Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
WHO's the GREAAAATEST???
http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxin...4375/greatest/
Thursday Sep 21, 2006
It is a daunting task deciding who is the greatest pound-for-pound fighter to ever lace up the gloves because sometimes you can’t get by the personal favoritism to see your favorite’s shortcomings.
Who's The Greatest
by Michael Olajide
Since the beginning of time – pug time – there have always been discussions and arguments as to who was the greatest fighter to ever lace up a pair of US Grade A, Government neglected leather gloves… and maybe the answer really isn’t as complicated as it appears… I mean, personal reasons aside as to why we favor one fighter over the other, we really CAN get a sense of how two fighters from different generations would match up (and one would have to do that if you were to truly find out who’s the “baddest man” of any epoch) against one another.
Ok, first and foremost, what are the criteria for being admitted into the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) rankings? Physical fight ability (this is a complex category but basically, the fighter with the best offensive weapons and the best defensive attributes are how we should rate our fighters – in addition to quality of opposition, etc., and so forth) is one of the tools we use to categorize ability; mental strength is another (high pain threshold, the ability to perform under duress or intense pressure, coming from behind or having being knocked down are some ways to measure mental strength). Those categories are the somewhat measurable/immeasurable abilities we can all relate to… and then there are the definitely immeasurable happenings that can effect a fighter’s performance. Certain business or personal relationships that go sour at the most inopportune times, a loss of a loved one, loading of the gloves and favoritism by judges and referees… fighting in someone else’s backyard, etc.
It is a daunting task deciding who is the greatest pound-for-pound fighter to ever lace up the gloves because sometimes you can’t get by the personal favoritism to see your favorite’s shortcomings, but we are gonna try to tackle the gargantuan and feel free to reply… don’t forget to add why you think your selected fighter is the best or different from the “predictable” one I will choose.
Up front, let’s put the collective top-10 fighters in the mix and whittle away from there. Right off the bat we may run into trouble because my choice of top-10 will not be the same as yours, but I am trying to be fair. I am putting in names of fighters I feel are great, but also fighters many others feel are great. In so doing, I am trying not to favor the modern-day fighter. But with yesteryear’s fighters you are taking another person’s word for gospel and if you were to see the fighter on film or live, you may not feel the same way about his abilities as opposed to the abilities of another man. (Also, the attributes that one man uses to rate a guy, you may not.) Some of the more seasoned in fandom may think Henry Armstrong is the greatest fighter of all time, given his wins and being able to move up from one weight to the other. Back in the day when there was only one champion and there were ten pounds between weight divisions… I have only seen clips of “Homicide” Hank fight so this will certainly hinder his claiming the number one spot, but you could make quite a case for him and wouldn’t be wrong.
There’s something else I didn’t consider in terms of looking at aged film of fighters from another decade…. The film footage doesn’t read the same as it does today. So to look at a fighter’s style where he goes from moving real slow to excessively fast at almost convulsing speeds, doesn’t display a fighter’s style accurately… so you must also rely on the history of the fighter, similar styles you have seen throughout your viewing of boxing and you also have to do what dinosaur-ologists do: make an intelligent guess compared to the more “evolved” version of fighter we see today. This leads me to another question… has boxing really evolved anyway? We’d like to think so, but I guess this is a question for another time.
Having said that, in NO PARTICULAR ORDER, (because the only one that counts is #1) we’re off…
1. Jack Johnson – Wiped out any- and everybody put before him… Fought during a time of complete and utter hostility toward a black man… and that was the norm. In fact, he probably heard the word “**BEEP**” so often that he thought it was the name his mother gave him. Watching the film of him let’s you know that he was pretty slick and advanced for a fighter in that era… he used subtle movements, feints and other excellent technical abilities even fighters of today don’t use, like parrying, for example. He also, like Ali, used a strong personality as a form of effective offense. The kind of personality that takes a fighter to a different level… a level most boxers are not used to fighting, and given it was the first time for most of his opponents at that “altitude” (they had the hopes of pretty much all of white America that followed boxing on his shoulders), that type of pressure didn’t help. So, a man that is able to function effectively under the type of hostile circumstances that Jack did, you would think that would be enough to garner the #1 spot; but truth be told, I am not convinced that boxing had evolved enough to the point that all fighters were that advanced and many guys probably trained about as often as your neighborhood stumblebum or saloon brawler. Could I see Jack beating Joe Louis? Muhammad Ali? Joe Frazier? Riddick Bowe? Boxing had really just raised itself up out of the bare-knuckle fighting days and to tell you the truth, they didn’t throw many punches for fear of hurting the hands, not the other guy’s head. So how can you hone your craft if you can’t throw as many punches as you need to in training, never mind build up the stamina and endurance to fight 3 minutes of every round? This lack of training and fighting evidence leads me to say no. Maybe Johnson’s top-10 and obviously a knowledgeable and strong willed individual with characteristic traits that in and of themselves would help defeat the modern-day champions, but he would need more than that to defeat the best of the best of all-time.
2. Joe Louis – The first thing you need to recognize about Joe Louis would be his remarkable power and his willingness to fight everybody. Then you would need to acknowledge his personality, so stoic and graceful in victory as well as defeat. The fact that he has one of the most amazing records in sports – 23 knockouts in 27 title defenses – the most title defenses in the game (?) – but look a little below the surface and you gotta question the opposition… not that he had any control over who he was fighting… and generally you can only fight who is put in front of you… (Larry Holmes was an amazing fighter, BUT he doesn’t make the list due to the caliber of fighters he defended the title against. Holmes’ “Frazier” was Ernie Shavers.) Then you go into the fact that Louis was in dire trouble against guys that weren’t reputed to be that dangerous (Billy Conn)… getting blown out in a fight (during your prime) isn’t going to help matters either (Schmeling 1). Let’s throw Joe’s ability into the deep end and see if it swims… Joe Louis and Big George Forman… what do you think happens? Do Joe’s short powerful punches get inside the hulking Forman’s gargantuan swings and chop him down or will Forman’s devastating early round assault have The Bomber imploding before he gets out of the first round? We can’t guarantee either… Same with Louis vs. Tyson… Heck, Louis and Holyfield. There are similarities in style yet Holyfield was more fluid and probably took a better punch… then, if you want to go pound-for-pound, put Louis in with Sugar Ray Robinson, Leonard, Duran, Whittaker… case closed. Louis makes the list due to his amazing record of title defenses, but for ability/flexibility, he had one way of fighting… and there’s an old adage that was never more apropos than it is here… “that which can’t bend breaks.”
3. Pernell Whitaker – “Sweet Pea” is the most underrated, underappreciated fighter to ever box, period. His talent was so superior to everyone he fought, people had no idea what they were seeing. He had everything Roy Jones had, but without the punch (but better defense). Everything Leonard had but without the charisma (but better technical boxer). Everything Ali had but without the personality (but better body puncher). The only thing “negative” you could say about him was he couldn’t punch THAT hard. And if you can’t hurt your opponent, your opponent begins to get brave and when they get brave, you got problems. People like Jake LaMotta and Tommy Hearns and Holyfield, who aren’t afraid to take a couple in order to land one, love fighting guys like this… but a study in frustration and an exercise in futility is what they are really in for. Trying to hit Pernell is like shadowboxing. Sure, he’s been dropped, but even Ali was dropped by Sonny Banks AND Henry Cooper, so Whitaker being dropped by Roger “The Black Mamba” Mayweather, who could punch like poison, is no shame. Here’s the ultimate, Ali vs. Pernell… This is no Camacho vs. Howard Davis (although both these dudes could do their thing). Both Ali and Pernell, as well as having frustratingly effective defenses, also have viciously competitive sides that when awoken, you wish they did own a one punch knockout punch to put you out of your misery. Here’s how good he was: Pernell had to have a full-blown substance abuse issue before he lost a fight as far as I can tell and he fought anyone who would wanna fight him, on their terms and won. Like Ali, fistic perfection, and if you told me that pound-for-pound in the ring he would beat Ali, you would have a lot of ammo to back your claim.
4. Rocky Marciano – He did retire as heavyweight champ undefeated, but with claims of having wins over relatives and such against him, things can get spotty. But that’s all hearsay. We’ll deal with fact. Boxing’s “free trade act” hadn’t really been enacted. Because the business was a “controlled” one, a fighter with the right “persuasions” could easily avoid stiff competition against deserving fighters… (hey, don’t they do that today as well? Ok, but at least today you could vie for a different title... See, there is a reason for the “alphabet organizations” after all. Proving everything that does exist, exists for a reason). Rocky had wars with Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott who were amazing fighters but small heavyweights well as past their prime. Joe Louis was considerably past his prime as well. Rocky and his opponents’ size may not have anything to do with the pound-for-pound ratings but ability does. Rocky never fought a fighter that could stick and move or brought considerable power along with various other talents. I hate to say the word “safe” but if you make it to home plate without having to hustle… well, maybe his opponents weren’t ever favored to win. Super fighters fight super fighters when both are at their peak, and I cannot find one fighter on Rocky’s record that is a super fighter AT HIS PEAK. Rock was strong, had a high tolerance for pain, apparently took a great shot, unbelievable endurance and could punch like a f%#&*@g mule kick. But picture Rock against Wilfredo Benitez, Roberto Duran, Pernell, or any of the Sugar Ray’s. … this list can go on for sometime and I am not here to denigrate Marciano. Larry Holmes was inconsiderate saying Rocky couldn’t carry his jockstrap, but really, take a look at fight footage and picture Rocky fighting Larry Holmes. Marciano was excellent given the tools he developed against the opponents he fought, but to consider him pound-for-pound/the greatest of all time, well, NO.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
Bookmarks