Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[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 )