Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

[Boilermaker]

It is often said by people that they cant rank fighters if they havent seen them fight. It sounds good and it makes sense, but is film really as good a guage as you would think?

Take for example a David Haye vs Wlad Klitchsko. If we look at their records, it clear that at the moment, Wlad is fighting better fighters and winning more emphatically. Even with the little evidence we have, Haye's record is not impressive and if you knew nothing about these fighters, there is no way that you would favour anyone but Wlad to win. On paper, i think that realistically the most logical prediction is Wlad by UD.

Looking at film though, many people are blinded by some spectacular KOs of Haye and quite a lot of people are actually selecting him to cause problems or do well against WLad. I myself think that film shows Haye to be badly open to Wlads straight shots and long hooks and i think that Wlad will KO him. Others obviously have other views, but realistically, is any method better than the other. The on paper method actually seems to produce the most uniform predictions and is probably the most succesful method, as using film it is very subjective and often a 5050 proposition.

Wlad Haye is just one example, there are millions of others and no prediction method is ever 100% correct, but, like it or not film can be misleading. It is impossible to watch the class factor and you never know when fighters can or cant step it up. The only thing that can hint at this is their actual record and results. A good example, i can think of is Jimmy Thunder who looked a world beater early on on film and at certain times, but his record later showed that he simply wasnt. So, my question is film as important in picking matches as many people sem to think it is? I tend to think it isnt. Quite often boxrec warriors have as much success in tipping fights as those who study film and know fighters styles etc.

[My2Sense]

Looking at the fighters fight is how you can predict upsets though. Looking at the records will only tell you who the favorite should theoretically be.

[Boilermaker]

Looking at the fighters fight is how you can predict upsets though. Looking at the records will only tell you who the favorite should theoretically be.

Watching makes it more interesting too:good

But one of the points i am getting at is that the records may be easier to tell who will win. So often i hear people say (for example) that they cant rate Greb because they havent seen him. Or jeffries wasnt skilled enough (due to his fight against johnson) etc. If what you are saying is correct, then when picking fantasy fights, it is best to go off the record as this will tell you who the favourite should be. The favourite wins more often than not. If a fighter looks poor on film, should this outweight the fact that he has beaten better fighters than another fighter?

[KTFO]

Yep. Because after watching Vic Darchinyan you wouldn't think he's top material.

[Boxed Ears]

Ask trainers who study films diligently if it's better or not. And when you read about fighters like Harry Greb, without actually seeing them fight...you have to go by not just the records but what those who did in fact see firsthand.

[KTFO]

And when you read about fighters like Harry Greb, without actually seeing them fight...you have to go by not just the records but what those who did in fact see firsthand.



Which could be a hard task cause no one ever really witnessed.

[Boxed Ears]

Which could be a hard task cause no one ever really witnessed.

No one ever witnessed? I'm not sure what you mean. He got boatloads of newspaper decisions...he was being watched. That's what I meant, their accounts. Eye-witnesses.

[Jersey Joe]

The main problem with film is that people ignore opponent quality. Here's a good example:

Nassim Hamed looked amazing on film during his initial run. So did Roy Jones. The fact is though, both of them were fighting journeymen at best - it was easy for such great athletes to look amazing against them. So, in that part of their careers, against stiffs and bums, the film meant nothing other than that they would dominate stiffs and bums.

Later on, Jones stepped up to fight the best in the division, and went on to school Toney and cruise past Hopkins. He also slaughtered respectable contenders in total shutouts. Hamed, on the other hand, struggled against Kevin Kelly, and then got a boxing lesson from Barrera.

The film of these fighters against journeymen was not that useful, because the skill gap was so great. The film of these fighters against top opposition was very useful. It told you that Hamed was a banger who wouldn't actually box, but rather showboat and then try to land one-punch KOs relying on his speed. That works against bums but not great fighters with sound defence. The film showed that Jones would throw combinations that were good enough to hit and hurt even the best boxers, it also showed that unlike Hamed he was very good at staying out of trouble even against very skilled fighters.

So IMO if you use film properly, it can only give you more information and thus better judgement on a fighter. I sometimes bet on boxing matches, when I think there's an edge, and I would never do it on a fighter I haven't seen (unless odds got stupid like 20-1, then almost anyone has a puncher's chance). The important thing is to keep in mind what the opponent quality is like. A boxer looking great against a stiff is not that meaningful; looking pretty decent against a champion is very meaningful (e.g. Azumah Nelson vs Sanchez).

The other thing you can see on film is technique and mistakes boxers make. Freddie Roach said one reason he was so sure Hatton would lose to Pac is because of all the mistakes he saw him make on film, for example. Top trainers always study film of upcoming contenders for their fighters. If it were useless then they wouldn't bother.

[bodhi]

Looks can be very deceiving like Jersey Joe already pointed out. So, for ranking fighters it may be better to don't watch the fighter you intend to rank. But if you want to train for an opponent you need to watch him fight to analyse him.
It really depends what you wanna do. Rank him, make a guess about a fight or beat him.

[Bill Butcher]

Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

Absolutely not.

My reasoning ?..... How many times have you read or heard about a fight, then watched it & had a completely different view of what happened ?

I do agree that record/resume is very important but I prefer to judge with my own eyes, I like to compare the available footage with both the fighters record & all that was written about them, mix it all together & rank them accordingly.

[Bill Butcher]

It is often said by people that they cant rank fighters if they havent seen them fight. It sounds good and it makes sense, but is film really as good a guage as you would think?

Take for example a David Haye vs Wlad Klitchsko. If we look at their records, it clear that at the moment, Wlad is fighting better fighters and winning more emphatically. Even with the little evidence we have, Haye's record is not impressive and if you knew nothing about these fighters, there is no way that you would favour anyone but Wlad to win. On paper, i think that realistically the most logical prediction is Wlad by UD.

Looking at film though, many people are blinded by some spectacular KOs of Haye and quite a lot of people are actually selecting him to cause problems or do well against WLad. I myself think that film shows Haye to be badly open to Wlads straight shots and long hooks and i think that Wlad will KO him. Others obviously have other views, but realistically, is any method better than the other. The on paper method actually seems to produce the most uniform predictions and is probably the most succesful method, as using film it is very subjective and often a 5050 proposition.

Wlad Haye is just one example, there are millions of others and no prediction method is ever 100% correct, but, like it or not film can be misleading. It is impossible to watch the class factor and you never know when fighters can or cant step it up. The only thing that can hint at this is their actual record and results. A good example, i can think of is Jimmy Thunder who looked a world beater early on on film and at certain times, but his record later showed that he simply wasnt. So, my question is film as important in picking matches as many people sem to think it is? I tend to think it isnt. Quite often boxrec warriors have as much success in tipping fights as those who study film and know fighters styles etc.

There is your answer to your own question.

Without question, its better to view.

[PowerPuncher]

No

[DDA365]

no

otherwise youre just looking at statistics

you might as well have a discussion over whether 28 is a higher number than 25 if all youre going to pay attention to are the figures

[KTFO]

Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

Absolutely not.




So you'd rank a complete bum very high just because he got an exciting style?

Congrats, you just took away the rest of your credibility.

[Legend X]

no

otherwise youre just looking at statistics

you might as well have a discussion over whether 28 is a higher number than 25 if all youre going to pay attention to are the figures

I know the consensus rates 28 somewhere between 27 and 29, but I think it's overrated.

28 doesn't make my top 50, to be honest. Not enough depth.
I have 25 about where everyone else does.
:D

[Sweet Pea]

So you'd rank a complete bum very high just because he got an exciting style?

Congrats, you just took away the rest of your credibility.He has no credibility because he insisted that boxing should be watched rather than simply read about? Congratulations, you just added to the many reasons you credibility is already in the gutter.

[frankenfrank]

seeing bernard hopkins use his foul style of holding and leading head first is a great example of a misleading record. as his record may look impressive (although really not very impressive) his foul style tells you he actually should have got TD's and LDQ's on his record instead of the majority of his more respected wins. also one should remember stories like tarver was drained from trimming from the 220 he was for the rocky balboa movie even more than jones was drained from the 193 he was for ruiz before tarver.
also the elbows explain a big part of tyson's greatness and there are so many more examples.
the records are important for ranking and evaluating but watching the fights (the important ones) helps in the judging of the records.

[My2Sense]

Take for example a David Haye vs Wlad Klitchsko. If we look at their records, it clear that at the moment, Wlad is fighting better fighters and winning more emphatically. Even with the little evidence we have, Haye's record is not impressive and if you knew nothing about these fighters, there is no way that you would favour anyone but Wlad to win. On paper, i think that realistically the most logical prediction is Wlad by UD.



True, but a month or so ago, you could've very well made the same assessment about Haye and Valuev if you only looked at their records.

[Bill Butcher]

So you'd rank a complete bum very high just because he got an exciting style?

Congrats, you just took away the rest of your credibility.

If anyone has lost credability its you.

I never said dont look at the statistics, record/resume etc.... I answered the thread question which was `is it better to rank fighters without watching them ?`..... the answer is clearly no, waste of thread IMO.

Check back on my posts, its best to know the record & stats of a fighter as well as view them, thats what IM saying..... what YOUR saying is that its best to know the record & stats of a fighter WITHOUT viewing them in action.

Thats retarded.

[KTFO]

He has no credibility because he insisted that boxing should be watched rather than simply read about? Congratulations, you just added to the many reasons you credibility is already in the gutter.


Sweet Pee, we don't speak about boxing in general, we speak about rankings. Of course you didn't realize that because you're too narrow-minded.
btw, are you BB's saviour? I didn't address you at all. :think

[KTFO]

(1)
If anyone has lost credability its you.

(2)
I never said dont look at the statistics, record/resume etc.... I answered the thread question which was `is it better to rank fighters without watching them ?`..... the answer is clearly no, waste of thread IMO.

Check back on my posts, its best to know the record & stats of a fighter as well as view them, thats what IM saying..... what YOUR saying is that its best to know the record & stats of a fighter WITHOUT viewing them in action.

Thats retarded.


(1) Not at all. My point is clear and reasonable.

(2) It's not necessary to see footage of a boxer if the task is to rank his resume by achievements. If you rank a boxer higher, just because he had an interesting style, now that's retarded. btw, no one really saw serious footage of Harry Greb, but there are lots of posters who have him within top 10 of an ATG list. How do you explain this phenom?

[KTFO]

No one ever witnessed? I'm not sure what you mean. He got boatloads of newspaper decisions...he was being watched. That's what I meant, their accounts. Eye-witnesses.



:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


Where are they? Names please.

[Bill Butcher]

(1) Not at all. My point is clear and reasonable.

(2) It's not necessary to see footage of a boxer if the task is to rank his resume by achievements. If you rank a boxer higher, just because he had an interesting style, now that's retarded. btw, no one really saw serious footage of Harry Greb, but there are lots of posters who have him within top 10 of an ATG list. How do you explain this phenom?

Your talking to the wrong guy.... Im one of the few posters that only rank fighters Ive seen enough decent footage of, doesnt mean Greb wouldnt be in my top 3 if I seen him fight or it doesnt even mean he wasnt the very best p4p fighter that ever lived..... it simply means that I cant put him on my personal list if I dont have footage as I judge on Record, knowledge of career & footage, everybody is different, I need footage.

[lolb]

Is it better to rank fighters without watching them?

Absolutely not.

My reasoning ?..... How many times have you read or heard about a fight, then watched it & had a completely different view of what happened ?

I do agree that record/resume is very important but I prefer to judge with my own eyes, I like to compare the available footage with both the fighters record & all that was written about them, mix it all together & rank them accordingly.


Totally agree with this :good

This is why I find it hard to judge the early fighters like Greb, Langford etc. All we have to go on really is the written word and other peoples opinions.

[KTFO]

Totally agree with this :good

This is why I find it hard to judge the early fighters like Greb, Langford etc. All we have to go on really is the written word and other peoples opinions.


As if the vid footage would change anything in credibility. :lol:

[Bill Butcher]

As if the vid footage would change anything in credibility. :lol:

OK then, why dont you just read about all the upcoming fights from now on... I`ll watch them.

[Ezzard]

It seems like an absurd thread title and yet there is some sense to it.

Trainers and fighters study film. Bookies go by form and record (plus other historic statistical factors)... Bookies almost never lose.

[Bill Butcher]

It seems like an absurd thread title and yet there is some sense to it.

Trainers and fighters study film. Bookies go by form and record (plus other historic statistical factors)... Bookies almost never lose.

Bookies watch fights too, dont kid yourself :good

[Ezzard]

Bookies watch fights too, dont kid yourself :good

Agree... and they may factor in a very basic scissors-paper-stone argument but they don't build their models based upon styles.

[Addie]

I don't rank fighters unless I've seen footage of them, if it's minimal but backed up with articles I've read from credible sources, then that's okay too.

[Sweet Pea]

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl


Where are they? Names please.So now you're insinuating that noone ever saw Greb fight? Did these fights between himself and his opponents take place in back alleys where they decided to settle their dispues together, with noone else around? How stupid are you? Really?

[Flea Man]

As if the vid footage would change anything in credibility. :lol:

Well the footage of Langford paints him as a very good offensive fighter. Coupled with his GUARANTEED and PROVEN toughness and he'd be a handful for any fighter, regardless of era.

And it's not 'ranking someone because of an interesting style'; by watching a fighter you can get a gauge of how good they are. Not only can you see WHO they beat but HOW they beat them.

As I always put it; 'It's how you seperate the Sven Ottke's from the ATG's':good

Now fuck off to the General, you're a waste of thread space. I'd prefer Cotto20 to you:lol:

[Addie]

Well the footage of Langford paints him as a very good offensive fighter. Coupled with his GUARANTEED and PROVEN toughness and he'd be a handful for any fighter, regardless of era.

And it's not 'ranking someone because of an interesting style'; by watching a fighter you can get a gauge of how good they are. Not only can you see WHO they beat but HOW they beat them.

As I always put it; 'It's how you seperate the Sven Ottke's from the ATG's':good

Now fuck off to the General, you're a waste of thread space. I'd prefer Cotto20 to you:lol:

If I listened to most people's accounts of Myung-Woo Yuh he was a talentless work horse. Video footage educated me further.

[KTFO]

So now you're insinuating that noone ever saw Greb fight? Did these fights between himself and his opponents take place in back alleys where they decided to settle their dispues together, with noone else around? How stupid are you? Really?


Just stfu and watch 'The last unicorn' for the 86th time.

[Flea Man]

If I listened to most people's accounts of Myung-Woo Yuh he was a talentless work horse. Video footage educated me further.

Those 'in the know' would not have said so:deal:lol::good

[Addie]

Those 'in the know' would not have said so:deal:lol::good

Along with Jung-Koo Chang & Soo-Hwan Hong, Yuh is generally considered one of the 3 best Korean boxers ever by the general Korean boxing public (this is strictly from various online polls conducted in Korea), though the opinion of the Korean experts is more divided, for the reasons below. For instance, Mr. Oh, one of the editors at Crosscounter (the only major Korean boxing magazine) does not consider Yuh a top 5 Korean boxer ever nor a top 5 junior flyweight ever, which is somewhat mirrored by my own views.

First, his record itself, which can be easily obtained from any perusal of sites like Boxrec. Yuh lost 1 fight in 39 fights, to Ioka, a loss which he later avenged in a rather one-sided fashion. He holds the record for most title defenses by any junior flyweight or Korean titlist (both records were once held by Jung-Koo Chang). That's obviously a very solid record.

However, upon closer inspection, his record is less sterling. It is generally acknowledged that he faced weaker competition than other junior flyweight titlists who were somewhat contemporary with him: Chang, Chiquita Gonzalez & Michael Carbajal. In addition, perhaps more damning, many of his "wins" were controversial, which is one of the reasons why he doesn't get too much credit from me. As one poster said before, if you are going to fight garbage, you should at least clean them out. In particular, 4 fights stand out. His title-winning performance v. Joey Olivio is one where Yuh himself admitted that he lost & got the decision only because it was fought in Korea. (Unlike Chang or Hong, Yuh was a humble man at least & part of the reason why he is so well-liked in Korea.) Other controversial decisions include the 2 matches with Jose de Jesus & the 1st match with Leo Gamez. While Olivio, de Jesus & Gamez were not exactly bums, they were not the best junior flyweights of the era. And what hurts Yuh's legacy even more was his loss to Hiroki Ioka, who was at best a mediocre junior flyweight. While it is true that Yuh was past his prime for the Ioka fight, I think the fact that Yuh beat him rather easily in the return match mitigates the force of that excuse.

In terms of style, he was a very technically sound pressure fighter. Indeed he is knicknamed "so-na-gi," which means "downpour" in Korea because of his volume punching. I don't think they kept punchstats in his fights, but if they did, I am sure he would have broken every punchstat records.

But alas, his punches had very little in them. Mr. Oh says that Yuh stuck his hands out, rather than actually throwing punches. In fact, in terms of natural ability, Yuh had very little, which is why Korean experts like Mr. Oh doesn't rate him high & believe that he would have lost to most junior flyweight greats. Yuh had very slow feet, almost comparable to the hard punching-German Torres & his handspeed was mediocre, which was masked by the fact that he threw so many punches & always in combination. His defense was above average because he was technically so sound, but against the craftier & quick-handed opponents, he didn't have quite the natural reflexes to evade getting hit regularly. The only natural equipment that Yuh had that stands out was his chin. Yuh was never floored in his career & may have had the best chin in the division's history, though I should point out that other than de Jesus, he never fought any big hitters. Also, because of his incessant work in the gym, Yuh was always superbly conditioned & could fight all-day. In fact, in terms of stamina, you could put him up there anyone in boxing history.

Yuh in other words is a classic case of a guy who went as far as his limited talents would allow with unbelievable hard work. In fact, there are stories about Yuh's early days where he would stay late not only to train but always volunteer to clean the gym, etc., to attract the eyes of the trainers. Perhaps there is something said to be about that; however, personally, my own biases are that I am more impressed by naturally gifted, brilliant talents over gym rats.

How would he have done against all-time junior flyweight greats? Not well, in my opinion, perhaps the real reason (Yuh's own remonstrations to the contrary) he never fought any of them. A unification match with Chang would have been the greatest domestic fight in history. But it is well-known that Yuh was Chang's sparring partner when he was a world contender & was soundly beaten every time they met. I do not envy his chances v. Zapata either. Yuh was probably too slow to catch up with a slickster like Zapata; in fact, if he couldn't catch up to Olivio, how could he catch up to Zapata? The same goes for Chiquita Gonzalez, assuming that Chiquita is at his best & boxes Yuh responsibly. The junior flyweight that Yuh would have perhaps the best chance to beat is Carbajal, who is ironically the junior flyweight great that Yuh almost ended up meeting. It is possible that Yuh might have the chin to absorb Carbajal's power & out-work him to a decision. But I would still be skeptical. Certainly, the Yuh that fought Ioka would be no match for Carbajal, which is something that his fans would admit. But the Yuh of the Gamez return match would have a better shot, though I think I would still favor Carbajal.

What is my overall assessment? A very hard-working champion but not a brilliantly gifted one. I rate him #5 junior flyweight of all-time, behind (in order) Chang, Zapata, Gonzalez & Carbajal. And to be honest, the only reason I rate him above Gushiken is because of the controversy surrounding Gushiken that he poisoned his opponents, which seems to have been proven.Some of those are from a writer in a Korean Boxing magazine. Who cares if video footage shows he did have snap in his punches, he did throw with great technique, he had above average hand speed, and the part about the first De Jesus I fight being controversial is a joke. He won every round bar 2. How can we properly determine which sources are credible, this one seemed credible enough...but then you watch the footage for yourself and you realise this guy was just talking shit really.

[Flea Man]

Some of those are from a writer in a Korean Boxing magazine. Who cares if video footage shows he did have snap in his punches, he did throw with great technique, he had above average hand speed, and the part about the first De Jesus I fight being controversial is a joke. He won every round bar 2. How can we properly determine which sources are credible, this one seemed credible enough...but then you watch the footage for yourself and you realise this guy was just talking shit really.

No, as Mantequilla said when you first posted that, that writer is very, VERY negative, and unjustly so.

[Addie]

No, as Mantequilla said when you first posted that, that writer is very, VERY negative, and unjustly so.

Hold up. He's referencing a writer in a credible Boxing magazine to. What's to be said about that?

[Flea Man]

Hold up. He's referencing a writer in a credible Boxing magazine to. What's to be said about that?

Okay.

When I studied Media, I was always told 'check out all sources' to see just where they're coming from.

Maybe that guy has just used another negative source to back up his own? Have you found any positive accounts on there, showing that it WASN'T the concensous at the time?

I just find it very hard to believe anyone could believe that. There's so many inaccuracies with what we actually know to be truie (by watching Yuh fight) that I have to assume the writer had another agenda.

[Addie]

Okay.

When I studied Media, I was always told 'check out all sources' to see just where they're coming from.

Maybe that guy has just used another negative source to back up his own? Have you found any positive accounts on there, showing that it WASN'T the concensous at the time?

I just find it very hard to believe anyone could believe that. There's so many inaccuracies with what we actually know to be truie (by watching Yuh fight) that I have to assume the writer had another agenda.

This is my point, Flea. I couldn't have had a good perspective on how good Yuh was until I saw him fight for myself.

[Flea Man]

This is my point, Flea. I couldn't have had a good perspective on how good Yuh was until I saw him fight for myself.

Oh, and I agree no doubt.

This is my point with Greb; AS GOOD AS HE SOUNDS. AS GOOD AS HIS OPPONENTS LOOK. AS GOOD AS HE APPARENTLY BEAT THEM.

We can never know HOW GOOD. Because we've never seen him fight. I do rank him however based on his unbelievable resume; but I find it extremely hard to judge how he would do against the likes of Hagler and Monzon.

[Addie]

Oh, and I agree no doubt.

This is my point with Greb; AS GOOD AS HE SOUNDS. AS GOOD AS HIS OPPONENTS LOOKS. AS GOOD AS HE APPARENTLY BEAT THEM.

We can never know HOW GOOD.

It's true, but I suppose if we have footage of his opposition that he beat...that's pretty damn solid.

[Flea Man]

It's true, but I suppose if we have footage of his opposition that he beat...that's pretty damn solid.

Agree, which is why I rank him. Being the only man to beat Gene Tunney lets us know just how EFFECTIVE he was.