Mike Tyson might have got through a round with Dempsey, maybe two. People always asked me what Jack’s weaknesses were. That’s the point – he didn’t have any.”

Now i don't doubt, that Arcel was expressing his honest opinion here... but would you not agree, that fanboyism probably played a not insignificant role?

 

The trick is to know your expert and also know when he has a horse in the race.

 

Sure. And if you were an expert during the 80's/90's when Tyson was performing magic in the ring, you'd need a cold heart not to have a fan-like sentiment towards such a performer. But not to the extent that you're taking a second rater, and calling him the best ever. Any supposed fandom can have only so much effect on one of the centuries best boxing trainers. The man made his bread from having an eye for these things, and was top of his field.

 

Didn't you throw a hissy fit when I pointed out that Arcel was a Dempsey fanboy in a previous thread? In any event, glad to see that you're coming around on this.

 

the problem surely is that people like Mendoze claim that a retired failed contender who couldnt land a title shot of today would beat joe louis etc?

And then hes suprised when he geta a wave of disagreement so he decides to call them "classic boxing fans"
Thats the actual issue.

 

Nobody else gets tired of this lame ass calling people like Arcel a "fanboy?"

 

Retired and failed contender like Herol Graham? Haven't I seen your dumbass state he could beat a lot of the greats today??

 

this is great, seeing as I have no relation to Herol Graham.

Its always amusing to see a few fools think I do though so keep it up.

 

It depends on what's being ventured. If someone asks how hard a particular fighter trained behind closed doors and the opinions given are from an experienced sparring partner of the fighter and a complete nobody who never set foot in the gym then it's obvious whose opinion should carry more weight. On the other hand if someone asks how hard so-and-so from seventy years ago could hit and the opinions are of an old school trainer with a nostalgia fetish and a modern, open-minded fan with clear eyes and a good dose of common sense then I'd side with the latter.

My point is that expert is not a catch all term for understanding. There are experts who couldn't predict a fight worth a penny but who could regale you with colourful stories of yesteryear till the cows came home. On the flip side there are those who may have never laced them up but have an innate understanding of the game and can predict fights with a high degree of accuracy merely by watching footage of the fighters.

 

Or he made a great impression on those around him. Dempsey obviously oozed badassery, and I can imagine watching him live would have left a strong impression on you, especially if you were relatively young and impressionable at the time.

But to look at footage of his fights and come to the conclusion that he would beat Tyson in one or two rounds and to claim that he had no weaknesses shows a clear case of biased thinking that should be treated with the skepticism it deserves. Arcel was obviously smitten with Dempsey for whatever reason, and it distorted his thinking. That can happen to anyone.

 

You can say this for some mainstream fan.
You can’t convincingly say the same for Ray Arcel, a man who was one of the best at guaging boxers.