What about a contemporary bias?

[Joonie73]

Angel has posted numerous times in regard to the bugbear of "old-timer bias." Although he has (as usual) written with much persuasive force & to some degree this bias unquestionably exists, I wonder if we are not overlooking what I think is the more prevalent bias: a bias for contemporary or present fighters.

The reason I think this particular bias is more prevalent is because humans by nature prefer the known & the familiar. In my own case, this is undoubtedly true. The fighters that I tend to under-rate are fighters from pre-Robinson days, of whom there is less existing literature & most important, less film footage. To give you examples, I don't know any pre-Robinson fighter other than Harry Greb & Gene Tunney whom I rank as high as the consensus. Jack Johnson doesn't even make my top 10 heavyweight list, nor does Young Griffo on any top 10 list, to name a few. Further, while some of my picks are chalked up to some kind of ethnic bias (which may be true in regard to how I rate Korean fighters, but is absurd in regard to how I rate Japanese fighters, as I am a Korean national [not American] & the Koreans feel about the Japanese as the Palestinians feel about the Jews), I think the real bias is based on familiarity. I tend to make excuses for Chang & Harada, because I know so much about them. But this isn't necessarily an ethnic preference. I've made excuses about Zarate in regard to his illness prior to the Gomez fight, because I knew about them. Other examples include my tendency to overlook Nelson's post-malaria performance in Fenech I. Again, if I didn't know about them, I would have simply said that Zarate & Nelson just got the butts handed to them by better fighters.

Nor do I think I am alone in this sort of bias. Although, they may not represent the informed boxing public, you will see all kinds of lunatic things being written in these contemporary v. past fighter match-ups across all boxing boards. In fact, even guys who are very smart & knowledgeable when discussing contemporary fighters turn into bumbling fools when they talk about old-timers. A number of rather intelligent fellows will never give any credit or chance to old-timers in these match-ups. There is a rather sharp fellow in another board who argues that Barrera would beat Saddler. Now, this is an outlandish opinion to begin with, but his reasoning is downright laughable: He thinks that Barrera would be able to out-muscle & beat up Saddler inside. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And so on...

Okay, I am getting off on a tangent & heading down the road of incoherence. So I should get my sleep-deprived self to bed. But the point is that the opposite bias should also be examined.

[ December 16, 2003, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Joonie73]

I would also add that when discussing the respective biases of the older folks & the younger folks, the younger folks who champion contemporary fighters have more proving to do in terms of not being blinded by bias. A lot of the older folks have seen both old-timers & the contemporary fighters. However, a lot of the younger folks haven't seen the old-timers & are often going on what they've seen in Boxrec. Again, the poster I mentioned who thinks Barrera beats Saddler, always forms his argument in the following way: "I have never seen X fight, but Y was so good that I can't believe X would beat him."

[Tam-Tam]

Contemporary bias is as real as any other form of bias, so I agree with about everything you said - other then this:
Other examples include my tendency to overlook Nelson's post-malaria performance in Fenech I. Again, if I didn't know about them, I would have simply said that Zarate & Nelson just got the butts handed to them by better fighters.
The Nelson example is exactly the way it appears. Nelson was beaten by a better fighter.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Angel has posted numerous times in regard to the bugbear of "old-timer bias." Although he has (as usual) written with much persuasive force & to some degree this bias unquestionably exists, I wonder if we are not overlooking what I think is the more prevalent bias: a bias for contemporary or present fighters.

The reason I think this particular bias is more prevalent is because humans by nature prefer the known & the familiar. In my own case, this is undoubtedly true. The fighters that I tend to under-rate are fighters from pre-Robinson days, of whom there is less existing literature & most important, less film footage. To give you examples, I don't know any pre-Robinson fighter other than Harry Greb & Gene Tunney whom I rank as high as the consensus. Jack Johnson doesn't even make my top 10 heavyweight list, nor does Young Griffo on any top 10 list, to name a few. Further, while some of my picks are chalked up to some kind of ethnic bias (which may be true in regard to how I rate Korean fighters, but is absurd in regard to how I rate Japanese fighters, as I am a Korean national [not American] & the Koreans feel about the Japanese as the Palestinians feel about the Jews), I think the real bias is based on familiarity. I tend to make excuses for Chang & Harada, because I know so much about them. But this isn't necessarily an ethnic preference. I've made excuses about Zarate in regard to his illness prior to the Gomez fight, because I knew about them. Other examples include my tendency to overlook Nelson's post-malaria performance in Fenech I. Again, if I didn't know about them, I would have simply said that Zarate & Nelson just got the butts handed to them by better fighters.

Nor do I think I am alone in this sort of bias. Although, they may not represent the informed boxing public, you will see all kinds of lunatic things being written in these contemporary v. past fighter match-ups across all boxing boards. In fact, even guys who are very smart & knowledgeable when discussing contemporary fighters turn into bumbling fools when they talk about old-timers. A number of rather intelligent fellows will never give any credit or chance to old-timers in these match-ups. There is a rather sharp fellow in another board who argues that Barrera would beat Saddler. Now, this is an outlandish opinion to begin with, but his reasoning is downright laughable: He thinks that Barrera would be able to out-muscle & beat up Saddler inside. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And so on...

Okay, I am getting off on a tangent & heading down the road of incoherence. So I should get my sleep-deprived self to bed. But the point is that the opposite bias should also be examined. I agree that it can work both ways. There are many uninformed boxing fans out that will utter statements such as, "Roy Jones Jr. was the greatest of all-time. He would've defeated Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, and Michael Spinks without a doubt!", without really being familiar with any of those fighters. But those comments shouldn't be taken seriously. Those are nothing but groupie statements.

For years I probably underrated Jones because of all the crap his groupies were spewing. It also didn't help that Jones wasn't testing himself per my standards. That made it easier to deny his greatness. Over the years, he wore on me and I could no longer deny what stood before me. He's one of the greatest talents I've ever seen in the ring but I can't rate him any higher than top 25-30 because others showed the hunger to test themselves, others fought most of the top challenges in and around their weight classes. Jones never did that. I must fault him for it.

I agree that a particular bias is more prevalent when we are more familiar with something. That's probably the reason that I tend to have a higher opinion of Chavez than most. That's probably the very same reason you have a higher opinion of Chang. Heck, you'd have a higher opinion of him even If I would've grown up following his career.

We gravitate towards that which we can somehow bond to. In the case of Chavez, I grew up worshipping him. I watched all of his major fights as a kid and rode the roller coaster ride while he was considered one of the world's best for almost 10 years. I know what I witnessed. He was something special, one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen in my entire life. If you didn't closely follow his career from the start, it's easy to go back, watch his fights and point out that he didn't look special or that his opposition is overrated etc.. In the other thread I made the point that the same can be done with almost any fighter. Unless you follow a great fighter closely you aren't going to get the same magical feeling unless you lived it. I keep that in mind when attempting to rate the fighters of the past.

I personally don't believe that I overrate the fighters of today. I feel that there are several who could hold their own or defeat many of the past greats. Am I crazy for believing that? I think not. All of the old-time fighters were human. With the exception of a few, most weren't unbeatable. As Tracy Callis wrote in the article I posted, "Very probably, the best fighters of any period in history could fight with each other on a highly competitive and 'near-equal' basis." I truly believe that.

Good post Joonie.

[ December 17, 2003, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Tam-Tam]

Ah, a few good posts strung back-to-back-to-back. Well done Rebel, I like how you put that.

You and I have similar (though not identical) opinions on Chavez and its just so hard to explain to someone who just doesn't see it.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Tam-Tam:
Ah, a few good posts strung back-to-back-to-back. Well done Rebel, I like how you put that.

You and I have similar (though not identical) opinions on Chavez and its just so hard to explain to someone who just doesn't see it. Thanks. Like Joonie, I think it's time I crashed out. I'm exhausted. I have to wake up at 6am to go to the gym. :D Cheers. graemlins/beer.gif

[Remus]

good points joonie and you're right. there is bias either way. the BIG difference however is that the vast majority of people can debate the more contempory fighters a hell of alot more objectively.

the old timers are hard for people to debate or express opinions cos footage tends to be limited and not widely available.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:
good points joonie and you're right. there is bias either way. the BIG difference however is that the vast majority of people can debate the more contempory fighters a hell of alot more objectively.

the old timers are hard for people to debate or express opinions cos footage tends to be limited and not widely available. Agreed. Throw in romanticized stories and it's tougher to rate old-timers.

[BJ*]

It depends on what the discussion is...who is greater? in an all-time sense? does that mean for their own generation or mythical head to head? Some people only see skills/ability. And to say that modern fighters have an advantage is NOT ridiculous. Athletic ability has increased in EVERY sport and that fact can be proven in sports that measure things like speed and strength...athletes are simply better.

Maybe an NFL example will help - Larry Csonka was a GREAT hard nosed running back for his time, and SHOULD rank as an all-time great running back for what he did in HIS day. That same man would not make the league today...if he did make it, he'd be an anonymous fullback brought in for blocking situations....

[Joonie73]

The advancement in athletic prowess over time is not so clear-cut as is generally believed. There was a famous article that was done about track & field & the conclusion was that the difference can be attributed to faster track & better shoes, etc. I am too lazy to get the article but some of you may know what I am talking about. Similarly, the difference in bench record, for instance, can be attributed to things like the bench shirt, the different lifting techniques & not entirely to dramatically stronger lifters.

Further, there are other factors than simply athletic prowess in boxing. Even if it were the case that today's athletes are faster, stronger & can jump higher, boxing is so skills-based that you'd have to factor in the differences in the skill level as well. The Csonka example is very imperfect, since running a football is a far more simpler task than boxing in terms of technique & skills perspective. If athletic prowess explained everything, Alonzo Highsmith would be better than Ali!


Originally posted by BJ*:
It depends on what the discussion is...who is greater? in an all-time sense? does that mean for their own generation or mythical head to head? Some people only see skills/ability. And to say that modern fighters have an advantage is NOT ridiculous. Athletic ability has increased in EVERY sport and that fact can be proven in sports that measure things like speed and strength...athletes are simply better.

Maybe an NFL example will help - Larry Csonka was a GREAT hard nosed running back for his time, and SHOULD rank as an all-time great running back for what he did in HIS day. That same man would not make the league today...if he did make it, he'd be an anonymous fullback brought in for blocking situations....

[ December 17, 2003, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[BJ*]

Good points...i have no retort...for now :D

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
The advancement in athletic prowess over time is not so clear-cut as is generally believed. There was a famous article that was done about track & field & the conclusion was that the difference can be attributed to faster track & better shoes, etc. I am too lazy to get the article but some of you may know what I am talking about. Similarly, the difference in bench record, for instance, can be attributed to things like the bench shirt, the different lifting techniques & not entirely to dramatically stronger lifters.

Further, there are other factors than simply athletic prowess in boxing. Even if it were the case that today's athletes are faster, stronger & can jump higher, boxing is so skills-based that you'd have to factor in the differences in the skill level as well. The Csonka example is very imperfect, since running a football is a far more simpler task than boxing in terms of technique & skills perspective. If athletic prowess explained everything, Alonzo Highsmith would be better than Ali!

Something else that should be noted is that African-Americans have had the most success in boxing. I definitely buy into the fast-twitch muscle theory. They're generally the fastest and quick-footed of the lot and boast the best reflexes. They've shown me that due to physical advantages, as a whole, they're more apt to succeed in boxing more than other ethnic groups. That is why it's hard for me to rate highly pre-1930 fighters who didn't compete in eras of full-integration. By not allowing those of color to fully participate, the quality of competition was watered down during those times. Of course, this is all strictly my opinion.

[ December 17, 2003, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Joonie73]

Angel the "Greek" Zurita tongue1.gif

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Angel the "Greek" Zurita tongue1.gif Greek? I don't get it. graemlins/headscratch.gif

That would be Remus Apostolus. graemlins/hump.gif tongue1.gif

[Joonie73]

LOL, you don't know about Jimmy the "Greek" Snyder? He made a similar comment about black football players & got canned by CBS smile.gif


Originally posted by Rebel:

Greek? I don't get it. graemlins/headscratch.gif

That would be Remus Apostolus. graemlins/hump.gif tongue1.gif

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
LOL, you don't know about Jimmy the "Greek" Snyder? He made a similar comment about black football players & got canned by CBS smile.gif

What exactly did he say? It sucks that someone would get canned for spilling the truth. :D

[Joonie73]

He said the same thing you said, except that he added it comes from physically chasing animals in the African wilds smile.gif


Originally posted by Rebel:

What exactly did he say? It sucks that someone would get canned for spilling the truth. :D

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
He said the same thing you said, except that he added it comes from physically chasing animals in the African wilds smile.gif

He didn't say that. I found this:

Jimmy (The Greek) Snyder was ejected from the public eye in 1988 when, on Martin Luther King's birthday, he said that blacks are better at sports because of slave plantation breeding techniques. "During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid?that's where it all started."

Now I don't claim to know why blacks have more fast-twitch muscles. That's a different discussion altogether. What I do know is that history has shown us that they have been the most successful group in boxing and science has shown they have the most fast-twitch muscles. Don't get my theories mixed up. smile.gif

[ December 17, 2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Rebel]

By the way, I've always theorized that Mexicans are the best non-black fighters because of their Aztec roots. They've got that killer instinct. hehe ;)

[Joonie73]

Hmmm. It must have been Bert Campanis who made the African wild comment then. It was one of the 2.


Originally posted by Rebel:

He didn't say that. I found this:

Jimmy (The Greek) Snyder was ejected from the public eye in 1988 when, on Martin Luther King's birthday, he said that blacks are better at sports because of slave plantation breeding techniques. "During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid?that's where it all started."

Now I don't claim to know why blacks have more fast-twitch muscles. That's a different discussion altogether. What I do know is that history has shown us that they have been the most successful group in boxing and science has shown they have the most fast-twitch muscles. Don't get my theories mixed up. smile.gif

[BJ*]

i don't even think it was jimmy the greek who went so far as the "slave breeding" theory.

surely we can find his exact quotes, but i thought he was more "scientific"...describing the higher, rounder calf muscle and higher buttocks...

[Rebel]

Originally posted by BJ*:

surely we can find his exact quotes, but i thought he was more "scientific"...describing the higher, rounder calf muscle and higher buttocks... Maybe he really got fired because they thought he was gay. LOL

[Remus]

check any boxing gym in the US and tell me the proportion of black prospects and mex prospects VS white prospects. i've been to scores of youth gyms all over the states and there's a 20-1 ratio of black/mex to white fellas.

when you consider it that way, you'll understand why mex/black fighters are so successful...it's all about proportions.

mind you, black fellas seem to be able to develop into better athletes. i don't have any scientific theory for that, it's just an observation.

this also gets back to the socio-economic base of boxing that i was discussing with rebz/tino in another thread. there are way more black/mex/prican guys in lower class US than there is white guys.

combine that with the "be like mike rolemodel/hero" theory.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:
check any boxing gym in the US and tell me the proportion of black prospects and mex prospects VS white prospects. i've been to scores of youth gyms all over the states and there's a 20-1 ratio of black/mex to white fellas.

when you consider it that way, you'll understand why mex/black fighters are so successful...it's all about proportions.

mind you, black fellas seem to be able to develop into better athletes. i don't have any scientific theory for that, it's just an observation.

this also gets back to the socio-economic base of boxing that i was discussing with rebz/tino in another thread. there are way more black/mex/prican guys in lower class US than there is white guys.

combine that with the "be like mike rolemodel/hero" theory. I use to buy into the whole proportion think until I took at look at the 30-70s. Boxing was pretty much still a balanced sport then. Despite that, blacks still produced the best greats.

It's a combination of factors mate but it's not so bad to admit that blacks are physically the best suited for the sport. It's not like I'm black trying to promote my own. I'm a Mexican-American telling it like it is. It's time to accept the truth. smile.gif

[Remus]

Originally posted by Rebel:
it's not so bad to admit that blacks are physically the best suited for the sport.yepp, like i said, black fellas tend to develop to be better athletes in most cases. buggered if i know why.

but it is also a combination of the other things i mentioned. i'd like to get X's opinion on this or muz or tap.

[Rebel]

BTW Remus, no one has ever really been able to answer this question for me. Will you take a crack at it? If the proportion theory were the truth of it all, seeing that many whites still do compete, wouldn't it make sense that at least a few great white fighters would pop up once in a great while? It's been a long time bro. LOL

[Remus]

Originally posted by Rebel:
BTW Remus, no one has ever really been able to answer this question for me. Will you take a crack at it? If the proportion theory were the truth of it all, seeing that many whites still do compete, wouldn't it make sense that at least a few great white fighters would pop up once in a great while? It's been a long time bro. LOL like we discussed. i guess the proportion theory is just a factor in the whole thing.

why is there no white fighters ? hmmm...well it's tied into the other theory i have...the "be like mike" theory. young white kids don't see white champions so it's the flow on effect from there.

that's not a racial thing, it's natural for kids to relate more to people that who look like them or have been where they are etc. thats the whole role model theory used in every country and race all over the world.

thats why sports have "era's". some examples in australia...

cricket: no one bowled leg spin for 40 years but a hero like shane warne comes along and all the kids wanna spin the ball.

AFL: a shitload of aboriginal players have broken the big league so the participation rate for young abo kids nowadays is enormous compared to 2-3 yrs ago. they didn;t all of a sudden develop skills. they now have role models.

Swimming: Ian Thrope, Keiran Perkins.

Boxing: Mundine and aboriginal kids, refer to AFL. Lebanese community is the same, the amount of leb kids now in training cos of the Hussein brothers and Hamden is astounding.

worldwide, look at soccer as a great example of teams that remain dominant cos their teams are great. look at the Finns in motorsport.

i could go on and on and there's probably a shitload more, but you get the picture.

[Remus]

this also relates to social issues. i do alot of social work with street kids and most kids can relate well to me cos i've been in there shoes., but aboriginal kids tend to relate better to abopriginal councellors and facilitators cos they know what it's all about.

i don;t consider these kids racist at all, i just think they can relate better to people who they can see is just like them.

btw: i hope we are mature enuf in this place to debate this race thing without accusations and outrage.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:

like we discussed. i guess the proportion theory is just a factor in the whole thing.

why is there no white fighters ? hmmm...well it's tied into the other theory i have...the "be like mike" theory. young white kids don't see white champions so it's the flow on effect from there.

that's not a racial thing, it's natural for kids to relate more to people that who look like them or have been where they are etc. thats the whole role model theory used in every country and race all over the world.

thats why sports have "era's". some examples in australia...

cricket: no one bowled leg spin for 40 years but a hero like shane warne comes along and all the kids wanna spin the ball.

AFL: a shitload of aboriginal players have broken the big league so the participation rate for young abo kids nowadays is enormous compared to 2-3 yrs ago. they didn;t all of a sudden develop skills. they now have role models.

Swimming: Ian Thrope, Keiran Perkins.

Boxing: Mundine and aboriginal kids, refer to AFL. Lebanese community is the same, the amount of leb kids now in training cos of the Hussein brothers and Hamden is astounding.

worldwide, look at soccer as a great example of teams that remain dominant cos their teams are great. look at the Finns in motorsport.

i could go on and on and there's probably a shitload more, but you get the picture. Mexicans don't give a shit about being like mike yet they're successful at the sport. The ones from Mexico fight to support their families. That falls into the socio-economic theory.

Interestingly, Mexican-Americans don't participate in the sport to the degree that Mexicans or blacks do as a whole, yet we still produce very good to great fighters. It has more to do with socio-economic and proportion issues IMO.

Remus, you still didn't address my question, why is it that among the white fighters that do compete, not one of them can take it all the way to the top? You'd think that at least one would pop up.

[ December 17, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Remus]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Mexicans don't give a shit about being like mike yet they're successful at the sport. The ones from Mexico fight to support their families. That falls into the socio-economic theory.

Interestingly, Mexican-Americans don't participate in the sport to the degree that Mexicans or blacks do as a whole, yet we still produce very good to great fighters. It has more to do with socio-economic and proportion issues IMO.

Remus, you still didn't address my question, why is it that among the white fighters that do compete, not one of them can take it all the way to the top? You'd think that at least one would pop up. ahhh but it does fall into the "be like mike" theory. chavez, dlh, marquez, morales, barrerra all WC fighters that lift the profile in mexico and more mexocan kids have posters of these blokes on their wall...national pride etc.

if it weren;t for a LONNNNNG line of mexican top notch boxers. eg: if they all took up soccer instead, we wouldn't be seeing the mex domination today IMO. the day mexico wins the world cup is the day mexican boxing suffers a huge blow.

as for the white guys, i did explain it best way i know how. otherwise they just aren't good enuf.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Remus:

ahhh but it does fall into the "be like mike" theory. chavez, dlh, marquez, morales, barrerra all WC fighters that lift the profile in mexico and more mexocan kids have posters of these blokes on their wall...national pride etc.

if it weren;t for a LONNNNNG line of mexican top notch boxers. eg: if they all took up soccer instead, we wouldn't be seeing the mex domination today IMO. the day mexico wins the world cup is the day mexican boxing suffers a huge blow.

as for the white guys, i did explain it best way i know how. otherwise they just aren't good enuf. In the case of Mexican nationals I think it has more to do with socio-economic theory plus the fact that the culture thrives on the whole machismo trait. Boxing is the perfect sport to exercise that trait.

BTW, you'd be surprised how many Mexicans do play soccer in Mexico. Boxing and Soccer are pretty even but Mexicans just seem to excel better in boxing than the latter for some reason. As a matter of fact, it's the only sport Mexicans really excel in.

[ December 17, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
Angel has posted numerous times in regard to the bugbear of "old-timer bias." Although he has (as usual) written with much persuasive force & to some degree this bias unquestionably exists, I wonder if we are not overlooking what I think is the more prevalent bias: a bias for contemporary or present fighters.

The reason I think this particular bias is more prevalent is because humans by nature prefer the known & the familiar. In my own case, this is undoubtedly true. The fighters that I tend to under-rate are fighters from pre-Robinson days, of whom there is less existing literature & most important, less film footage. To give you examples, I don't know any pre-Robinson fighter other than Harry Greb & Gene Tunney whom I rank as high as the consensus. Jack Johnson doesn't even make my top 10 heavyweight list, nor does Young Griffo on any top 10 list, to name a few. Further, while some of my picks are chalked up to some kind of ethnic bias (which may be true in regard to how I rate Korean fighters, but is absurd in regard to how I rate Japanese fighters, as I am a Korean national [not American] & the Koreans feel about the Japanese as the Palestinians feel about the Jews), I think the real bias is based on familiarity. I tend to make excuses for Chang & Harada, because I know so much about them. But this isn't necessarily an ethnic preference. I've made excuses about Zarate in regard to his illness prior to the Gomez fight, because I knew about them. Other examples include my tendency to overlook Nelson's post-malaria performance in Fenech I. Again, if I didn't know about them, I would have simply said that Zarate & Nelson just got the butts handed to them by better fighters.

Nor do I think I am alone in this sort of bias. Although, they may not represent the informed boxing public, you will see all kinds of lunatic things being written in these contemporary v. past fighter match-ups across all boxing boards. In fact, even guys who are very smart & knowledgeable when discussing contemporary fighters turn into bumbling fools when they talk about old-timers. A number of rather intelligent fellows will never give any credit or chance to old-timers in these match-ups. There is a rather sharp fellow in another board who argues that Barrera would beat Saddler. Now, this is an outlandish opinion to begin with, but his reasoning is downright laughable: He thinks that Barrera would be able to out-muscle & beat up Saddler inside. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. And so on...

Okay, I am getting off on a tangent & heading down the road of incoherence. So I should get my sleep-deprived self to bed. But the point is that the opposite bias should also be examined. Here is my issue?Robinson?s prime took place in the 147 lbs division. You are saying that footage is very important to rank fighters. There is no 147 lbs footage of Robinson. How come you are ranking a fighter number 1 ALL TIME GREAT, when you yourself indicated that footage is the most important thing to have.

Are you basing your ranking on the 160 lbs version of Robinson? If that is the case, then watching Robinson against Basilio should be enough to keep Sugar Ray from the top 10.

There is more than ?skills and talent? (things that can be viewed ?sometimes- by tape). Accomplishments is more important when ranking ALL TIME GREATS.

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Rebel:

Something else that should be noted is that African-Americans have had the most success in boxing. I definitely buy into the fast-twitch muscle theory. They're generally the fastest and quick-footed of the lot and boast the best reflexes. They've shown me that due to physical advantages, as a whole, they're more apt to succeed in boxing more than other ethnic groups. That is why it's hard for me to rate highly pre-1930 fighters who didn't compete in eras of full-integration. By not allowing those of color to fully participate, the quality of competition was watered down during those times. Of course, this is all strictly my opinion. They gained the most success in boxing?because they were not allowed to play MAJOR LEAGUE baseball, nor PROFESSIONAL golf, nor NBA basketball. Shit, they were not even allowed in Wall Street or the likes.

Boxing was perhaps the only sport that allowed for INTEGRATION, because fighters could fight OUTSIDE the USA if they wanted.


Also, there were Balck WORRLD CHAMPS pre 1930s. The only problem was the Hwys division thanks to spinless Dempsey.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:

They gained the most success in boxing?because they were not allowed to play MAJOR LEAGUE baseball, nor PROFESSIONAL golf, nor NBA basketball. Shit, they were not even allowed in Wall Street or the likes.

Boxing was perhaps the only sport that allowed for INTEGRATION, because fighters could fight OUTSIDE the USA if they wanted.


Also, there were Balck WORRLD CHAMPS pre 1930s. The only problem was the Hwys division thanks to spinless Dempsey. How do you explain their continued success in boxing once they were allowed to participate in those others sports?

[Joonie73]

1. I think you misunderstood my use of the phrase "most important" in this context. I didn't mean that film footage is the "most important thing to have" when we evaluate fighters; otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to rank most pre-70s greats.

Instead, what I meant was that the "most important problem" when evaluating the real old-timers (for instance, fighters from the turn of the centruy) is the relative lack of film footage.

2. You are completely wrong on Robinson footages at 147. I've seen at least 2 of Robinson's welterweight fights where a substantial part of the fight has been captured: the Fusari & the Abrams fights. Further, I've also seen a few other fights where very brief highlight has been captured (a minute or so). And there may be more out there.



Originally posted by Valentino:

Here is my issue?Robinson?s prime took place in the 147 lbs division. You are saying that footage is very important to rank fighters. There is no 147 lbs footage of Robinson. How come you are ranking a fighter number 1 ALL TIME GREAT, when you yourself indicated that footage is the most important thing to have.

Are you basing your ranking on the 160 lbs version of Robinson? If that is the case, then watching Robinson against Basilio should be enough to keep Sugar Ray from the top 10.

There is more than ?skills and talent? (things that can be viewed ?sometimes- by tape). Accomplishments is more important when ranking ALL TIME GREATS.

[ December 17, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Joonie73 ]

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Rebel:

How do you explain their continued success in boxing once they were allowed to participate in those others sports? Jews are now running Newspapers, TV Stations. Irish own liquor stores or members of the law. Italians are owners of 5-star restaurants. Other whites still owe Wall Street.

While the vast majority of blacks and other minority groups continue to struggle at greater numbers.

[Joonie73]

As an addendum, I just consulted boxing tape trade list from Boxingtalk & a poster there also has Angott III as well.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:

Jews are now running Newspapers, TV Stations. Irish own liquor stores or members of the law. Italians are owners of 5-star restaurants. Other whites still owe Wall Street.

While the vast majority of blacks and other minority groups continue to struggle at greater numbers. Now but not from the 30-70s. Stop being politically correct. When blacks and whites were competing on a more balanced level, blacks still came out on top as a whole. Want major evidence? Look at what happened when white America allowed a black man to compete for the coveted heavyweight crown. He won the title and began whipping everyone's ass. As a result, white America froze African-Americans from the heavyweight title picture for several years and what happened once Joe Louis challenged for it? That's right, he reigned supreme. Since then, blacks have been the most dominant heavyweights. I have nothing to gain by saying this. I'm calling it like I see it.

[ December 17, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

Marciano and now Klitsh appear to be the most dominant HWYs.

It is about social economics. Somebody wrote once a piece about Benny Leonard fighting the BEST BLACK lightweight of the time. And he did so in a matter of weeks knocking them out.

Who is boxing today? Boxing is not even top 7 sport in America. And most African-Americans are practicing other sports (certainly the most physically gifted ones). Boxing was top 2 sport in America pre-1930s.

EVERYBODY was practicing the sport. And there is more than the Hwy division in boxing. There were 7 other divisions in which BLACKS were participating and some were even GREAT champs (e.g. Joe Gans).

Boxing is a GHETTO sport. It just happens that today in AMERICA the ghetto is black and latino.

[Valentino]

Another thing?.Germans, Irish, Italians, and Jews wanted to be more ?American? (accepted) therefore, they started practicing BASEBALL (the true American pass time).

[KoCav]

Black athletes are far superior to any other race when it comes to boxing. That's why Duran can't be the greatest of all time.

[Valentino]

Originally posted by KoCav:
Black athletes are far superior to any other race when it comes to boxing. That's why Duran can't be the greatest of all time. LOL.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Valentino:
Marciano and now Klitsh appear to be the most dominant HWYs.

It is about social economics. Somebody wrote once a piece about Benny Leonard fighting the BEST BLACK lightweight of the time. And he did so in a matter of weeks knocking them out.

Who is boxing today? Boxing is not even top 7 sport in America. And most African-Americans are practicing other sports (certainly the most physically gifted ones). Boxing was top 2 sport in America pre-1930s.

EVERYBODY was practicing the sport. And there is more than the Hwy division in boxing. There were 7 other divisions in which BLACKS were participating and some were even GREAT champs (e.g. Joe Gans).

Boxing is a GHETTO sport. It just happens that today in AMERICA the ghetto is black and latino. Marciano came around in a time when Louis got old and the division was void of any real talent for a few years. Years after he retired came Liston and later Ali.

The Klitschkos are not the dominant hwys today. That remains to be seen. The last time I checked, Wlad got destroyed by a fat South African and Vitali already has a loss on his record due to a quit job. Both still have a lot to prove.

My point is that when everyone was participating on equal terms, African-Americans were at the top. Just look at your top 30 all-time ratings. It doesn't take a genius to see the obvious.

[ December 17, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Rebel]

Originally posted by KoCav:
Black athletes are far superior to any other race when it comes to boxing. That's why Duran can't be the greatest of all time. Sugar Ray Robinson is the man. graemlins/thumb.gif