Question, Boxing Historians

[GJC]

OK well lets kick off by me posting my recent top 20 atg p4p list (not including heavys :

Arguello
Armstrong
Burley
Charles
Duran
Fitzsimmons
Gans
Greb
Hagler
Jones (RJJ)
Langford
Leonard (Benny)
Leonard (SRL)
Moore
Pep
Robinson
Ross
Sanchez
Whitaker
Wilde

Now I'm sure some will agree with a few and some will forward good cases for other fighters but its my list so there. Now you will notice a couple of things:
1) With the exception of Roy Jones all are now finished. Jones is on there because to my mind his career is behind him.
2) My choices are pretty reasonably spread throughout the last 100 years.

I hate the word historian as all we are is guys with an opnion, so any reasonable person I believe will have to start thinking about making room for Pacquiao on their top 20 list.
But who is to say he doesn't get his butt kicked in his next 3 fights and how would you evaluate that with what has gone before? If you drew the line in the sand at a point in say Benetiz or DLH's career you might well be putting them on your ATG list assuming they arn't already on. So what I am saying in a long winded way is hold fire until the story is written.

[GJC]

cause some of you "boxing historians" seems to throw a fit if someone mentions a modern fighter, beating those fighters, even if they present a very valid argument in doing so.

Always happy to listen to valid arguments on the strengths of modern fighters. But what you have to understand is that I have been following boxing for 60 years so fpr example when I put up a top 20 p4p list as above I don't demand people to agree with it but I would hope they give me the credit of at least having given it some thought.
When they then expect me to chop 5 names off it to accomodate Pac, PBF, BHop, Mosley and Williams just because they feel that they have been lucky enough to start watching boxing 18 months ago at the start of in their opinion the greatest ever era of boxing I might argue otherwise.
Fair or being a stick in the mud?

[aether]

Always happy to listen to valid arguments on the strengths of modern fighters. But what you have to understand is that I have been following boxing for 60 years so fpr example when I put up a top 20 p4p list as above I don't demand people to agree with it but I would hope they give me the credit of at least having given it some thought.
When they then expect me to chop 5 names off it to accomodate Pac, PBF, BHop, Mosley and Williams just because they feel that they have been lucky enough to start watching boxing 18 months ago at the start of in their opinion the greatest ever era of boxing I might argue otherwise.
Fair or being a stick in the mud?

that is fair..

what im saying is some of these fighters are being shut out unreasonably for the reason that they are fighting in an era that was not as "hardcore" as those fighting back in the day. its not their fault the sport has changed.

don't get me wrong. im not to force anyone on someone else' list. i don't even make claims that modern fighters that I like are within the top 20 list. even making a top 10 at heavyweight is subject to debate, much more making a list concerning all time regardless of weight classes. i feel im not qualified enough to create a list on my own. so im not gonna make claims until i know enough about those fighters.

i would like however that those who are qualified to make such lists to not completely shut out fighters that deserve to be there.

[aether]

Amen to everything you said. In the last 10 years, I would say that fighters like Hopkins, Toney, Mayweather, Barrera, PacMan, Lewis, Morales and Mosley would have held their own in any era. Just like Ali, Robinson, Sugar and Benny Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, etc would do very well in this era. Great fighters are great fighters, period

exactly my point.....

[mickey malone]

QUOTE
Arguello
Armstrong
Burley
Charles
Duran
Fitzsimmons
Gans
Greb
Hagler
Jones (RJJ)
Langford
Leonard (Benny)
Leonard (SRL)
Moore
Pep
Robinson
Ross
Sanchez
Whitaker
Wilde

Very good list you have there
Is it set in the order you rate them, or not?
Reason I ask, is I thought you'd have SRR a fair bit higher..

[GJC]

QUOTE
Arguello
Armstrong
Burley
Charles
Duran
Fitzsimmons
Gans
Greb
Hagler
Jones (RJJ)
Langford
Leonard (Benny)
Leonard (SRL)
Moore
Pep
Robinson
Ross
Sanchez
Whitaker
Wilde

Very good list you have there
Is it set in the order you rate them, or not?
Reason I ask, is I thought you'd have SRR a fair bit higher..

No the ultimate cop out they are in alphabetical order
SRR would be top that never changes but the rest alter and amend on a whim.
My worry is if Pac beats Mayweather and finishes his career with a flourish who do I drop?

[GJC]

i feel im not qualified enough to create a list on my own. so im not gonna make claims until i know enough about those fighters.

i would like however that those who are qualified to make such lists to not completely shut out fighters that deserve to be there.

Everyone is qualified to make a list its only opinion and I wouldn't be arrogant enough to put my opinion above yours or anyone elses. All I would ask is for someone not to discount say Benny Leonard because he fought 80 odd years ago in black and white. By the same token it would be fair that someone made the same point to me about a newer fighter I hadn't seen much of.
Re the old v new argument a couple of articles worth reading if you haven't are:





In fact coxscorner is an interesting site and has some good biographies on the older fighters.

As I said don't put yourself or your opinions down because you do not feel you have enough knowledge, you seem a logical person read up and make your own mind up. The thing that irritates me and other old timers is people who say a fighter is no good and you then find they no zero about him.

[RightCross94]

Everyone is qualified to make a list its only opinion and I wouldn't be arrogant enough to put my opinion above yours or anyone elses. All I would ask is for someone not to discount say Benny Leonard because he fought 80 odd years ago in black and white. By the same token it would be fair that someone made the same point to me about a newer fighter I hadn't seen much of.
Re the old v new argument a couple of articles worth reading if you haven't are:





In fact coxscorner is an interesting site and has some good biographies on the older fighters.

As I said don't put yourself or your opinions down because you do not feel you have enough knowledge, you seem a logical person read up and make your own mind up. The thing that irritates me and other old timers is people who say a fighter is no good and you then find they no zero about him.

That fighters past article is ridiculous. Joe Gans beating Pernell Whitaker? Gans hitting like Felix Trinidad? What a load of ****. Feinting and countering is a lost art? WTF? The people who write these articles probably haven't stepped into a gym in years, if ever. If they did they'd know that many young kids are being taught to counterpunch every day, amateurs and pros.

I love boxing, but there's so many out of touch morons in the game.

By the way, I don't think all modern fighters are better. There's great fighters from several eras. But it can't be denied that basic boxing technique improved greatly from the 20's/30's onwards.

[mickey malone]

No the ultimate cop out they are in alphabetical order
SRR would be top that never changes but the rest alter and amend on a whim.
My worry is if Pac beats Mayweather and finishes his career with a flourish who do I drop?

And if PBF beats PAC?

[Marcov]

I don't know if I consider myself an historian but I have followed the sport with a passion for 20 years and studied constantly. When I look at fighters like Pacquiao now it is hard to imagine how anyone in the past can beat him. When I look back at guys like Duran and Leonard and all their losses they look beatable.

Please don't let that fool you!

Looking back at a fighters whole career is the only way to assess how good he really is. I mean years after he's retired. Fighters now all can look unbeatable.

After watching guys like these old time fighters come and go and new ones come along I have realized I can't really judge accomplishments without it being in hindsight.

It is also why I am a doubter of the latest fighters(at least til all is said and done)