I recently read another article in
which a writer insisted Floyd Mayweather has no claim at being considered
anywhere near his self proclaimed title of TBE. I must admit that at first I expected an
article all about how Mayweather supposedly fought his opponents past their
prime or avoided so and so and was surprised not to see such a report. Part of
it did as the writer highlighted Mayweather’s more challenging fights against
what he considered lackluster opposition. However as I continued reading I
found that the article took another favored approach. Without spoiling the
article if you chose to read it (I attached the link) the article does give
Mayweather credit for being the best of his generation. While this is hardly a
breakthrough given Mayweather has beaten virtually every fighter in his era, it
begins to discredit his accomplishments in the often played out tale of fighters
from way back when. The writer claims that fighters are not as good as they
once were because of the lack of true old school trainers and fighters. However
what was more frustrating was that one of the writer’s main arguments consisted
of naming essentially the entire boxing hall of fame who Floyd hasn’t faced in
his weight divisions and then insisting how every one of the 50 men mentioned
were miles ahead.
First a remark on the idea that
fighters are not what they used to be. I often refer to boxing fans as being
similar to baseball fans and music snobs in that we love getting caught up in
the nostalgia of how great a fighter was that we either grew up watching or
worse, never saw fight but heard the old timers mention with such pride. The
tales of glory from those we admire inspire us to research and dig for more.
Many times this research will lead us to find a favorite who may have never
fought when we were alive but saw highlights or a few of the old tapes. But
that is just what they fighters are, our own personal favorites. Now I in no
means want to tarnish the names of great past fighters but when we as fans
mention our favorites there is a level of bias that presents itself.
It is true fighters aren’t what
they used to be in the sense that you would be hard pressed to find a fighter
with over 100 fights let alone that many wins. Some of this does have to do
with fighters being more business savvy and matchmaking. Another factor also
has to do with the fact that we romanticize many fighters for fighting hundreds
of times without looking at context. Anyone who believes fighters cared less
about money in the ‘60s, ‘50s, ‘40s or even ‘20s is delusional. Boxing was a
way for many men to make money in addition to their full time jobs. For those who were pure sportsman and were able to
make boxing their primary employment they often started incredibly early. Many
of them also turned professional at much earlier ages than most of our modern
fighters do. With certain exceptions (Ray Robinson comes to mind) the majority
of fighters with such huge numbers of fights turned pro shortly after picking
up boxing gloves. Should we use the fact that Julio Cesar Chavez fought to
nearly 100 wins and disregard the fact some of it comes to an early start in
the pros essentially tarnishes the greats before him who did so at 20.
The second
part is the argument that a fighter’s undefeated record doesn’t prove anything.
I MUST concede, undefeated isn’t everything but it is a crowning achievement.
It states that of all of your peers (assuming you faced most of them) none were
capable of besting you. Much of this is a testament to skill; fighters value
their record and every win is hard sought after. Others will argue this is more
attributed to being a ‘protected’ fighter. While it is easy to play off as good
matchmaking, this only tells part of the story. Matchmaking like it or not is a
part of boxing and it is a very good thing for the sport and in many instances
for the safety of the fighter. Matchmaking is the very reason many fighters
today don’t have nearly as many wins in their column (think Harry Greb). But is
also the same reason why so many contemporary boxers have fewer losses as well (think
Joey Silva).
If you are wondering who Joey Silva
is I am about to make two points. The first point is that many of the fighters
of the past fought countless opponents multiple times a year. And for a man
like Homicide Hank this could mean fighting Joey Silva one week and a man like
Sugar Ray Robinson the next (literally, the fights were 7 days apart!). While
Henry Armstrong is a phenomenal fighter there are several instances in his, as
well as a myriad of other Hall of Famers’ careers, where they fought and beat
fighters who on paper could be easily dismissed as bums. Statistically speaking
a lot of this has to do with fighting obscene numbers of men over the course of
their career. When a boxer fights over 40 fights in a year like they did in the
past it’s hard to say if either fighter is truly conditioned during the fight
or in fighting shape once they have taken the beating. So while boxers don’t
fight as often and therefore aren’t getting as much experience it is arguable
that they are also facing a more competitive level of fighters on most
occasions.
The second
point I want to make with Joey Silva is the matter of being a boxing snob. I
had no idea who Joey Silva was until I began writing this article but I took
full advantage of his record to make a nonsensical point. I am in no way
assuming the writer of the article I read did the same but this seems to happen
all to frequently these days; an enthusiast goes on a boxing sight, does their
due diligence to find fighters names throughout the archives of boxing and then
pieces together the greatness of a fighter solely based on the numbers they see.
That is exactly what I just did in an attempt to prove that fighters fought
less than stellar competition and I could do it time and time again with the click
of a few links to fighters (it’s ironic because it is often done to prove how
some boxer’s O boxing achievement is less than spectacular).
Theses archives are a tremendous
asset to the modern day fan because they allow us to dive into fighters we
never knew existed and appreciate the well documented history of one of the world’s
oldest sports. However to abuse it to prove the point that a fighter’s record
now means nothing is simply proving that you are no better than the ‘casual
fans’ today who insist otherwise. Records can't tell everything but they are a part of who a fighter is. I never saw Joey Silva fight so I mean no
disrespect to his acumen, but on paper this is a man who lost nearly three
times as many fights as he won. And yet at this is also the same man who went
the distance with Henry Armstrong. Maybe Homicide Hank wasn’t that much of a HOF
fighter and spent his career padding his resume with weak opposition. Now how
RIDICULOUS does that sound? Then again I’d like to think maybe the Silva “just
knew how to fight” as Mayweather said of Emanuel Augustus.
No comments:
Post a Comment