controversial question for ranking old timers

I know that Sports almanacs are great when it comes to looking up the history of great fighters. Also, people like Bert Sugar will write history books going over great fights that are gems to read. However, one question comes to mind, at least for me. I'll use Charlie Burley as an example. Eddie Futch stated Burley was the best fighter he ever saw. However, there are very few films of him. Granted, he had to be great to beat Archie Moore in his prime, but without films, how can we compare him to fighters who have been recorded in living color? How can we rank Bob Fit. and compare him to, let's say Joe Louis, without anything to see. We read, see pics and hear of great fights from people who haven't seen the fights either. History in general is full of events that can only be written about. Just because there is no film of the "American Revolution" doesn't mean it was any less amazing. However, we're talking about man vs. man here. I'm having trouble matching up fighers I can't see, or use my own judgement on, against fighters I have seen. Solution?

Maybe a group discussion is in order concerning certain fighters? Lot's of debates will come of this, however this is an adult board.

YES i agree totally, and when i bring it up i get slated for it, Harry greb is my example, No footage at all. I cant see how im expected to rank him when i can only read about him. Even his win over tunney.....i read tunneys account of it, mentioning the cuts he got in sparring and the injections into his hands etc. I wont rank these guys because i cant see any footage. Im not saying that they were not great, just that i would mayb like some proof. records are ok, but If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats C, it doesnt necessarily mean that A will beat C

good topic ..first with greb..he beat fighter A B C D AND E.thats a start..there is footage of tunney walker gibbons and other top fighters bill brenan that he did beat..that should give you more then a clue on his greatness..there is NO footage of willie pep or ray robinson in there primes..back to greb which by the way is a extremly poor example to give in this topic..marble and i pointed out harrys activity in 1919 who he fought who he beat all of them by the way..that feat alone should leave nooo doubt that he deserves to be ranked close to the very top..greb messed up tunney in more then just one fight also..
fitz the footage avalible on him frank is enough to determine he does not belong in joe louis class or other the great heavies or other great fighters in general.
if there was great footage of fighters in general from 1900-15 and we ranked thesewfighters solely on footage very few if any would reach any of our top 200 ratings..it was the infancy of boxing and that must be considered..to toss a fighter in that era upon todays sceen without giving that fighter the benefit of the doubt of improvements in nutrition or exersise conditioning routines or the advanced skills in the ring of modern boxing which started in the 1920s was perfected in the late 20s and remained constant untill in general the mid sixtes .then a true visual decline in thoses skills from that point foward by fighters as documented by the huge footage avalible..

what im saying is take a sam langford for example put him at the age of 25 today born in this era in the year 1985 ..dont you think he would benefit greatly..now take a floyd or a dawson..put him in the year 1900 at the age of 25.erase all thats been developed in the sport like tech footwork etc etc and they start from scratch..what kind of fighter would they of been..thats why for example that onepeticular era stands on its own merits.any fighter from the modern era can be rated even if fottage is lacking outside one or 2 clips or none simply beacause there is plenty of footage avalible on all the fighters they fougt...
the same folks who give this arguement also in GENERAL are the ones who bitch about folks saying the guys from the 30s 40s 50s remain supreme overall..there is tons of footage to prove this..
the footage shows from a certain point foward in general a huge decline in skills of todays fighters and fighters of the past few decades..balance is poorer..combinations please.defense feighting angles ring generalship leverage..thats a biggie leverage over all tech skills.and activity...lets not bring out excuses 951 952 953 on inactivity.im not buying that BS.the decline of gyms fight clubs arenas independent promoters and REAL top notch trainers in numbers.the visual evidence is there BUT ignored..
ill give a great example of a fighter nooo one ever heared about untill i mentioned his name..bushy graham..theres noo footage on him..he and i and his entire family were good friends..i can only go by what others told me who saw him fight several times like my dads who saw greb walker dempsey tunney pep etc etc fight live greb several times by the way anbd others including jack dempsey himself...jack reffereed a fight with bushy and said that night i thought to myself this is one of the greatest fighters i ever saw..dempsey said that to ME..what can i conclude from all thoses talks..that bushy indeed today would be bantam champ of the world and several of you would say a lock for the hall of fame..why..cause you got visual evidence...soo did dempsey my dad and others have that visual evidence..its just not on film..

I've always thought it best to rank a fighter within their era. Then you give your personal rank to each era and mix and match your all time list based on that.

4445Frank wrote:

Maybe a group discussion is in order concerning certain fighters? Lot's of debates will come of this, however this is an adult board.

Yeah you can unless you disagree with a certain poster and then he will call you stupid or try to inslult you in some way.

soonermark890 wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Maybe a group discussion is in order concerning certain fighters? Lot's of debates will come of this, however this is an adult board.

Yeah you can unless you disagree with a certain poster and then he will call you stupid or try to inslult you in some way.

LOL thats the very reason why i dont like discussing this topic

4445Frank wrote:

I know that Sports almanacs are great when it comes to looking up the history of great fighters. Also, people like Bert Sugar will write history books going over great fights that are gems to read. However, one question comes to mind, at least for me. I'll use Charlie Burley as an example. Eddie Futch stated Burley was the best fighter he ever saw. However, there are very few films of him. Granted, he had to be great to beat Archie Moore in his prime, but without films, how can we compare him to fighters who have been recorded in living color? How can we rank Bob Fit. and compare him to, let's say Joe Louis, without anything to see. We read, see pics and hear of great fights from people who haven't seen the fights either. History in general is full of events that can only be written about. Just because there is no film of the "American Revolution" doesn't mean it was any less amazing. However, we're talking about man vs. man here. I'm having trouble matching up fighers I can't see, or use my own judgement on, against fighters I have seen. Solution?

A couple of things. First, footage of Fitzsimmons exists. Footage of Burley exists. Footage of many of the men they faced exists.

Second, reading a variety of opinions and justifications can be helpful. Especially contemporary opinions of other fighters and trainers. Boxing is among the most well attested of sports.

Third, allow me to rely on Dmar's analogy. There is no footage of Julius Cesar's or Alexander's or Hannibal's campaigns. In judging military captains wouild you therefore punt?

sugarrayhatton wrote:

YES i agree totally, and when i bring it up i get slated for it, Harry greb is my example, No footage at all. I cant see how im expected to rank him when i can only read about him. Even his win over tunney.....i read tunneys account of it, mentioning the cuts he got in sparring and the injections into his hands etc. I wont rank these guys because i cant see any footage. Im not saying that they were not great, just that i would mayb like some proof. records are ok, but If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats C, it doesnt necessarily mean that A will beat C

Two issues, first there is footage of DOZENS of guys Greb defeated. So not hard to extrapolate from that.

Second, in Greb's case it is pretty easy. He didn't just beat fighter B so you need wonder about fighter C. he beat B, c, d, e, f, g and H.

Gumby wrote:

I've always thought it best to rank a fighter within their era. Then you give your personal rank to each era and mix and match your all time list based on that.

EXCELLENT approach.

I do it a little differently, who was most dominant and well tested in their era matters too.

And that highlights the core issue I think. CRITERIA.

For example I give ZERO weight to a who would beat who approach for two reasons. First it is complete guesswork and not really debatable to a useful end. I mean, under what rules and what equipment for starters. Second, A beats B who beats C who beats A happens all the time in boxing and I can never figure out what I learned from it.

Is my approach the best one? Who the hell knows?

shut up sooners you have fart breath


dmar is right no footage exists of prime Pep or Robinson , I take the boxing connoisseur's word for it on fighters i havent been able to see

dmar5143 wrote:

good topic ..first with greb..he beat fighter A B C D AND E.thats a start..there is footage of tunney walker gibbons and other top fighters bill brenan that he did beat..that should give you more then a clue on his greatness..there is NO footage of willie pep or ray robinson in there primes..back to greb which by the way is a extremly poor example to give in this topic..marble and i pointed out harrys activity in 1919 who he fought who he beat all of them by the way..that feat alone should leave nooo doubt that he deserves to be ranked close to the very top..greb messed up tunney in more then just one fight also..
fitz the footage avalible on him frank is enough to determine he does not belong in joe louis class or other the great heavies or other great fighters in general.
if there was great footage of fighters in general from 1900-15 and we ranked thesewfighters solely on footage very few if any would reach any of our top 200 ratings..it was the infancy of boxing and that must be considered..to toss a fighter in that era upon todays sceen without giving that fighter the benefit of the doubt of improvements in nutrition or exersise conditioning routines or the advanced skills in the ring of modern boxing which started in the 1920s was perfected in the late 20s and remained constant untill in general the mid sixtes .then a true visual decline in thoses skills from that point foward by fighters as documented by the huge footage avalible..

what im saying is take a sam langford for example put him at the age of 25 today born in this era in the year 1985 ..dont you think he would benefit greatly..now take a floyd or a dawson..put him in the year 1900 at the age of 25.erase all thats been developed in the sport like tech footwork etc etc and they start from scratch..what kind of fighter would they of been..thats why for example that onepeticular era stands on its own merits.any fighter from the modern era can be rated even if fottage is lacking outside one or 2 clips or none simply beacause there is plenty of footage avalible on all the fighters they fougt...
the same folks who give this arguement also in GENERAL are the ones who bitch about folks saying the guys from the 30s 40s 50s remain supreme overall..there is tons of footage to prove this..
the footage shows from a certain point foward in general a huge decline in skills of todays fighters and fighters of the past few decades..balance is poorer..combinations please.defense feighting angles ring generalship leverage..thats a biggie leverage over all tech skills.and activity...lets not bring out excuses 951 952 953 on inactivity.im not buying that BS.the decline of gyms fight clubs arenas independent promoters and REAL top notch trainers in numbers.the visual evidence is there BUT ignored..
ill give a great example of a fighter nooo one ever heared about untill i mentioned his name..bushy graham..theres noo footage on him..he and i and his entire family were good friends..i can only go by what others told me who saw him fight several times like my dads who saw greb walker dempsey tunney pep etc etc fight live greb several times by the way anbd others including jack dempsey himself...jack reffereed a fight with bushy and said that night i thought to myself this is one of the greatest fighters i ever saw..dempsey said that to ME..what can i conclude from all thoses talks..that bushy indeed today would be bantam champ of the world and several of you would say a lock for the hall of fame..why..cause you got visual evidence...soo did dempsey my dad and others have that visual evidence..its just not on film..

I hear ya and that to some degree is why footage can only be of limited value. That era, like today, has some serious deficiencies. But then I wonder how much of it then really is pacing for extended fights. I mean when I watch Joe Gans I see him doing literally EVERYTHING top fighters through the years have done. But because he's fighting 40 round fights he does it in bursts rather than constantly. So how do you think about that guy? Well he's clearly one of the most dominant fighters in history. Would he translate well to 12-15 round fights? Impossible to know. In the same way we cannot know how Roberto Duran or Floyd Mayweather would translate to 40 round fights.

Birdofthad wrote:

shut up sooners you have fart breath


dmar is right no footage exists of prime Pep or Robinson , I take the boxing connoisseur's word for it on fighters i havent been able to see

LOL thats poop breath sir. Besides I wasnt talking about you.

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

shut up sooners you have fart breath


dmar is right no footage exists of prime Pep or Robinson , I take the boxing connoisseur's word for it on fighters i havent been able to see

LOL thats poop breath sir. Besides I wasnt talking about you.

Maybe not, but you do have fart breath!

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

shut up sooners you have fart breath


dmar is right no footage exists of prime Pep or Robinson , I take the boxing connoisseur's word for it on fighters i havent been able to see

LOL thats poop breath sir. Besides I wasnt talking about you.

Maybe not, but you do have fart breath!

LOL I am glad to see some people have a sense of humor.

i know i just thought it would be fun to take a shot

and your right marble, these old timers would have to pace themselves for 20 rounders and sometimes more, imagine Henry Armstrong in a 12 round title fight or Kid Chocolate in a 10 - 12 rounder

it would be a firestorm

Birdofthad wrote:

i know i just thought it would be fun to take a shot

and your right marble, these old timers would have to pace themselves for 20 rounders and sometimes more, imagine Henry Armstrong in a 12 round title fight or Kid Chocolate in a 10 - 12 rounder

it would be a firestorm

It fine I know you are kidding. UNLIKE some people. Sorry had to do that.

Its so hard to compare the early fighters to the modern era. They are just way too different.

Sorry about letting out a nasty can of worms like that. I was thinking out loud. Next time, I"ll keep my thoughts to myself unless they can be of more help. I think what you guys have is fine. I was one of those who originally thought this was a good idea. I still do.

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

i know i just thought it would be fun to take a shot

and your right marble, these old timers would have to pace themselves for 20 rounders and sometimes more, imagine Henry Armstrong in a 12 round title fight or Kid Chocolate in a 10 - 12 rounder

it would be a firestorm

It fine I know you are kidding. UNLIKE some people. Sorry had to do that.

Its so hard to compare the early fighters to the modern era. They are just way too different.

That's why, for the most part, I go on who was dominant in their time, how good was there era and were they fully tested? Now even doing that is FULL of guesswork, but much less than how would A do against B. I would also say it's hard to compare fighters of the 40's, 50's and 70's with guys of today as fighters today are far less tested.

agree marble guys back then were fighting greats on a monthly basis now were lucky if a guy fights 5 greats in his career

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

i know i just thought it would be fun to take a shot

and your right marble, these old timers would have to pace themselves for 20 rounders and sometimes more, imagine Henry Armstrong in a 12 round title fight or Kid Chocolate in a 10 - 12 rounder

it would be a firestorm

It fine I know you are kidding. UNLIKE some people. Sorry had to do that.

Its so hard to compare the early fighters to the modern era. They are just way too different.

That's why, for the most part, I go on who was dominant in their time, how good was there era and were they fully tested? Now even doing that is FULL of guesswork, but much less than how would A do against B. I would also say it's hard to compare fighters of the 40's, 50's and 70's with guys of today as fighters today are far less tested.

Some of them are less tested but you do get the occasional guy who will take on everyone.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

i know i just thought it would be fun to take a shot

and your right marble, these old timers would have to pace themselves for 20 rounders and sometimes more, imagine Henry Armstrong in a 12 round title fight or Kid Chocolate in a 10 - 12 rounder

it would be a firestorm

It fine I know you are kidding. UNLIKE some people. Sorry had to do that.

Its so hard to compare the early fighters to the modern era. They are just way too different.

That's why, for the most part, I go on who was dominant in their time, how good was there era and were they fully tested? Now even doing that is FULL of guesswork, but much less than how would A do against B. I would also say it's hard to compare fighters of the 40's, 50's and 70's with guys of today as fighters today are far less tested.

Some of them are less tested but you do get the occasional guy who will take on everyone.

Yes and no. The basic math can be tough. It's very hard to fight twice a year and take on everyone. You look, in the extreme, at a guy like Ali. I mean he fought through what 4-5 boxing generations of fighters? Even Manny, as spectacular as he is, is fighting more or less a single generation isn't he?

Having made that point, I am NEVER going to say denigrating things about Erik Morales or MAB or Sweet Pea or Oscar or Tito.

and thats the difference , we have about 100 old timers we wouldnt utter a bad boxing sentence about

in the last 25 years weve had about, oh 10 of those

Birdofthad wrote:

and thats the difference , we have about 100 old timers we wouldnt utter a bad boxing sentence about

in the last 25 years weve had about, oh 10 of those

I bet the people in their times did though. The current generation is always looked down upon. Not saying its not rightfully so or anything but we tend to bash the current fighters a lot more than the old guys no matter how good the current guys are.

Dmar, I know you have been around boxing a long time. What do you think?

soonermark890 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

and thats the difference , we have about 100 old timers we wouldnt utter a bad boxing sentence about

in the last 25 years weve had about, oh 10 of those

I bet the people in their times did though. The current generation is always looked down upon. Not saying its not rightfully so or anything but we tend to bash the current fighters a lot more than the old guys no matter how good the current guys are.
Dmar, I know you have been around boxing a long time. What do you think?

The bold just isn't true thought. The light heavies of the 1970's were recognized as a golden age while it was happening as were the welters of the early 1980's, the heavies of the 1970's and the featherweights of the 1940's.

The current guys don't get bashed because the are CURRENT. They get bashed because THEY DO LESS. Half as many fighter split into twice as many divisions and fighters fighting half as often. Is the math contestable?

I mean baseball players now draw from all over the world and play as many games as ever, football players, hockey players and basketball players all play MORE than their predecessors did. Golfers play approximately as often, same with Tennis players.

Can we come up with another sport where the contestants do LESS that they did 25-50 years ago?

Now it is VERY clear boxing has had some down periods in the past. Before it was widely legal and when TV became ubiquitous in the mid 1950's are two off the top of my head that were recognized at the time.