Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[gest12645]

pongsaklek wonjongkam- he's almost top 5 in ring magazine- what has he done to deserve it?

[Fenster]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[marbleheadmaui]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

On the other hand

The only post 1900 fighter of significance I have found NO footage of is Greb. That's it. Gans? Got him, Jeffries? Got him. Dixon, McGovern, Fitzsimmons, O'Brien, Ketchell? Got'em all.

Oh, and Greb's "more obsucre opposition?" Men like Loughran and Tunney and Walker? Plenty of footage on them.

[Fenster]

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

[Laughing]. Of course they can make an educated assessment. However, they can form an even more ACCURATE educated assessment based on actual modern events they have witnessed. Fact.

It's a world-class DUMB point of view to suggest we can KNOW more about something we HAVE NOT seen compared with something we have. Madness.

You can read all you want about fighters - you will ALWAYS be putting FAITH in the writers OPINION. How can you possibly believe that is superior to something you've seen with your own eyes? Utter madness.

[marbleheadmaui]

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

[Laughing]. Of course they can make an educated assessment. However, they can form an even more ACCURATE educated assessment based on actual modern events they have witnessed. Fact.

It's a world-class DUMB point of view to suggest we can KNOW more about something we HAVE NOT seen compared with something we have. Madness.

You can read all you want about fighters - you will ALWAYS be putting FAITH in the writers OPINION. How can you possibly believe that is superior to something you've seen with your own eyes? Utter madness.

It's simply not true! If it were history would NEVER be studied beyond the lifetime of witnesses.

I mean let's face it, there's nothing more to learn beyond what you experience right? The angle from which your viewed was the perfect one, your mind wasn't distracted by other things, right?

You ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant?

The idea that one set of eyes watching something reveals "truth" is incredibly wrong. Especially in boxing. You ever hear of a split decision?

And no, when you read a SINGLE writer on something you are forced to simply accept or reject an opinion. When you read MANY writers, as well as trainers, fighters themselves, judges, you are forced to do no such thing. Instead you can do what historians do always and everywhere. Sift, compare, contrast, recheck etc. Then one make's one's own judgement.

It is far superior to being lazy and simply saying "It can't be known."

Of course for everyone but Greb the point is moot as plenty of footage exists...if you're willing to do the work.

[Fenster]

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

It is a world class DUMB point of view. How the hell do you think history gets studied exactly?

[Laughing]. Of course they can make an educated assessment. However, they can form an even more ACCURATE educated assessment based on actual modern events they have witnessed. Fact.

It's a world-class DUMB point of view to suggest we can KNOW more about something we HAVE NOT seen compared with something we have. Madness.

You can read all you want about fighters - you will ALWAYS be putting FAITH in the writers OPINION. How can you possibly believe that is superior to something you've seen with your own eyes? Utter madness.

It's simply not true! If it were history would NEVER be studied beyond the lifetime of witnesses.

I mean let's face it, there's nothing more to learn beyond what you experience right? The angle from which your viewed was the perfect one, your mind wasn't distracted by other things, right?

You ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant?

The idea that one set of eyes watching something reveals "truth" is incredibly wrong. Especially in boxing. You ever hear of a split decision?

And no, when you read a SINGLE writer on something you are forced to simply accept or reject an opinion. When you read MANY writers, as well as trainers, fighters themselves, judges, you are forced to do no such thing. Instead you can do what historians do always and everywhere. Sift, compare, contrast, recheck etc. Then one make's one's own judgement.

It is far superior to being lazy and simply saying "It can't be known."

Of course for everyone but Greb the point is moot as plenty of footage exists...if you're willing to do the work.

You are viewing this totally arse backwards.

The fact that many sets of eyes interpret things different on a weekly basis is exactly why your FAITH in something you haven't seen is utterly naive.

It's as simple as this.

I give you 50 complete bouts of one fighter and 5 of another. Which one can you PERSONALLY form a stronger opinion from? It's not rocket science.

Just like in the old days - there are numerous conflicting reports of modern-day fights, however, we can now easily view these fights for ourselves without having to rely on the writers opinion. Is forming an opinion with our own eyes not superior to establishing one through conflicted written reports?

We also start out from a blinkered position when learning about "greats." We are TOLD they are great before we see them. Therefore we are NEVER assessing their careers with a clean slate. Their greatness has already been stamped into history. And our minds.

Whereas EVERY fighter we witness from our own era has been trying to achieve greatness. We follow their good nights and bad nights firsthand. They don't have the same romanticism attached to them as the already established great fighters. So maybe we are a little more cynical about them?

(on another note - you're 100% right about the linage argument )

[AdamGB]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

Stupid analogy... historical generals are only assessed against their contemporaries. Nobody looks at Napoleon through nostalgia tinted, vintage glasses and says that the armies and commanders of today just don't match up, he'd beat them and that has era was some mythical, glorious age of warfare.

You can judge napoleon against wellington... but could you really judge either against rommel? The enviroment and context that they existed had operated in had changed dramatically and more is known about rommel. History is written by the victor and the more history something is.. the less flaws you'll see.

All too often people are only too happy to compare old fighters that they've seen little of (and even less of their opposition, to accurately judge their standing) against modern fighters... without the context needed to properly do so.

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Which begs the question: How far removed from a fighters era can you honestly place that fighter in contextually. (does that even make sense?! )

I mean fighters of the 40's being compared with fighter of the 60's, sounds fine by me but what about fighters from the 30's being compared with fighters of the 70's? Wouldn't there be a fundamental flaw from just about every analytical angle?

[Fenster]

Which begs the question: How far removed from a fighters era can you honestly place that fighter in contextually. (does that even make sense?! )

I mean fighters of the 40's being compared with fighter of the 60's, sounds fine by me but what about fighters from the 30's being compared with fighters of the 70's? Wouldn't there be a fundamental flaw from just about every analytical angle?

Without doubt it's totally flawed. Boxing "experts" today get fights WRONG all the time. Doesn't matter who the "expert" is - fighter, trainer, writer, manager, matchmaker, promoter. Even with the benefit of following the fighters entire career progress, and having collateral form, they still get it wrong. That's the nature of the sport.

Judging fighters from different eras is nothing but pure fantasy. NO-one could ever be 100% right.

Virtually every fighter named on this thread has actually had a fantastic successful career. It's only our nerdness about this boxing lark that makes us see them as overrated. Great stuff.

[El Kabong]

I think Bowe is OK vs fighters with less power and in that instance I think he'd match up well vs Larry Holmes or Ali (I use Ken Norton as a precedent)but when you look at how Riddick handled Holyfield (or didn't) the pressure, the combinations, the power...(even Evander's power!) You've got to figure that a bigger puncher would have flattened Bowe. Bowe was lazy as shit on defense and if Briggs can catch Lennox Lewis good and basically knock him down (it should have been scored a knockdown because the ropes held him up) then you've got to figure he'd catch Bowe.

I think Morrison and Mercer would be very difficult for Bowe. If Rudduck was more consistent I would say he'd be a sure thing to beat Bowe.

[0james0]

How's this for controversy, I think Ali is over rated.

I've watched countless fights of his, not just the big ones, sometimes he wasn't that special at all. I think his persona gave him that little bit extra.

I'm not saying he was shit, of course not, but he certainly wasn't flawless like many think.

[0james0]

I should have read through the rest of the thread first!

Like I said, I'm not saying the guy (Ali) wasn't something special, but people make him out to be invincible, which he certainly was not.

I saw him struggle against some fairly average fighters (all be it he raised his game against some of the better ones)

Here's a question for you, do you learn more about a fighter from watching their very best fights or their worst?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

historical generals are only assessed against their contemporaries. Nobody looks at Napoleon through nostalgia tinted, vintage glasses and says that the armies and commanders of today just don't match up, he'd beat them and that has era was some mythical, glorious age of warfare.

You can judge napoleon against wellington... but could you really judge either against rommel? The enviroment and context that they existed had operated in had changed dramatically and more is known about rommel. History is written by the victor and the more history something is.. the less flaws you'll see.

Very Good Point btw. For a moment there, I was having flash backs to one of my favourite video Games!

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I agree with all so far (just to what degree still tbc).

What about Jack Dempsey? Huge draw, shit boxer.

[Pugilistic]

Nonito Donaire.

3rd best p4p in the world ?? I don't think so.

He's clearly a gifted fighter and he has good wins over Montiel and Darchinyan but what else, no one else appears to be worth mentioning.

Maybe i should learn more about the lower divisions before i make this post though.