Why is there an anti-recency bias in boxing?

SRR was a once in a century talent, and there's no arguing, that his record blows everybody else out of the water.

I'm thinking more of the guys who fought during the ND era (like the 1920s), where some of them fought every other week (or even more often). Those 200-fight records don't really impress me too much. Sure, again we have special cases - most notably Greb, who fought at a very high level for most of his career. His 1919 was mind-boggling - and something that we shall never see again!

However, not all top boxers were in high-level, serious fights each time out. Even world class boxers would often meet non-elite fighters, against whom they wouldn't learn much (if anything!).

Anyway, my point is this: Should the number of career fights really count for all that much, when judging a boxer's "greatness"? Shouldn't how good the boxers are/were count for more?

 

Perhaps give us a side-by-side comparison of the type of fighter who's unjustifiably overrated and the type of fighter who's unfairly underrated? That might make things less abstract.

 

Well, I think someone like Usyk is underrated by quite a few prople - mainly because he's had so few fights! His wast amateur experience is dismissed as unimportant because, well - amateur fights don't really count! Just the other day I read, that Usyk would bring nothing to the table, that would worry Joe Louis. Really?? I'm not saying, that Usyk would beat the Brown Bomber - but isn't he exactly the kind of boxer, who could give him a lot of trouble?

An overrated boxer would, imo, be someone like Billy Conn. I remember a poster here saying, that he would flatten Usyk - and, again, just the other day I read, that he would beat most of today's top-10 heavyweights. Not bloody likely, if you ask me!

 

And you think Conn is overrated because of his large number of fights?

From your Usyk example, it doesn't actually sound like you and your critics disagree that more fights = better evidence of fighter quality. It instead suggests you disagree with them about the value of amateur fights in the pro game. You are citing Usyk's large number of amateur fights as a positive. Which isn't necessarily unreasonable, IMO.

 

Of course I don't believe Conn is overrated BECAUSE of his large number of fights. I just used him as an example of someone with more fights than is the norm today, that I think is overrated.

 

Ah, ok. In that case, can you name an old timer whose large number of fights leads to his being overrated? (I can think of someone who seems to meet your description -- Stribling -- but I wondered if you had someone in mind who would illustrate your point.)

 

Stribling is a good example, I think!

Another that comes (to my) mind, is Jack Britton. Besides his long series vs Lewis, he's probably best known for being the world champ with the most fights - and also for holding the record of longest streak of consecutive fights, without a single ko defeat (one of the most "impossible" records in all of boxing, which of course will never be challenged). Without these records (made possible by his 300+ fights), I don't think we would be paying much attention to him.

 

The reason Don Bradman is considered the best TEST batter is because he has an average of 99.94 and the next best may be somewhere around 70. That is a gargantuan difference and I do not know of any other sport where one player is so far ahead of the rest. Maybe swimming with Phelps's 23 medals. If not for Bradman, I am pretty sure most people would have picked Kohli or Smith as the GOAT. But boxing does not have such a giant achiever. Larry Holmes and Wladimir Klistchko have each got a good number of defenses to challenge Joe Louis's record.

 

There’s a lot of stuff on the general forum and similar forums elsewhere that is far more factional than in more tradition-respective forums like Classic.

If you’re ‘Team Manny’ — to use one example — then you hate Floyd and spend all your time trying to deconstruct his record so none of his wins or accomplishments mean anything.

Likewise, there’s more energy spent tearing down Canelo than appreciating someone who at the very least is one of the best fighters of his generation.

And don’t even get me started on this weird ‘Matchroom FC’ crowd that are more fans of a promoter than they are of fighters or boxing. They just want their promoter to ‘win,’ whatever that even means.

 

Fighters prove how good and consistent they are by winning lots of fights. That's why that counts. It's not an arbitrary thing.

 

You're right, that's why we think so highly of guys like Loma and Usyk - because they have proven themselves by winning so many fights, over so many years.

 

Their numbers are low compared to most ATGs and come out short in those comparisons, even though most of their wins are good ones.

 

No, their numbers are not low, compared to most ATGs of the past. Usyk, for example, had about 350 amateur fights (many at the highest level). My guess is, that he must have learned quite a lot, in all those fights. I mean, it's not exactly as if he started from scratch, when he turned pro! Loma and Rigondeaux had even more amateur bouts than Usyk - and the reason all 3 were able to reach the top of their respective divisions within their first 10 pro bouts, was naturally because they had been able to hone their skills during those long amateur careers. Why pretend, that all those fights mean nothing?

Anyway, I don't really care, how many fights a boxer has under his belt. If he's good, he's good - that's all there is to it! Take someone like Inoue: Not a huge, successful amateur career, and only 22 pro fights. But so what? He looks pretty damn good to me!

SRR, by the way, isn't the GOAT, because he had 200 pro fights - but because he simply is the best, we've ever seen (imo).

 

For me and many others here it is his record. And looking at that SRR is GOAT just because he kept winning so astonishingly much and against good comp, and since modern fighters don't fight nearly as much they can't compare in that aspect. And that's probably the main reason why they come further down ATG lists when these are done on this forum.

 

I'm curious as to why you think Conn is overrated? It's a very nebulous term at the best of times, one that I'm not sure that a lot of people really qualify or think about when they use it. Overrated by who? At any rate, I'm more curious at what things you don't find impressive about him? Genuinely. Especially if you're highly impressed by someone like Inoue and consider him a great fighter.