Rating Fighters That We Have Hardly Seen Any Footage Of ??

[ICB]

I was debating today and i just realized when we are saying how great fighters like Pep, was or ETC. How much do we really know about them ?? i mean i see people saying Robinson was Greatest Welterweight ever. And while i don't disagree with that stats wise, but how can we rate how great Robinson was at Welterweight or any of the older fighters when we haven't actually seen hardly any footage of of them or no footage of them ?? i like going along with my own opinion and not what experts say, because most of the time i actually disagree with these *So Called Experts*. Plus i noticed we tend to underrate the newer generation of fighters and sometimes overrate the old fighters.

Whats your thoughts guys ??

[WelshDevilRob]

Very good point. Harry Greb often get's called one of the Greatest but the only footage I have seen of him is shadow boxing (it's on YouTube).

I think we have to look at the fighters records which helps to establish the level of opposition they fought and also read reports of the time they were active. (boxrec)

Also there are very good sources of information via books that give a good picture of just how good the fighter was the usual History of Boxing style books are good references also a brilliantly detailed site called coxscorner is a fountain of information on many fighters from yesteryear.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/

And finally boxing foums on the net are great aswell, as most know of posters who were around and are a good judge of fighters, 2 that I always read are called London Ring Rules and Dadgad - if you ever get the chance to read their posts then do as their knowledge of boxing is vast.

[Bookkeeper]

Very good point. Harry Greb often get's called one of the Greatest but the only footage I have seen of him is shadow boxing (it's on YouTube).

I think we have to look at the fighters records which helps to establish the level of opposition they fought and also read reports of the time they were active. (boxrec)

Also there are very good sources of information via books that give a good picture of just how good the fighter was the usual History of Boxing style books are good references also a brilliantly detailed site called coxscorner is a fountain of information on many fighters from yesteryear.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/

And finally boxing foums on the net are great aswell, as most know of posters who were around and are a good judge of fighters, 2 that I always read are called London Ring Rules and Dadgad - if you ever get the chance to read their posts then do as their knowledge of boxing is vast.

CC Good Post

[Wright]

I think that this is a great thread. It reminds me about the arguments about football (not american football, but the real one). People talk about how much better players were years ago in terms of technique, but they fail to mention the improvements in speed, fitness and power. The same can be said for boxing. I think that certain fighters, like certain footballers, would still be top quality regardless of the era, but put Sugar Ray Robinson at his peak with Mayweather at his peak, Robinson would be beaten. But then its ridiculous because we have to talk in hypotheticals. The truth is - no one can call themselves the greatest, and I don't think people can rate a fighter clearly and fully if they have not seen them fight live or on tv at their peak.