The problem with Boxrec...

[Joonie73]

Here is what a poster wrote in another forum:

"This is a hypothesis I have. The availability of free boxer records on-line actually stands to hurt discussions on mythical matchups involving old-timers, and, in general, comparisons between old-timers and other boxers. The main reason is simple. In the absence of boxrec, to feel confident in discussing an old-timer (in a mythical matchup or parallel with other boxer), one would have had to either watch a good deal of film or at least read extensive chronicles, articles, or books about the old-timer. With boxrec available, many feel they can just look at the printed record (which is often times incomplete/inaccurate), and automatically be entitled to handicap a matchup involving the old-timer or compare him with others in terms of greatness or skill. I believe this misuse of boxrec creates quite a few problems in these discussions. Opinions?"

[Joonie73]

My response:

"Agree 100 percent.

There are many problems with reliance on Boxrec. First, as you say, the records there are incomplete/inaccurate, in particular in regard to old-timers & foreign fighters. Second, there is a general problem with relying on pure won/loss records, even if Boxrec were complete/accurate. You actually do not know how the fights actually unfolded. For instance, the inability to distinguish unjust decisions is a huge problem, which is obviously my pet peeve. Moreover, not all wins or losses are created equal. Let's take 2 12 round KOs for instance. They look the same on paper. But in 1 of them, the loser loses every round & is administered a coup de grace (e.g. Hopkins v. Trinidad); in the other, the loser is winning but gets caught in the end (e.g. Gonzalez v. Kim). They are obviously not the same. Third, you cannot obviously tell how styles will mesh by relying on paper records. A fighter who is a lot inferior overall may be able to beat or be competitive with better fighters for style reasons (I think Hwang v. Trinidad could be an example).

Also, I want to add 1 more thing, though it may not be a Boxrec issue. There is a tendency among the younger guys to be overly impressed with undefeated records & conversely dismiss guys with a lot of losses. But they ignore the fundamental changes in the sport. A guy like Kang-Il Suh probably fought over 100 fights in a decade (and less than half of those fights are recorded in Boxrec, by the way). Fighters like that weren't babied & took basically everything out there. Obviously they couldn't get up for every fight, nor could they postpone fights as easily as some of the marquee guys do today, even if something was wrong. But at his best, I think Suh was quite good & was able to dominate Elorde in their world title match from every account I have read. He also seems to have won the other fight with Elorde & beat a later world champion in Mando Ramos, as well as a few other excellent fighters. And because mythical fights involve best v. best, I would say that he has a decent shot at beating Floyd at 135 at his best, considering how their styles mesh. But as soon as I post this, I am sure the younger guys would ridicule me & be all over me."

[Remus]

most people are happy to base opinions on pre 1930's guys on records and glorified legend.

i do agree in part with you're opinion though. it does kinda smack of elitism though.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Joonie73:
My response:

"Agree 100 percent.

There are many problems with reliance on Boxrec. First, as you say, the records there are incomplete/inaccurate, in particular in regard to old-timers & foreign fighters. Second, there is a general problem with relying on pure won/loss records, even if Boxrec were complete/accurate. You actually do not know how the fights actually unfolded. For instance, the inability to distinguish unjust decisions is a huge problem, which is obviously my pet peeve. Moreover, not all wins or losses are created equal. Let's take 2 12 round KOs for instance. They look the same on paper. But in 1 of them, the loser loses every round & is administered a coup de grace (e.g. Hopkins v. Trinidad); in the other, the loser is winning but gets caught in the end (e.g. Gonzalez v. Kim). They are obviously not the same. Third, you cannot obviously tell how styles will mesh by relying on paper records. A fighter who is a lot inferior overall may be able to beat or be competitive with better fighters for style reasons (I think Hwang v. Trinidad could be an example).

A loss is a loss unless it was via controversial KO, DEC or DQ IMO. If a fighter is winning every round and gets caught at the end, that's his own fault. [img]graemlins/nod.gif[/img]

[ December 18, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

[Valentino]

Originally posted by Rebel:

A loss is a loss unless it was via controversial KO, DEC or DQ IMO. If a fighter is winning every round and gets caught at the end, that's his own fault. [img]graemlins/nod.gif[/img]

Agreed.

A lost is a lost (unless a person blatantly quit).

One thing is for sure?tapes doesn?t measure much.

People nowadays watch the Chavez-Taylor-I fight and the Frazier-Ali-I fight and they don?t feel the same ?electricity? we felt back then. They don?t even feel the same electricity that was felt the night Number One P4P Gomez was dismantled by Sal Sanchez.

Tapes are good to see a SNAPSHOT in time. But not good enough to see the ENTIRE picture. Nothing replaces living in that era.

That?s why I give LOT MORE WEIGHT to accomplishments and desire. Those are things that can be measured accurately. Skills and talent cannot be measure as accurately, because if we didn?t live in that era, we have to rely on tapes that only capture certain snapshot in time.

It is like saying that Einstein was more successful than Bill Gates, because Einstein has a GENIOUS IQ. Well, Gates was more successful, because I can measure his success with $$$ and cents.

Who you rather be? A loony-tune like Einstein or a BILLIONAIRE like Gates?

[Valdosta]

While I agree that watching a tape of a fight isn't the same as watching it live, tapes serve a purpose. How do you know if a guy like Chang matches up well with Lopez if you have never seen him fight and only look at his record?? You can't. While tapes don't capture the "electricity" of the event they help a lot in evaluating a fighter. I don't like to say to much about a fighter unless I have seen him before. Thanks to videotape, I don;t have to worry about that to much [img]smile.gif[/img]