Casting a closer eye over some of boxing's untouchables

First topic message reminder :

Howdy fellas, looks as if this may be my last chance to talk some boxing until the Bank Hol weekend is out of the way, so let's see if we can russle up some good debate.

I guess the article is pretty straight forward - are there any fighters, commonly lauded as 'great' or 'legendary' who, though it may be seen as boxing blasphemy to even whisper such an idea, you think just aren't quite worth the praise? It's a topic which has been touched upon before many times, but nevertheless, it tends to result in wildly contrasting opinions, and I imagine it's the kind of topic where new candidates are being thought up all the time, too.

So without further ado, allow me to get the ball rolling - Jimmy Wilde.

I must stress that this is all relative. Was Wilde a great fighter? Too right. But while I'm highly reluctant to use the word 'overrated', does he also get far too much credit considering who he largely compiled his record against, as well as being ranked far too generously in the pound for pound lists of fans and historians alike? You bet.

136-3-1 is a sensational accumulation of results on paper. But let's look closer; before Wilde even managed to get a booking at the National Sporting Club, he'd run up an 81-0-1 record, with 55 of those inside schedule, solely against the coal miners of Tylerstown and other surrounding areas in his native Wales. He came to prominence in 1914 when he finally got his first NSC booking, but you could say that he was incredibly fortunate that he was picked up on the basis of this; his opponent, Eugene Husson, was picked for no other reason than actually being smaller than Wilde, as he scaled under 100 lb (Peggy Bettinson, the head matchmaker of the National Sporting Club at the time, previously argued that Wilde was just too small, and that his being on the bill would provoke complaints from his members about bad matchmaking).

After that, Wilde was moved on quickly, but he was trounced in his first world title fight by old rival Tancy Lee (although it's commonly accepted that Wilde had been suffering from a bout of 'flu not long beforehand), and had to then beat the likes of Lee in a rematch, Johnny Rosner and Young Zulu Kid to unify the title and make his claim undisputed on both sides of the Atlantic - but seriously, what kind of rank can those names command in the pantheon of Flyweight legends?

Outside of that, Wilde does, admittedly, have some superb wins, with Bantamweight luminary Joe Lynch being the pick of the bunch. Sid Smith and, perhaps, 'Memphis' Pal Moore could be considered meritorious, too. But another Bantam great, Pete Herman, handled him with relative comfort before stopping him - and back in his own division, Pancho Villa relieved him of his title in 1923 with a beating so severe that Wilde later admitted that, for four months after the fight, he was unable to recognize anyone. Of course, War service had restricted Wilde's activity in the years beforehand, but I must say this - how can Wilde be so overwhelmingly considered the greatest Flwyweight of all time? Villa, Frankie Genaro and Miguel Canto all have records which are surely comparable, and yet they never seem to command the same recognition that Wilde receives to this day. The more time that passes, the more I find myself wondering if one of these names may actually belong ahead of Wilde in the all-time 112 lb stakes, nevermind have to fight for the crumbs which continue to fall from his table.

Wilde was, of course, a legitimate Flyweight great. But the eighth greatest fighter of all time across all weight divisions according to Boxing News? The landslide, all-time number one at Flyweight? The third greatest puncher across the weights of all time, in the eyes of Ring Magazine? Really? I'm not convinced.

It seems to me that Wilde's punching power, which has gained almost mythical status, has greatly inflated his actual career achievements in the eyes of many. I'm not denying that he was, indeed, a great - my contention is that he's just not as great as we've all been lead to believe over the years, open to abuse though that leaves me!

So, do you agree or disagree with me, and crucially, who else do you feel has a record which, for whatever reason, doesn't quite match up with popular opinion?

The floor is yours, fellas. Cheers.

TheMackemMawler wrote:If infact boxing is the Sweet Science then variables need to be taken into consideration, as with any other scientific discipline.

Well it isn't infact the sweet science. This is just a tag attached to it by a journalist many a year ago that has stuck. Is no more the sweet science than football is the beautiful game, horse racing is the sport of kings or golf is a good walk spoiled. Boxing is, always has been and always will be a sport and most assuredly not a science.

Ok cliches aside (even though it was only used to highlight a point...obviously?), variables still need to be taken into consideration when analysing records. Simples.

Sorry Alma it was a jest and not meant in anyway to imply you were psychotic. I would also like to make clear that Alma would in no way dance in glee at naz untimely demise but only if he was maimed.

As for Mackem - you cant judge them solely on record but it has to be a very large part of it as the base has to be there - allowances can be made for thing out of their control like the colour line but its always the record that counts.

Leonard had the looks but had he lost to hagler or hearns then he would be ranked significantly lower than he is now

For me the starting point with any fighter simply has to be the record because boxing like all sports is about winning, be it fights, trophies, belts or medals. Talent is reasonably meaningless in sport unless it is converted into actual acheivements. Krikland Laing is pretty much universally accepted as as gifted a fighter to have emerged from these shores in the last fifty years, would still rank him lower than Woods, Hatton and countless others who possesed but a fraction of his talent because Laing failed to show that talent when it actually matters

By the way boxing is quasi-scientific/artistic.....as are all sports.

Sport provides knowledge through study or practice, basically its a science. The individual flare that participates endow allow it to transend science and become an art form.

That's why you have to evaluate a record for what it is by either watching the fights or reading as much about the ones you can't. Harry Greb beating Tunney once out of 6 giving him a real beating gives an indication of his level by itself but with no video of the fights having read up a bit it becomes fairly clear he deserved better than the 5-1 series on paper. Now we can talk about ability all we want but being the only man to ever beat Tunney speaks volumes of Greb and that doesn't take into account the rest of his magnificent paper record.

Leonard and Duran offers the best example of how greater ability means nothing until it is proven, of the three fights they fought the most legitimate win belongs to the technically inferior Duran, close fight that it was but it highlights all the aspects that make up a great fighter, most importantly the mind.

Good to have you back from jollydays by the way, Ghosty. Been anywhere special?

rowley wrote:For me the starting point with any fighter simply has to be the record because boxing like all sports is about winning, be it fights, trophies, belts or medals. Talent is reasonably meaningless in sport unless it is converted into actual acheivements. Krikland Laing is pretty much universally accepted as as gifted a fighter to have emerged from these shores in the last fifty years, would still rank him lower than Woods, Hatton and countless others who possesed but a fraction of his talent because Laing failed to show that talent when it actually matters

Maybe the starting point, for you, is a fighters record because you don't know a jot about fighting?

With your knowledge of boxing history I'm sure you could list 10 unbeaten fighters...... many of which would be considered useless.

VARIABLES is all i'm saying.

Expand on that Mackem - what are the variables - then we'll apply them to someone mentioned in this thread.

88Chris05 wrote:Good to have you back from jollydays by the way, Ghosty. Been anywhere special?

speak for yourself

Only kidding ghosty, don't go nuts!

back on topic... Trinidad is not too great either

ShahenshahG wrote:Expand on that Mackem - what are the variables - then we'll apply them to someone mentioned in this thread.

Age, jumping weights, inactivity, taking fights at short notice, catch weights, fighting bums etc etc....they all effect a fighters record.

TheMackemMawler wrote:[

With your knowledge of boxing history I'm sure you could list 10 unbeaten fighters...... many of which would be considered useless.

Am sure I could but I don't see a deal of point in doing so unless you assume by record I only refer to numbers on a page, Brian Neilsen has, or certainly had at one point, a better numerical record than Ali, but given it was achieved against a far lesser level of opposition.

Also am not too sure why you would say I know nothing about fighting solely because I have acknowledged I have never done it. Jose Mourinho has never played football to any kind of standard but he seems to muddle by well enough.

I'm only toying Rowley, I know you know alot about the game really.

However, the first paragraph of what you just wrote is a paraphrase of my variable perspective? So why articulate it in a way to suggest you are adding something new?

Sorry i re-read your post and you were defending yourself, ok you don't judge a record on numbers, i get it.

No worries mate, I get the point you are making and I think largely we are on the same page. For me when you're reading a record taking into account such things as looking at level of opposition, nature of results (controversies, age of opponents, weight class etc) is pretty much a given, we're pretty much saying the same thing in different ways, and anything that means we end up with the conclusion Sven Ottke is rubbish works for me

Mackem, let me just make sure I'm clear on what your system for rating fighters in an all-time sense actually is.

Are you saying that you take in to account a lot of things, but that how talented a fighter was / is and how much natural ability they're blessed with is simply the single most important factor for you? Or are you saying that talent, ability and skill is the only thing we should consider?

If it's the first system, then I'd disagree slightly, but accept it as we all have our own systems and ideals, and because evaluating a fighter is a subjective thing in any case. However, if it's the second, then I'd not only disagree, but also say that it strikes me as a little odd and remiss to rate fighters in such a way.

Any chance you could clear up, one way or another, which of the two it is? Or give us a breakdown of your (seemingly) unique way of rating fighters from eras gone by?

And you don't think any of us take that into when assessing fighters? You don't simply go Leonard beat Hagler without taking into account as many variables as possible.

I'll use the LaMotta and Robinson series as an example this time, you start with the first five fights which were all relatively competitive with the much larger LaMotta able to impose his physicality on the far more gifted but smaller Robinson. From Robinsons standpoint despite being non title fights they speak more about him than the valentines day massacre, I get to that conclusion by taking into account as many variables as possible. The weight difference, the stages of their careers, recent opposition and performances, by the time of the sixth fight Lamotta had lost much of relentless pressuring and for the first time in his career faded down the stretch due to weight making issues.

88Chris05 wrote:Good to have you back from jollydays by the way, Ghosty. Been anywhere special?

Just went to Turkey for the week with the missus, must say I did miss the comfort of home cooked food while the heat did become unbearable, in short it was good but also glad to be back in england.

To be fair Chris I have no clue to how I rate fighters. If I like what I see I rate them. I am also very fickle and mood dependant.

Yes, I do rate skill and I do rate natural ability. However, toughness is also a natural ability.. as too is athleticism and genetic endurance.

I try to apply an above average knowledge of boxing history to my ratings, but most of all I rate fighters against my ideal self (a self that would have been fit, motivated and dedicated). However, I use the most flawed, deluded, primitive and subjective means on 606 to rate a fighter

Imperial Ghosty wrote:And you don't think any of us take that into when assessing fighters? You don't simply go Leonard beat Hagler without taking into account as many variables as possible.

I'll use the LaMotta and Robinson series as an example this time, you start with the first five fights which were all relatively competitive with the much larger LaMotta able to impose his physicality on the far more gifted but smaller Robinson. From Robinsons standpoint despite being non title fights they speak more about him than the valentines day massacre, I get to that conclusion by taking into account as many variables as possible. The weight difference, the stages of their careers, recent opposition and performances, by the time of the sixth fight Lamotta had lost much of relentless pressuring and for the first time in his career faded down the stretch due to weight making issues.

Yeah sure you do!!!!

"Winning is all that matters when it comes to it there are countless examples of fighters losing to fighters they have more ability than"

......Your words not mine.

Winning is all that matters but the greatness of a win is dependent on many factors, Berbick beating Ali doesn't mean anything while Frazier beating him does for obvious reasons.

So what you are saying is;

eating eggs is all that matters..... (as long as you eat carbohydrates and fats in the correct proportions)

...or, in other words, you're having your cake and eating it, by adding caveats to your original assertion.

Boxing is a results business not a talent show, boxer A beating boxer B is far more important than our perception of their respective talents but when it comes to comparing fighters you need to finely tune it all to come to a better conclusion.

hahaha! Enough already!