Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

[Stonehands89]

Some months ago, I had a thread asking for a pool of those fighters that ESB Classic posters believed should be among the TOP TEN greatest fighters ever. This sprang from an earlier thread that used more or less objective measures to offer a list of the ten greatest HWs who ever lived. It was much fun...

I'm asking ESB Classic -the most knowledgable coven of the dark arts and golden history of pugillism I know- to critique some work I am doing which I hope will have an impact on how we rank ATGs.

I am at work on an upcoming series of articles entitled "The Gods of War".

The first one will introduce a ranking system (see below). The next ten will unveil the countdown and I already see a few surprises. I am trying to at least approach objectivity but without sacrificing the insider's knowledge, which is necessarily subjective. I believe that the best way to do it is to organize input about a fighter and his career comparative to his peers.

Bert Sugar started from a place where he pretended that all fighters were the same size and weight and were fighting in the same conditions. I think that is faulty. I'm going to rank them on what they were and what they did. This means no "H2H category" (too speculative), no "impact on sport" category (which is really nonsense. This ain't about popularity). It also means, yes, that those fighters who fought 15 rounds and had more than 50 career bouts will have an advantage. You had to be tougher to go 15 and longevity/experience matters....

Finally, I will include only those fighters who had reached their peak after 1920 (the year that NY's "Walker Law" was passed which effectively modernized rules and regs).

Does it sound sensible so far?

Here are the categories:



Ring Generalship (RG): This includes not only level of skill, but adaptability, strategic ability, and athleticism. The standard here would be Sugar Ray Robinson who would score a 15.
Experience/Level of Competition (Exp): Fighters with less than 50 professional bouts are difficult to include here. Fighters who never fought 15 rounds are also difficult to include here. More important than number of bouts is how many serious opponents were faced. For example, if a fighter is 50-0 and yet faces 40 opponents who were made of glass, the score would be lower than if a fighter’s finished record is 42-6-2 but there are future champions, world-beaters and ranked contenders on that record. The standard here would be Ezzard Charles, who would score a 15.
Longevity (Lgv): Years active isn’t enough to score high here. The real questions ask how long did the fighter perform at a world-class level and whether there is a significant win over a world-class challenger that occurred when the fighter in question was past prime. The standard here would be Roberto Duran whose last world title was earned 16 years after his first.
Dominance (Dom): This considers win/loss ratios, length and strength of championship reigns, and knockout rates. Those fighters who were routinely ducked are not penalized here. A suitable standard here would be Joe Louis who reigned for almost 12 years as world heavyweight champion
The above categories have a 15-point must system. Those below have a 10-point must system.


Character (C): All great fighters will score high here. It measures intangibles such as risks taken, adversity overcome, and the willingness to lose well. The standard? Harry Greb had some of his best wins while virtually blind in one eye.
Performance Against Larger Opponents (PLO): This is a worthy measure of greatness and is similar though not the same as “Longevity”. When facing a physically larger opponent, the natural disadvantage forces the fighter to rely on experience and dig deeper than he otherwise would have to. A win over a larger challenge can be compelling evidence about how good that boxer is.
Durability (Dur): The greatest fighters are rarely stopped during their prime. Due credit is applied in this category although “Experience” and “Ring Generalship” is factored in. The former because if few punchers were faced, then “Durability” is less impressive. The latter because if a fighter’s style is magnificently defensive, then that fighter should not be credited twice.
Am I missing anything? Are the categories fair? Do you foresee any problems...? Chris Pontius, JT, McGrain (McLarnin is in the running), Sweet Pea, Robbie, Fists of Fury, Old Fogey, Sweet Scientist, Manassa (so isn't Archie), Prime, Suzie Q, Bummy Davis, Bokaj, Magoo, Vanboxingfan, John Garfield, Mendoza, Doppleganger, Guilalah, janitor, Duodenum, Spoon, McVey, dpw, and everyone else...

I'd appreciate any and all input, advice, criticism on the above.

[GPater11093]

Is the Ring Generalship category basically how 'skilled' the fighter was. Similar to a H2H category?

excellant stuff though

[McGrain]

Very interesting stuff, and I'm looking forward to the working version, which is how we'll know what we've got on our hands, though I applaud you for tossing up the idea, you work out one or two tiny kinks.

Why the division between the catagories? Why is there that 10/20 points division? What i'm basically asking is, does this mean you see Generalship as more important than Dominance? If so, why should a great general who was not a dominant champion be more highly rewarded than a dominant champion not known for his generalship?

[Stonehands89]

Is the Ring Generalship category basically how 'skilled' the fighter was. Similar to a H2H category?

excellant stuff though
RG is a nod to technical skill, which I would argue separates the briefer phenoms from the established legends. but is also considers formidability... for example, Foreman was no technician, but he was awfully hard to beat...

H2H? I don't factor that in. It's fun to argue whether Jones would whip Hagler but that has no place in real analysis, you know?

[Stonehands89]

Very interesting stuff, and I'm looking forward to the working version, which is how we'll know what we've got on our hands, though I applaud you for tossing up the idea, you work out one or two tiny kinks.

Why the division between the catagories? Why is there that 10/20 points division? What i'm basically asking is, does this mean you see Generalship as more important than Dominance? If so, why should a great general who was not a dominant champion be more highly rewarded than a dominant champion not known for his generalship?
... I had to read this twice. Great point.

I'm not altogether comfortable with the 10/20 points division and I'm thinking of moving the 20 to 12, but I do see that some categories are worth more than others. My mind is open on that score.

Dominance. Here's the thing with that... if a Pacquiao decides to just fight the best around regardless of what weight they are, that isn't dominance of a division, but it is the mark of greatness. Hagler deserves credit in my estimation as does Monzon for their reigns of terror, but greatness shines when the guy beats a relative giant. Mickey Walker was greater than Hagler because of that... am I being clear here?

[GPater11093]

RG is a nod to technical skill, which I would argue separates the briefer phenoms from the established legends. but is also considers formidability... for example, Foreman was no technician, but he was awfully hard to beat...

H2H? I don't factor that in. It's fun to argue whether Jones would whip Hagler but that has no place in real analysis, you know?

got you! just seemed to be what fighters were the 'best' so to speak.

just seemed very similar to a H2H like ranking, and i agree H2H shopuldnt really be used in ranking as its not really hard evidance and dosent mean much

[Stonehands89]

Very interesting stuff, and I'm looking forward to the working version, which is how we'll know what we've got on our hands, though I applaud you for tossing up the idea, you work out one or two tiny kinks.

Why the division between the catagories? Why is there that 10/20 points division? What i'm basically asking is, does this mean you see Generalship as more important than Dominance? If so, why should a great general who was not a dominant champion be more highly rewarded than a dominant champion not known for his generalship?
One more thing, I do see RG as a measure of how formidable a fighter was and that is probably the most important measure. Ring Generals is about as high a complement one can have. By contrast, "dominating" a parade of relatively average guys isn't as impressive. Burley's wins at MW impress us more than Jones' wins at MW even if they were less dominant... right?

[McGrain]

... I had to read this twice. Great point.

I'm not altogether comfortable with the 10/20 points division and I'm thinking of moving the 20 to 12, but I do see that some categories are worth more than others. My mind is open on that score.

Dominance. Here's the thing with that... if a Pacquiao decides to just fight the best around regardless of what weight they are, that isn't dominance of a division, but it is the mark of greatness. Hagler deserves credit in my estimation as does Monzon for their reigns of terror, but greatness shines when the guy beats a relative giant. Mickey Walker was greater than Hagler because of that... am I being clear here?

I agree with everything you say here, and have no issue with the scoring system. It's your system. The reason I picked it up is you clearly want to design a system as unfettered by subjectivity as possible - you're scoiring hierarchy arugably makes the system subjective at route. I, for example, would tend to score Generalship and Dominance side by side, and if I had to show preference for one i'd be tempted to go for Dominance (proof in the pudding etc.).

I'd suggest that you make a justification for your your tiered scoring at the outset - why some areas are teir one, and others are tier two, so your reasoning for the setup is as transparent as the set up itself.

[Stonehands89]

got you! just seemed to be what fighters were the 'best' so to speak.

just seemed very similar to a H2H like ranking, and i agree H2H shopuldnt really be used in ranking as its not really hard evidance and dosent mean much
... any questions or criticisms are welcome my young friend. Pretend that you're in the ring and try to find weaknesses in the measures!

[McGrain]

One more thing, I do see RG as a measure of how formidable a fighter was and that is probably the most important measure. Ring Generals is about as high a complement one can have. By contrast, "dominating" a parade of relatively average guys isn't as impressive. Burley's wins at MW impress us more than Jones' wins at MW even if they were less dominant... right?

Right.

[GPater11093]

... any questions or criticisms are welcome my young friend. Pretend that you're in the ring and try to find weaknesses in the measures!

will do although it seems pretty sound, ill be on later to asses it more

[Stonehands89]

I agree with everything you say here, and have no issue with the scoring system. It's your system. The reason I picked it up is you clearly want to design a system as unfettered by subjectivity as possible - you're scoiring hierarchy arugably makes the system subjective at route. I, for example, would tend to score Generalship and Dominance side by side, and if I had to show preference for one i'd be tempted to go for Dominance (proof in the pudding etc.).

I'd suggest that you make a justification for your your tiered scoring at the outset - why some areas are teir one, and others are tier two, so your reasoning for the setup is as transparent as the set up itself.
While it's the system I'm introducing, I hope to see it become a general system for us all. So, you're input is critical, because you know your stuff very well.

I hoping that you all will help me adopt the best tiers and the best justifications...

I'm now reconsidering the Dominance question.... your statement about it being an accurate reflection of RG may be persuasive. I have to mull that over.

[Beeston Brawler]

I think H2H has to count for something, surely?

Though on the flipside, everyone has more difficulty with one style of fighter than another, examples include.....

Hopkins loves southpaws, Hatton hates them.
Mayweather toys with pressure fighters and brawlers, Tszyu doesn't.
Pacquiao hates counter punchers

and so on.......

[Stonehands89]

I think H2H has to count for something, surely?

Though on the flipside, everyone has more difficulty with one style of fighter than another, examples include.....

Hopkins loves southpaws, Hatton hates them.
Mayweather toys with pressure fighters and brawlers, Tszyu doesn't.
Pacquiao hates counter punchers

and so on.......
Exactly. I see H2Hs as separate rankings. Which MW would emerge with the best record against all of his peers in history? That stuff is fun... but different altogether than this current effort... See your PM.

[sweet_scientist]

Some months ago, I had a thread asking for a pool of those fighters that ESB Classic posters believed should be among the TOP TEN greatest fighters ever. This sprang from an earlier thread that used more or less objective measures to offer a list of the ten greatest HWs who ever lived. It was much fun...

I'm asking ESB Classic -the most knowledgable coven of the dark arts and golden history of pugillism I know- to critique some work I am doing which I hope will have an impact on how we rank ATGs.

I am at work on an upcoming series of articles entitled "The Gods of War".

The first one will introduce a ranking system (see below). The next ten will unveil the countdown and I already see a few surprises. I am trying to at least approach objectivity but without sacrificing the insider's knowledge, which is necessarily subjective. I believe that the best way to do it is to organize input about a fighter and his career comparative to his peers.

Bert Sugar started from a place where he pretended that all fighters were the same size and weight and were fighting in the same conditions. I think that is faulty. I'm going to rank them on what they were and what they did. This means no "H2H category" (too speculative), no "impact on sport" category (which is really nonsense. This ain't about popularity). It also means, yes, that those fighters who fought 15 rounds and had more than 50 career bouts will have an advantage. You had to be tougher to go 15 and longevity/experience matters....

Finally, I will include only those fighters who had reached their peak after 1920 (the year that NY's "Walker Law" was passed which effectively modernized rules and regs).

Does it sound sensible so far?

Here are the categories:



Ring Generalship (RG): This includes not only level of skill, but adaptability, strategic ability, and athleticism. The standard here would be Sugar Ray Robinson who would score a 20.
Experience/Level of Competition (Exp): Fighters with less than 50 professional bouts are difficult to include here. Fighters who never fought 15 rounds are also difficult to include here. More important than number of bouts is how many serious opponents were faced. For example, if a fighter is 50-0 and yet faces 40 opponents who were made of glass, the score would be lower than if a fighter’s finished record is 42-6-2 but there are future champions, world-beaters and ranked contenders on that record. The standard here would be Ezzard Charles, who would score a 20.
Longevity (Lgv): Years active isn’t enough to score high here. The real questions ask how long did the fighter perform at a world-class level and whether there is a significant win over a world-class challenger that occurred when the fighter in question was past prime. The standard here would be Roberto Duran whose last world title was earned 16 years after his first.

The above categories have a 20-point must system. Those below have a 10-point must system.


Adversity Overcome (Adv): Comebacks, cuts, knockdowns by world class punchers, and handicaps, are all factored in here. The standard? Harry Greb had some of his best wins while virtually blind in one eye.
Dominance (Dom): This considers win/loss ratios, length and strength of championship reigns, and knockout rates. Those fighters who were routinely ducked are not penalized here. A suitable standard here would be Joe Louis who reigned for almost 12 years as world heavyweight champion.
Performance Against Larger Opponents (PLO): This is a worthy measure of greatness and is similar though not the same as “Longevity”. When facing a physically larger opponent, the natural disadvantage forces the fighter to rely on experience and technical skill. A win over a larger challenge can be compelling evidence about how good that boxer is.
Durability (Dur): The greatest fighters are rarely stopped during their prime. Due credit is applied in this category although “Experience” and “Ring Generalship” is factored in. The former because if few punchers were faced, then “Durability” is less impressive. The latter because if a fighter’s style is magnificently defensive, then that fighter should not be credited twice.

Am I missing anything? Are the categories fair? Do you foresee any problems...? Chris Pontius, JT, McGrain (McLarnin is in the running), Sweet Pea, Robbie, Fists of Fury, Old Fogey, Sweet Scientist, Manassa (so isn't Archie), Prime, Suzie Q, Bummy Davis, Bokaj, Magoo, Vanboxingfan, John Garfield, Mendoza, Doppleganger, Guilalah, janitor and everyone else...

I'd appreciate any and all input, advice, criticism on the above.


This should be interesting, good stuff attempting something like this.

I'll just mention a few things:

- With regards to ring generalship, I think the key criterion is who is able to control the ring action, i.e make their opponents fight their fight, take them out of their comfort zone etc. Things like strategy, adaptability, athleticism, skill, strength etc, are all components of control. You probably have the same thing in mind anyway, just my take on it as I may have misunderstood you.

- With regards to experience/level of comp, I probably wouldn't penalise 12 round fighters per se, but more look to penalise fighters who looked incapable or who would struggle with going 15. That will be pretty subjective of course, but I think we can all agree that someone like Tito would have loved the 15 round format and DLH may have struggled a bit more in it.

- Longevity sounds like a good criterion, but may be open to a bit of abuse in cases where a fighter may be shithouse for years on end and then jags a good win out of nowhere. E.g. Would we want to say Roy Jones had more longevity than Bernard Hopkins if they happen to fight and Roy manages to win and then Bernard retires whilst Jones goes on and beats some B-list 'champs'? This scenario will never happen, but just using it as an example, I'm sure there are better actual ones. Maybe a better scenario would be George Foreman and say Alexis Arguello. I wouldn't say Foreman had more longevity than Arguello, even though Big George had some significant wins years and years away from his first championship win. I'm sure this would be taken into account in how you factor in longevity but I'm just making the point that if it's something like the time from the first significant win to the last significant win it's a bit of a myopic take on longevity.

- Also, I'd probably be inclined to score every criterion out of 10 bar experience/level of competition, which should probably have a score as high as 30.

[McGrain]

I'm now reconsidering the Dominance question.... your statement about it being an accurate reflection of RG may be persuasive. I have to mull that over.

Sorry to complicate it even further, but as you asking...

...i think ring dominance translates into ring ability in a crucial way. You are correct to say Burley's MW wins are more impressive than Jones's, although he was more dominant, but there is another side to the coin. A fighter who can remain in condition with maintained concentration in the "Calzaghe fashion" (not a compliment for Joe that!) will tend to be a fighter who continual maintains focus and concentration in the ring, for any given fight, regardless of the opponent. Tyson for example, was never going to maintain at the top - he just couldn't maintain a lifestyle condusive to boxing or an attitude condusive to winning, long term. In the ring, we saw him frustrated and boxing badly versus Smith when frustrated, and biting of Evander's ear when out-manned. Domination at the top is worth more than just raw stats. Historically, dominant fighters tend to be the most unflappable and focused in the ring (see Joe Louis for the definitive example, but Monzon may be an even better one). Dominating opposition over an extended period tends to herald a fighter as perfect as that fighter could be. I'd argue that your category for EXP takes up the slack here.

[JohnThomas1]

Good to see ya!

Where would these possibly fit in

Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights - SRL being an excellent example.

Ability to use (And resist, i guess) external sources and psychological warfare in order to put an opponent off his game - Ali and SRL anybody? There are fighters that could put people off (Ali, SRL), and fighters that could be put off (Hagler etc)

Perhaps i bark up the wrong tree, a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.

[McGrain]

a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.

:lol:

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.

[Stonehands89]

This should be interesting, good stuff attempting something like this.

I'll just a few things:

- With regards to ring generalship, I think the key criterion is who is able to control the ring action, i.e make their opponents fight their fight, take them out of their comfort zone etc. Things like strategy, adaptability, athleticism, skill, strength etc, are all components of control. You probably have the same thing in mind anyway, just my take on it as I may have misunderstood you.
Say however many things you want to say, SS. The article is gonna be published and I want all my bases covered.

As to RG. I agree completely and that is how I see it as well.

- With regards to experience/level of comp, I probably wouldn't penalise 12 round fighters per se, but more look to penalise fighters who looked incapable or who would struggle with going 15. That will be pretty subjective of course, but I think we can all agree that someone like Tito would have loved the 15 round format and DLH may have struggled a bit more in it.
I understand your point... but it's a tough sell. I am committed to scoring categories based on what was, not on what may have been or what surely may have been... does it discriminate against modern fighters? Yep. But I'd say it's warranted.

- Longevity sounds like a good criterion, but may be open to a bit of abuse in cases where a fighter may be shithouse for years on end and then jags a good win out of nowhere. E.g. Would we want to say Roy Jones had more longevity than Bernard Hopkins if they happen to fight and Roy manages to win and then Bernard retires whilst Jones goes on and beats some B-list 'champs'? This scenario will never happen, but just using it as an example, I'm sure there are better actual ones. Maybe a better scenario would be George Foreman and say Alexis Arguello. I wouldn't say Foreman had more longevity than Arguello, even though Big George had some significant wins years and years away from his first championship win. I'm sure this would be taken into account in how you factor in longevity but I'm just making the point that if it's something like the time from the first significant win to the last significant win it's a bit of a myopic take on longevity.
I will be on guard about this point. I am looking to use one fighter as the gold standard and then rank the others accordingly. Moore and Duran for example, both could get the highest scores. I'm also thinking of including those fighters who fought so often in so short a span as scoring high here... is that fair? Greb for example -dead at 31 but that crazy bastard had 45 fights in 1919.

- Also, I'd probably be inclined to score every criterion out of 10 bar experience/level of competition, which should probably have a score as high as 30.
I thought about that, and did that with the Greatest atg HW thread. However, there are hundreds of fighters who have to be considered and a larger numerical range allows for more differentiation. Robinson would get a 10 for RG. Duran would get perhaps a 9, but relative to other fighters that 9 may not leave enough distance between Duran and say James Toney.

[Stonehands89]

Sorry to complicate it even further, but as you asking...

...i think ring dominance translates into ring ability in a crucial way. You are correct to say Burley's MW wins are more impressive than Jones's, although he was more dominant, but there is another side to the coin. A fighter who can remain in condition with maintained concentration in the "Calzaghe fashion" (not a compliment for Joe that!) will tend to be a fighter who continual maintains focus and concentration in the ring, for any given fight, regardless of the opponent. Tyson for example, was never going to maintain at the top - he just couldn't maintain a lifestyle condusive to boxing or an attitude condusive to winning, long term. In the ring, we saw him frustrated and boxing badly versus Smith when frustrated, and biting of Evander's ear when out-manned. Domination at the top is worth more than just raw stats. Historically, dominant fighters tend to be the most unflappable and focused in the ring (see Joe Louis for the definitive example, but Monzon may be an even better one). Dominating opposition over an extended period tends to herald a fighter as perfect as that fighter could be. I'd argue that your category for EXP takes up the slack here.
Listen, complicate the hell out of me. I welcome it. Nit-pick and nag me til I call you mother-in-law!

Excellent points. I think that you are convincing me.

[McGrain]

Listen, complicate the hell out of me. I welcome it. Nit-pick and nag me til I call you mother-in-law!.

:lol:

I would, but I think that's basically me. Will keep an eye on this thread, and i'll be keen to see what you do next.

[Stonehands89]

Good to see ya!

Where would these possibly fit in

Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights - SRL being an excellent example.

Ability to use (And resist, i guess) external sources and psychological warfare in order to put an opponent off his game - Ali and SRL anybody? There are fighters that could put people off (Ali, SRL), and fighters that could be put off (Hagler etc)

Perhaps i bark up the wrong tree, a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.
Glad to see you and thanks for posting.

Great points. I'd say that "Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights" is threaded underneath a few categories. The psychological edge thing, and I'm thinking of Robinson drinking blood in the presence of Lamotta would be under RG.

[JohnThomas1]

:lol:

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.

I'm hearin' ya Mac, i am hearin' ya hahaha. Been enjoying your work too.

[Stonehands89]

:lol:

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.
I still chuckle about that time you put up a drunken post taking credit for one of my posts. And then you had that "drunk top ten" thread. Classic, classic stuff.

[McGrain]

I still chuckle about that time you put up a drunken post taking credit for one of my posts.

:lol:

That one even confused me in the morning.

[JohnThomas1]

Glad to see you and thanks for posting.

Great points. I'd say that "Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights" is threaded underneath a few categories. The psychological edge thing, and I'm thinking of Robinson drinking blood in the presence of Lamotta would be under RG.

Cheers mate, i'll look again totally sober tomorrow. Might even comment after another Jimmy B or so too, tho :lol:

[Stonehands89]

Cheers mate, i'll look again totally sober tomorrow. Might even comment after another Jimmy B or so too, tho :lol:
By all means! As long as you're not reduced to typing with your nose pressed to the keyboard.

[sweet_scientist]

Say however many things you want to say, SS. The article is gonna be published and I want all my bases covered.

As to RG. I agree completely and that is how I see it as well.

:good


I understand your point... but it's a tough sell. I am committed to scoring categories based on what was, not on what may have been or what surely may have been... does it discriminate against modern fighters? Yep. But I'd say it's warranted.Fair enough. Though I guess someone could run the same argument on you with regards to the 'real' fighters that used to go 20, 25 rounds, which you are leaving out of the equation.


I will be on guard about this point. I am looking to use one fighter as the gold standard and then rank the others accordingly. Moore and Duran for example, both could get the highest scores. I'm also thinking of including those fighters who fought so often in so short a span as scoring high here... is that fair? Greb for example -dead at 31 but that crazy bastard had 45 fights in 1919.Someone like Greb would score huge on longevity by my thinking for sure. Higher than Duran and Moore for mine.


I thought about that, and did that with the Greatest atg HW thread. However, there are hundreds of fighters who have to be considered and a larger numerical range allows for more differentiation. Robinson would get a 10 for RG. Duran would get perhaps a 9, but relative to other fighters that 9 may not leave enough distance between Duran and say James Toney.

True, but then I don't think it's really fair to rank experience/level of comp on the same level as ring generalship. They just don't seem to be in the same stratosphere of importance to me. The ultimate measure has to be the fighter's resume I think when all is said and done.

[McGrain]

True, but then I don't think it's really fair to rank experience/level of comp on the same level as ring generalship. They just don't seem to be in the same stratosphere of importance to me. The ultimate measure has to be the fighter's resume I think when all is said and done.

I agree with this for the most part, but Stonie's system allows for just a little bit of wiggle-room for those fighters who didn't have a high level of competition available to them...there are categories that allow for a little speculation as to how the quality of a fiven fighter would translate in those conditions. I think that's as it should be, although you have to be careful about allowing too much scope.

[JohnThomas1]

By all means! As long as you're not reduced to typing with your nose pressed to the keyboard.

We'll call that

Adversity Overcome (Adv): Comebacks, cuts, knockdowns by world class punchers, and handicaps, are all factored in here.

:lol:

[sweet_scientist]

I agree with this for the most part, but Stonie's system allows for just a little bit of wiggle-room for those fighters who didn't have a high level of competition available to them...there are categories that allow for a little speculation as to how the quality of a fiven fighter would translate in those conditions. I think that's as it should be, although you have to be careful about allowing too much scope.

I think there'd still be plenty of wriggle room even if a fighter's resume did predominate the scoring portion of the ranking points, but that's the last I'll say on the matter I think (won't promise :D ). I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we see how the fighters are actually ranked and I'm sure the 'how can X be ranked higher than Y?' question will come to the fore to test our beliefs on this out.:good

[McGrain]

I'm sure the 'how can X be ranked higher than Y?' question will come to the fore to test our beliefs on this out.:good

Bottom line speaks loudest!

[Stonehands89]

Fair enough. Though I guess someone could run the same argument on you with regards to the 'real' fighters that used to go 20, 25 rounds, which you are leaving out of the equation.
That was a different era and largely a different sport back then. It required different skills. 1920 is as good a cut-off as any, though it does force out Langford. His record is spotty though... alot of suspicious stuff there. He'd get an honorable mention...


Someone like Greb would score huge on longevity by my thinking for sure. Higher than Duran and Moore for mine.
Fair... not sure i'd agree though. it's hard to compete when your dying your hair too.


True, but then I don't think it's really fair to rank experience/level of comp on the same level as ring generalship. They just don't seem to be in the same stratosphere of importance to me. The ultimate measure has to be the fighter's resume I think when all is said and done.
I'm confident that the results won't contradict this.

[Stonehands89]

We'll call that

Adversity Overcome (Adv): Comebacks, cuts, knockdowns by world class punchers, and handicaps, are all factored in here.

:lol:
If I see this for a JT post in the next hour or so:

hjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.......

-that's called a KO!

[JohnThomas1]

If I see this for a JT post in the next hour or so:

hjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.......

-that's called a KO!

Oooooooh my durability is so much more!!!!!

Have gone peepy byes with the head on the keyboard years ago tho, i must admit :rofl

[Sweet Pea]

Level of opposition is the first thing that needs to be taken into account when measuring the importance of dominance in comparison to ring generalship.

[Sweet Pea]

Yeah, my last post was of course useless. I guess I didn't really take into account that a thread with McGrain, Stonehands, and sweet_scientist would've covered that long ago. And by the way McGrain, fantastic post at the beginning of page #2.

[GPater11093]

just want to add this

a quote from McGrain i have commited to memory

'boxing ain't maths its more like music'

The points and that is a great idea but boxing aint as straight forward as that and you need a biot of subjectiviveness

[Flea Man]

StoneHands this is a seriously good idea. You use a lot of things I like (post-1920, taking into account how the fighters performed and not just who is on their ledger) and I wish you a lot of luck in compiling your list. Should be interesting to see :good

[janitor]

RG is a nod to technical skill, which I would argue separates the briefer phenoms from the established legends. but is also considers formidability... for example, Foreman was no technician, but he was awfully hard to beat...


I have always understood the term to be more a refference to the tactical aspects of a fight plan.

[Stonehands89]

just want to add this

a quote from McGrain i have commited to memory

'boxing ain't maths its more like music'

The points and that is a great idea but boxing aint as straight forward as that and you need a biot of subjectiviveness
I'm drowning in a sea of my turbulent subjectivity. I'm reaching out to the best historians and analysts around to rescue me.

.... I just did some computations.... it looks interesting....

[Stonehands89]

I have always understood the term to be more a refference to the tactical aspects of a fight plan.
Tactics can change by the minute.... and they are akin to dipping into your toolbox during a bout. You have to be a pretty able mechanic/technician to do this. Strategy is better referred to as "grand strategy"....which comes from watching fight films and building a general fight plan. At least that's how I look at it.

[GPater11093]

I'm drowning in a sea of my turbulent subjectivity. I'm reaching out to the best historians and analysts around to rescue me.

.... I just did some computations.... it looks interesting....

that is the downside of subjectiveness is that its constantly changing, perhaps numbers will work

could you post up the compuitations as a sample to see hwat needs tweaked or whatever

[Stonehands89]

it's on an excel program. Anyone know how to show it here? I can't figure it the hell out...

[janitor]

Tactics can change by the minute.... and they are akin to dipping into your toolbox during a bout. You have to be a pretty able mechanic/technician to do this. Strategy is better referred to as "grand strategy"....which comes from watching fight films and building a general fight plan. At least that's how I look at it.

You may have defined the term better for me.

Perhaps it should describe an fighters ability to adjust and react to what is in front of him combined with his fight plan?

The ring general maintains control of how the fight unfolds.

[Stonehands89]

You may have defined the term better for me.

Perhaps it should describe an fighters ability to adjust and react to what is in front of him combined with his fight plan?

The ring general maintains control of how the fight unfolds.
That's how I look at the ring general... although room has to be made for those guys who didn't need a grand strategy or technical prowess... Monzon. Foreman. Armstrong to a lesser degree. They are also ring generals albeit for different reasons. In a word, it'd be "effectiveness."

[McGrain]

Yeah, my last post was of course useless.

:lol:

And by the way McGrain, fantastic post at the beginning of page #2.

:good

[Jaws]

Very cool stuff here.

One thing that comes to my mind is, is there anyway of standardizing the different rules/trends of boxing throughout the eras?

12 rounds/15 rounds has already been brought up (which I don't think modern fighters should be punished for), but boxers also used to be able to fight far more often in the past. That is an impossibility in recent decades, and it isn't a fault of the fighters, nor do I think modern wouldn't be capable of handling it either. The game has just changed.

So, do you see these criteria skewing data towards one era or another? And if so, again, how can this be standardized.

Also, Longevity seems to be highly represented (more than once--it is listed as a part of the Dominance score as well) in this criteria. Sometimes longevity can be a result of poor competition or other factors, such as different fight frequencies. More than just a period of time should be looked at.

Also, how are fights far beyond a fighter's prime taken into account? Are overall records looked at as purely numbers?

And while I agree that H2H is primarily speculation, it seems that talent/impressiveness shouldn't be completely ignored.

Just some brainstorming.

[Boilermaker]

Performance Against Larger Opponents (PLO): This is a worthy measure of greatness and is similar though not the same as “Longevity”. When facing a physically larger opponent, the natural disadvantage forces the fighter to rely on experience and technical skill. A win over a larger challenge can be compelling evidence about how good that boxer is.


I dont understand this rating. Is a win over Golota or Carnera worth more than a win over Ali? Do Tunney and Spinks' forays into the heavyweight world rate them much higher than foster in this category? Is Dempseys win over Willard worth less than Schmellings win over Louis or Tunneys over Dempsey? I really think this category is best left alone.

[Stonehands89]

Very cool stuff here.

One thing that comes to my mind is, is there anyway of standardizing the different rules/trends of boxing throughout the eras?

12 rounds/15 rounds has already been brought up (which I don't think modern fighters should be punished for), but boxers also used to be able to fight far more often in the past. That is an impossibility in recent decades, and it isn't a fault of the fighters, nor do I think modern wouldn't be capable of handling it either. The game has just changed.

So, do you see these criteria skewing data towards one era or another? And if so, again, how can this be standardized.

Also, Longevity seems to be highly represented (more than once--it is listed as a part of the Dominance score as well) in this criteria. Sometimes longevity can be a result of poor competition or other factors, such as different fight frequencies. More than just a period of time should be looked at.

Also, how are fights far beyond a fighter's prime taken into account? Are overall records looked at as purely numbers?

And while I agree that H2H is primarily speculation, it seems that talent/impressiveness shouldn't be completely ignored.

Just some brainstorming.
There are two discrimations in the measures and you picked one of them up. Yes, fighter who fought more often and were exposed to 15 rounds are favored. I don't see the problem with that. Boxing is one of the few sports that was better yesterday... that's because size matters less than skill and skill is grounded in experience. Aside from a few modern fighters -Floyd is a helluva a talent and a techician -most guys would not in my estimation have done as well in the 40s. I'm not even sure about Floyd. Ike Williams sure as hell wouldn't have been psyched out by his smooth delivery!

Longevity focuses on length of career, length of prime, that sort of thing. Dominance is more of how many serious guys were defeated and perhaps how easily they were... time is less of a factor. I should clarify that.

Past prime wins are subsumed under Longevity. I look at how the wins are taken into account more subjectively than I want to. For example, Duran has hugely impressive wins past prime, but was inconsistent. Jofre has two very impressive wins late, the rest of average. Considering the number of Duran's fights, the Leonard and Barkley wins, and his 5 decades of activity, I'd score Duran higher...

Impressiveness is subsumed under Ring Generalship...

---------
Great points. Very helpful. Where are you from?

[Stonehands89]

I dont understand this rating. Is a win over Golota or Carnera worth more than a win over Ali? Do Tunney and Spinks' forays into the heavyweight world rate them much higher than foster in this category? Is Dempseys win over Willard worth less than Schmellings win over Louis or Tunneys over Dempsey? I really think this category is best left alone.
You have picked up the second discriminatory category.... HWs won't do as well here, generally, and that is fine with me because historically speaking they are far too apparant in these kinds of rankings. I am tired of seeing Ali, Louis, Dempsey, and Marciano in the ATG top ten. It's a damn popularity contest. No one is gonna tell me that Dempsey belongs in the top 10 and Greb doesn't. That's just gibberish.

Greatness is decided by many things, not least of which is how well the fighter did past prime and how well they did when they were completely outgunned and had to rely on ring savvy...........think... Toy Bulldog.

[Stonehands89]

Someone play Devil's Advocate.

I'm considering taken out "Adversity Overcome" because those fighters who were too good for their own good shouldn't suffer by scoring low here. Charley Burley, for instance.

[JohnThomas1]

You may have defined the term better for me.

Perhaps it should describe an fighters ability to adjust and react to what is in front of him combined with his fight plan?

The ring general maintains control of how the fight unfolds.Ring Generalship (RG): This includes not only level of skill, but adaptability, strategic ability, and athleticism. The standard here would be Sugar Ray Robinson who would score a 20.I reckon you've described adaptabilitity to a tee.

[hermeneut]

Some months ago, I had a thread asking for a pool of those fighters that ESB Classic posters believed should be among the TOP TEN greatest fighters ever. This sprang from an earlier thread that used more or less objective measures to offer a list of the ten greatest HWs who ever lived. It was much fun...

I'm asking ESB Classic -the most knowledgable coven of the dark arts and golden history of pugillism I know- to critique some work I am doing which I hope will have an impact on how we rank ATGs.

I am at work on an upcoming series of articles entitled "The Gods of War".

The first one will introduce a ranking system (see below). The next ten will unveil the countdown and I already see a few surprises. I am trying to at least approach objectivity but without sacrificing the insider's knowledge, which is necessarily subjective. I believe that the best way to do it is to organize input about a fighter and his career comparative to his peers.

Bert Sugar started from a place where he pretended that all fighters were the same size and weight and were fighting in the same conditions. I think that is faulty. I'm going to rank them on what they were and what they did. This means no "H2H category" (too speculative), no "impact on sport" category (which is really nonsense. This ain't about popularity). It also means, yes, that those fighters who fought 15 rounds and had more than 50 career bouts will have an advantage. You had to be tougher to go 15 and longevity/experience matters....

Finally, I will include only those fighters who had reached their peak after 1920 (the year that NY's "Walker Law" was passed which effectively modernized rules and regs).

Does it sound sensible so far?

Here are the categories:



Ring Generalship (RG): This includes not only level of skill, but adaptability, strategic ability, and athleticism. The standard here would be Sugar Ray Robinson who would score a 20.
Experience/Level of Competition (Exp): Fighters with less than 50 professional bouts are difficult to include here. Fighters who never fought 15 rounds are also difficult to include here. More important than number of bouts is how many serious opponents were faced. For example, if a fighter is 50-0 and yet faces 40 opponents who were made of glass, the score would be lower than if a fighter’s finished record is 42-6-2 but there are future champions, world-beaters and ranked contenders on that record. The standard here would be Ezzard Charles, who would score a 20.
Longevity (Lgv): Years active isn’t enough to score high here. The real questions ask how long did the fighter perform at a world-class level and whether there is a significant win over a world-class challenger that occurred when the fighter in question was past prime. The standard here would be Roberto Duran whose last world title was earned 16 years after his first.

The above categories have a 20-point must system. Those below have a 10-point must system.


Adversity Overcome (Adv): Comebacks, cuts, knockdowns by world class punchers, and handicaps, are all factored in here. The standard? Harry Greb had some of his best wins while virtually blind in one eye.
Dominance (Dom): This considers win/loss ratios, length and strength of championship reigns, and knockout rates. Those fighters who were routinely ducked are not penalized here. A suitable standard here would be Joe Louis who reigned for almost 12 years as world heavyweight champion.
Performance Against Larger Opponents (PLO): This is a worthy measure of greatness and is similar though not the same as “Longevity”. When facing a physically larger opponent, the natural disadvantage forces the fighter to rely on experience and technical skill. A win over a larger challenge can be compelling evidence about how good that boxer is.
Durability (Dur): The greatest fighters are rarely stopped during their prime. Due credit is applied in this category although “Experience” and “Ring Generalship” is factored in. The former because if few punchers were faced, then “Durability” is less impressive. The latter because if a fighter’s style is magnificently defensive, then that fighter should not be credited twice.
Am I missing anything? Are the categories fair? Do you foresee any problems...? Chris Pontius, JT, McGrain (McLarnin is in the running), Sweet Pea, Robbie, Fists of Fury, Old Fogey, Sweet Scientist, Manassa (so isn't Archie), Prime, Suzie Q, Bummy Davis, Bokaj, Magoo, Vanboxingfan, John Garfield, Mendoza, Doppleganger, Guilalah, janitor and everyone else...

I'd appreciate any and all input, advice, criticism on the above.

I would like to ask what kind of relationship exists between the categories themselves? Do you think you have hit upon distinct characteristics with these categories, making them perhaps easy to compute? What I am driving at is the idea it seems the categories overlap and are interconnected. A number of people seem to be asking questions which lead in the same direction.

Take you first category "RG." It includes such wide concepts as "level of skill" which itself seems to be presupposed by, say, the category "PLO." Wouldn't you agree? If so, what way then is level of skill or even athleticism, another characteristic of RG, tied to performance against larger opponents? (Many peopel would claim they are relevant).

I chose PLO but a number of your categories may be in the same boat, ie, depending upon the characteristics of RG.

Perhaps you wanted to say that such characteristics are tied to other of the categories. But then does this not render a redundancy in the categories? Then you would end up computing it twice.

It would seem if the categories are going to be useful they must be rendered precisely enough that their distinctness can be maintained. Hence there computional value. I think that this would be the bedrock for anyone who wished a measure of objectivity. It may be though you intended this interconnection and are just bringing more precise focus and computional facility with the other categories.

Another question I have is related to what appears to be a manifest circularity in your enterprise. For in order to rank a boxer you are required, as it were, to put the boxer in an evaluative context. That is why you speak of "ranked" and "world class" competition and so on. But then, would you not have to have already presupposed an evaluative ranking which is precisely what you own enterprise is supposed to do?

Perhaps such questions seem a little remote but they may be the sort of thing that comes back to bite us in the ass when we try to be as "objective" as we can. We realize we have been presupposing a set of values either our own or ones we have grown up within.

[Neverchair]

Great idea Stonehands!

Perhaps we could see a first draft of the rankings to see if everybody agrees on the list?

Im sure people may be able to raise a few interesting points or pick out a few holes once the first has been compiled then re-adjusted?

[Stonehands89]

I would like to ask what kind of relationship exists between the categories themselves? Do you think you have hit upon distinct characteristics with these categories, making them perhaps easy to compute? What I am driving at is the idea it seems the categories overlap and are interconnected. A number of people seem to be asking questions which lead in the same direction.

Take you first category "RG." It includes such wide concepts as "level of skill" which itself seems to be presupposed by, say, the category "PLO." Wouldn't you agree? If so, what way then is level of skill or even athleticism, another characteristic of RG, tied to performance against larger opponents? (Many peopel would claim they are relevant).

I chose PLO but a number of your categories may be in the same boat, ie, depending upon the characteristics of RG.

Perhaps you wanted to say that such characteristics are tied to other of the categories. But then does this not render a redundancy in the categories? Then you would end up computing it twice.

It would seem if the categories are going to be useful they must be rendered precisely enough that their distinctness can be maintained. Hence there computional value. I think that this would be the bedrock for anyone who wished a measure of objectivity. It may be though you intended this interconnection and are just bringing more precise focus and computional facility with the other categories.

Another question I have is related to what appears to be a manifest circularity in your enterprise. For in order to rank a boxer you are required, as it were, to put the boxer in an evaluative context. That is why you speak of "ranked" and "world class" competition and so on. But then, would you not have to have already presupposed an evaluative ranking which is precisely what you own enterprise is supposed to do?

Perhaps such questions seem a little remote but they may be the sort of thing that comes back to bite us in the ass when we try to be as "objective" as we can. We realize we have been presupposing a set of values either our own or ones we have grown up within.
This is invaluable, hermeneut. I'm off to work now but will be back tonight to discuss. Thank you.

[Stonehands89]

Great idea Stonehands!

Perhaps we could see a first draft of the rankings to see if everybody agrees on the list?

Im sure people may be able to raise a few interesting points or pick out a few holes once the first has been compiled then re-adjusted?
I shall, but still want to bang out how I'm measuring them. Then we'll debate the rankings...

[GPater11093]

it's on an excel program. Anyone know how to show it here? I can't figure it the hell out...

just try and copy and paste it

[Stonehands89]

I would like to ask what kind of relationship exists between the categories themselves? Do you think you have hit upon distinct characteristics with these categories, making them perhaps easy to compute? What I am driving at is the idea it seems the categories overlap and are interconnected. A number of people seem to be asking questions which lead in the same direction.

Take you first category "RG." It includes such wide concepts as "level of skill" which itself seems to be presupposed by, say, the category "PLO." Wouldn't you agree? If so, what way then is level of skill or even athleticism, another characteristic of RG, tied to performance against larger opponents? (Many peopel would claim they are relevant).

I chose PLO but a number of your categories may be in the same boat, ie, depending upon the characteristics of RG.

Perhaps you wanted to say that such characteristics are tied to other of the categories. But then does this not render a redundancy in the categories? Then you would end up computing it twice.

It would seem if the categories are going to be useful they must be rendered precisely enough that their distinctness can be maintained. Hence there computional value. I think that this would be the bedrock for anyone who wished a measure of objectivity. It may be though you intended this interconnection and are just bringing more precise focus and computional facility with the other categories.
I see Ring Generalship as effectiveness in the ring. It is what your eyes see. Take off the top 15 opponents that Floyd has faced in his 40 fights. He would still rank high on RG. However, he needs to face bigger men in higher divisions for PLO, he has to face the iron of his division to score on Dom.

Your point about overlap is, I fear unavoidable. I will work on conceptualization of the categories to bring it to a minimum. As it is though, boxing is a skills sport. Therefore those fighters with the highest level of demonstrable skill will do well here ...which is probably as it should be, right?

Another question I have is related to what appears to be a manifest circularity in your enterprise. For in order to rank a boxer you are required, as it were, to put the boxer in an evaluative context. That is why you speak of "ranked" and "world class" competition and so on. But then, would you not have to have already presupposed an evaluative ranking which is precisely what you own enterprise is supposed to do?

Perhaps such questions seem a little remote but they may be the sort of thing that comes back to bite us in the ass when we try to be as "objective" as we can. We realize we have been presupposing a set of values either our own or ones we have grown up within.
I think that we can exert some control over our presuppositions if we are mindful of them, but we have to also factor in those values that we honestly believe as important. For example, I believe that Roberto Duran was a top 10 ATG fighter. I believe that he was highly skilled, and his accomplishments proved that in terms of dominance in his natural division, in how he did against larger men, his longevity, and so on. I hold this view of Duran based on evidence, not based on how much he reminded me of my favorite aunt.

What I am doing here with this thread is inviting critique as a check and balance.... I will submit the rankings and scores later for the same.

Please feel free to rebut this. Your post was welcome!

[dpw417]

Stonehands...Facinating idea.

You guys are all over this and I'm anxious to see what comes of it. Two of your classifications fall under more of a subjective nature 'Adversity Overcome' and 'Ring Generalship'. All the other rankings are objective which is great.

How many subcatagories do you have represented in Ring Generalship? Is it a ranking of each individual fighter's assets such as speed, strength, durability, counterpunching ability, etc.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands...Facinating idea.

You guys are all over this and I'm anxious to see what comes of it. Two of your classifications fall under more of a subjective nature 'Adversity Overcome' and 'Ring Generalship'. All the other rankings are objective which is great.

How many subcatagories do you have represented in Ring Generalship? Is it a ranking of each individual fighter's assets such as speed, strength, durability, counterpunching ability, etc.
I changed "Adversity Overcome" to "Character" and may rename it again to "Intangibles"...

The subcategories will be loosely identified, but I don't want to get too mathematical about it, and apply %s and all that. So, there will have to be a measure of subjectivity but at least I'll know it's informed...! Ring Generalship is level of skill, athleticism, adaptability/tactical ability and strategic capability. "Durability" is in its own, lesser category.

Does that sound fair...?

[dpw417]

I changed "Adversity Overcome" to "Character" and may rename it again to "Intangibles"...

The subcategories will be loosely identified, but I don't want to get too mathematical about it, and apply %s and all that. So, there will have to be a measure of subjectivity but at least I'll know it's informed...! Ring Generalship is level of skill, athleticism, adaptability/tactical ability and strategic capability. "Durability" is in its own, lesser category.

Does that sound fair...?
I like it...

On what part of "Ring Generalship" will you put the most emphasis on?

For instance, alot of your great fighters will dictate a fight by being more mobile, some will play to their strengths by jabbing and controling ring center, some have superior defensive technique, workrate, ability to fight inside, power, combination punching...and so forth.

It's all important as far as ranking...but some are more important than others.

[Stonehands89]

I like it...

On what part of "Ring Generalship" will you put the most emphasis on?

For instance, alot of your great fighters will dictate a fight by being more mobile, some will play to their strengths by jabbing and controling ring center, some have superior defensive technique, workrate, ability to fight inside, power, combination punching...and so forth.

It's all important as far as ranking...but some are more important than others.
I agree, but I think that it would be best to transcend style and it's singular parts and look at how effective that fighter was in the ring. If forced, I'd probably consider how well that fighter controls the field, his game at every range, and how defensively adept that fighter is.

[Sweet Pea]

The "Intangibles" category sounds like a great idea, and a very telling one. What truly seperates the greats. I'd go with that, Piedra.:good

[Stonehands89]

And now the unveiling: Feel free to tear it up or commend it, but please critique it. This is quality control and collectively speaking, I trust your judgement...

Here is the first draft of rankings #10 counted down to #6:

10. Eder Jofre
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 10
LGV 11
DOM 12


(10 pt must)
PLO 6
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 70


9. Charley Burley
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 13
LGV 8
DOM 12

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 10
INT 7

TOTAL = 72


9. Muhammad Ali
(15 pt must)
RG 11
EXP 13
LGV 11
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 9
INT 9
TOTAL = 72


8. Willie Pep
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 12
LGV 14
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 6
DUR 7
INT 6
TOTAL = 73


7. Archie Moore
(15 pt must)
RG 11
Exp 15
LGV 15
DOM 11

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 6
INT 8

TOTAL = 74


6. Roberto Duran
(15 pt must)
RG 13
Exp 15
LGV 13
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 9
INT 4
TOTAL: 75


-------------------------------------------------------------
(...I would appreciate that Burley-Ali tie being broken and so ask for argument relating to that. Also, remember to try to suspend who you feel should be included and who you think is better than who. Let's look at the values in a comapartive manner and not get locked in on the same old general debates.)

[Stonehands89]

5. Henry Armstrong
(15 pt must)
RG 13
Exp 14
LGV 11
DOM 15


(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 8
INT 7
TOTAL = 76


4. Ezzard Charles
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 15
LGV 13
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 9
DUR 5
INT 8
TOTAL = 77


3. Mickey Walker
(15 pt must)
RG 14
EXP 15
LGV 12
DOM 12

(10 pt must)
PLO 10
DUR 7
INT 8
TOTAL = 78


2. Ray Robinson
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 13
LGV 15
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 7
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 80


1. Harry Greb
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 15
LGV 15
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 9
DUR 9
INT 10

TOTAL = 87

[Jaws]

Very interesting list.

This Top 10 I happened to randomly stumble upon once shares a lot of similarities:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Stonehands89]

Very interesting list.

This Top 10 I happened to randomly stumble upon once shares a lot of similarities:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
That list isn't bad at all.

[Flea Man]

To be fair that's a feasible list. It seems to work. I think Burley is too high however, but I assume that the method works and has therefore placed him that high due to all the stats you input.

I mean, the top five is as obvious as it would be placed on opinion. So I assume the stats don't lie :good

Very intrigued to see a top 100 using this sytem.

[Stonehands89]

To be fair that's a feasible list. It seems to work. I think Burley is too high however, but I assume that the method works and has therefore placed him that high due to all the stats you input.

I mean, the top five is as obvious as it would be placed on opinion. So I assume the stats don't lie :good

Very intrigued to see a top 100 using this sytem.
Burley or Ali? and why in terms of numbers and comparisons?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

[Sweet Pea]

I just can't see Burley that high because of the fact that he may not have even been the best fighter of the Murderer's Row, just the most reknowned, and the only one we actually have footage of.

[sweet_scientist]

I agree, but I think that it would be best to transcend style and it's singular parts and look at how effective that fighter was in the ring. If forced, I'd probably consider how well that fighter controls the field, his game at every range, and how defensively adept that fighter is.

Stoney, would you agree with the following?

"Ring Generalship properly understood is about how effective a fighter is in controlling his opponent. Whether this is done by singing and dancing, laughing and crying or laying an egg is besides the point. What should be measured is the effectiveness one has in controlling an opponent, not the method via which the control is achieved. Whether someone achieves control via defensive strategy or bumrushing a foe is equal in worth if the level of effectiveness is the same."

As to your list, I'd like to ask, did Benny Leonard make your 1920 cut off? If he did, I'd think he'd have to be in the top 10.

One other question, where did Barney Ross come in? Surprised someone like Jofre is ranked higher than him.

[GPater11093]

i was thinking about this heaps today but forgot my idea

[ChrisPontius]

Haven't had time to read the entire thread, but Ali only 11 out of 15 on ring generalship? I'd say he deserves at least 13.

[Stonehands89]

Stoney, would you agree with the following?

"Ring Generalship properly understood is about how effective a fighter is in controlling his opponent. Whether this is done by singing and dancing, laughing and crying or laying an egg is besides the point. What should be measured is the effectiveness one has in controlling an opponent, not the method via which the control is achieved. Whether someone achieves control via defensive strategy or bumrushing a foe is equal in worth if the level of effectiveness is the same."
I like that definition. Ring Generalship should revolve around effectiveness, but I have a dilemma... I do think that skill should be factored in to some notable degree. I don't know how notable, but boxing is a skill sport before it is an "athleticism" sport and history has proven that. Pure athletes have doen well -Naseem, Ali of course, Jones of course, Foreman I, but they are exceptional. Most guys who rely on physical strength or speed or some other athletic quality or combination thereof are chased out of the gym before their 19 years old...

As to your list, I'd like to ask, did Benny Leonard make your 1920 cut off? If he did, I'd think he'd have to be in the top 10.
I had a tough time with Benny. He did make the cut-off, but came in at 11. That surprised me too.

11. Benny Leonard
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 12
LGV 10
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 7
INT 7
TOTAL = 69
One other question, where did Barney Ross come in? Surprised someone like Jofre is ranked higher than him.

13. Barney Ross
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 13
LGV 7
DOM 11

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 67

Eder beat him based on Longevity. Barney was all done early...

[Stonehands89]

Haven't had time to read the entire thread, but Ali only 11 out of 15 on ring generalship? I'd say he deserves at least 13.
That's a good point... the problem rises out of my preference -dubious or not- to factor in skill. As in technique. Ali got by in an historically weaker division because of his size and athleticism in the first phase and by size and will (and a little luck) in the second.

[sweet_scientist]

I like that definition. Ring Generalship should revolve around effectiveness, but I have a dilemma... I do think that skill should be factored in to some notable degree. I don't know how notable, but boxing is a skill sport before it is an "athleticism" sport and history has proven that. Pure athletes have doen well -Naseem, Ali of course, Jones of course, Foreman I, but they are exceptional. Most guys who rely on physical strength or speed or some other athletic quality or combination thereof are chased out of the gym before their 19 years old...

I'm not sure I agree here but thanks for the clarification :good


I had a tough time with Benny. He did make the cut-off, but came in at 11. That surprised me too.

11. Benny Leonard
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 12
LGV 10
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 7
INT 7
TOTAL = 69If we look at him in comparison to Jofre:

You have given Jofre an 11 for longevity and Leonard a 10. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sure Jofre hung around until he was older, but if we look at the years they were world class for, there's not that much of a gap: Leonard 1915-1924, Jofre 1958-1966, 1972-73, and 1976. But when you bare in mind how many times Leonard was fighting (and against such tough opposition) for every one of those years, there's no way you can meaningfully say that Jofre had a longer career.

With regards to performances against larger opponents, you gave Leonard a 5 and Jofre a 6. I think I would reverse that. Sure, Jofre beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes. I'd say Leonard's wins against Jack Britton (x2), Willie Ritchie, Soldier Bartfield (x4) and his draw with Ted Kid Lewis should carry a bit more weight.

With regards to durability, you gave Jofre a 9 and Leonard a 7. I'd probably bring those a bit closer together, giving Leonard an 8. He spent a 10 year prime, facing tough opponent after tough opponent and never got ko'ed in that time. That's pretty durable. No doubting Jofre's toughness either, but I think Leonard's toughness is pretty proven here.

When it comes to intangibles I'd probably give Leonard the edge. He took on everyone (multiple times), he was ingenious in finding ways to win, relying on wit and cunning as well as skill, and when he was past his prime and facing great fighters like Lew Tendler he still found a way to fend them off and take the win. I don't think Leonard's comeback in the 30's detracts from his achievements or character one iota.

I'll be back to discuss my thoughts on Jofre/Ross later :good

[sweet_scientist]

With regards to Jofre/Ross, where I'd disagree with you is in the following areas:

In terms of longevity, Jofre scoring 11 and Ross scoring 7 presents too much of a disparity, especially considering they had roughly the same amount of fights. I'd say 11-9 is a more fitting score. Jofre scoring more for being at a world class level for quite a few more years, but Ross staying within ear shot because he compacted his work.

When it comes to performances against larger opponents, Ross HAS to be higher than Jofre. There's no real justification for Jofre scoring a 6 and Ross a 5. Ross beat bigger men like Jimmy McLarnin (x2), Ceferino Garcia (x3) whilst they were in their primes, as well as other fighters of note like Sammy Fuller (whilst being 3 and a half pounds lighter), Billy Petrolle (x2 whilst being 4 and a half pounds lighter on one ocassion 2 and a quarter pounds lighter on another) and Chuck Woods (whilst being 5 pounds lighter).

Jofre as I said earlier beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes and Jofre give or take a pound weighed in the same amount as they did when he fought them.

I think a fairer score here would be Ross 7 and Jofre 5, maybe 6.

With those changes in mind, Ross should be ahead.

[Stonehands89]

I'm not sure I agree here but thanks for the clarification :good


If we look at him in comparison to Jofre:

You have given Jofre an 11 for longevity and Leonard a 10. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sure Jofre hung around until he was older, but if we look at the years they were world class for, there's not that much of a gap: Leonard 1915-1924, Jofre 1958-1966, 1972-73, and 1976. But when you bare in mind how many times Leonard was fighting (and against such tough opposition) for every one of those years, there's no way you can meaningfully say that Jofre had a longer career.

With regards to performances against larger opponents, you gave Leonard a 6 and Jofre a 5. I think I would reverse that. Sure, Jofre beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes. I'd say Leonard's wins against Jack Britton (x2), Willie Ritchie, Soldier Bartfield (x4) and his draw with Ted Kid Lewis should carry a bit more weight.

With regards to durability, you gave Jofre a 9 and Leonard a 7. I'd probably bring those a bit closer together, giving Leonard an 8. He spent a 10 year prime, facing tough opponent after tough opponent and never got ko'ed in that time. That's pretty durable. No doubting Jofre's toughness either, but I think Leonard's toughness is pretty proven here.

When it comes to intangibles I'd probably give Leonard the edge. He took on everyone (multiple times), he was ingenious in finding ways to win, relying on wit and cunning as well as skill, and when he was past his prime and facing great fighters like Lew Tendler he still found a way to fend them off and take the win. I don't think Leonard's comeback in the 30's detracts from his achievements or character one iota.

I'll be back to discuss my thoughts on Jofre/Ross later :good
Great work. You've convinced me.

One qualifier. If a fighter was stopped -even early on or past prime, I have to deduct at least a point compared to the fighter who was never stopped, all else being roughly equal. thsi is because the standard is the guy who was never stopped.... like Burley. Leonard was stopped in his first and last...

[Stonehands89]

With regards to Jofre/Ross, where I'd disagree with you is in the following areas:

In terms of longevity, Jofre scoring 11 and Ross scoring 7 presents too much of a disparity, especially considering they had roughly the same amount of fights. I'd say 11-9 is a more fitting score. Jofre scoring more for being at a world class level for quite a few more years, but Ross staying within ear shot because he compacted his work.

When it comes to performances against larger opponents, Ross HAS to be higher than Jofre. There's no real justification for Jofre scoring a 6 and Ross a 5. Ross beat bigger men like Jimmy McLarnin (x2), Ceferino Garcia (x3) whilst they were in their primes, as well as other fighters of note like Sammy Fuller (whilst being 3 and a half pounds lighter), Billy Petrolle (x2 whilst being 4 and a half pounds lighter on one ocassion 2 and a quarter pounds lighter on another) and Chuck Woods (whilst being 5 pounds lighter).

Jofre as I said earlier beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes and Jofre give or take a pound weighed in the same amount as they did when he fought them.

I think a fairer score here would be Ross 7 and Jofre 5, maybe 6.

With those changes in mind, Ross should be ahead.
The Longevity discrepancy is an oversight -thanks for the catch. The other points will be diligently re-examined.

Great posts -and thank you.

[sweet_scientist]

Great work. You've convinced me.

One qualifier. If a fighter was stopped -even early on or past prime, I have to deduct at least a point compared to the fighter who was never stopped, all else being roughly equal. thsi is because the standard is the guy who was never stopped.... like Burley. Leonard was stopped in his first and last...

Yeah stoppage losses have to count for something, but they should be judged in context. If a guy hangs around until he is utterly shot and then get's Ko'ed whilst having shown a granite chin in and near after his prime, whilst another fighter doesn't hang around until he is deteriorated to a shell and thus doesn't get stopped, I'd be inclined to dismiss the stoppage for the first fighter as being relevant. I think you can only judge the durability of one fighter in comparison to another fighter if he has been in a similar place.

There are also other instances where stoppages have to be judged with caution. For instance, I would never say Hector Camacho is more durable than Roberto Duran, even though Roberto has been stopped and Camacho hasn't. You have to take into account the level of comp they faced, and how they fought too. Camacho can run and hold until he is 101 years old and never get ko'ed, I'd never say he was more durable than Duran.

[sweet_scientist]

The Longevity discrepancy is an oversight -thanks for the catch. The other points will be diligently re-examined.

Great posts -and thank you.

Cheers man:good

[McGrain]

Great read boys.

[Stonehands89]

Yeah stoppage losses have to count for something, but they should be judged in context. If a guy hangs around until he is utterly shot and then get's Ko'ed whilst having shown a granite chin in and near after his prime, whilst another fighter doesn't hang around until he is deteriorated to a shell and thus doesn't get stopped, I'd be inclined to dismiss the stoppage for the first fighter as being relevant. I think you can only judge the durability of one fighter in comparison to another fighter if he has been in a similar place.

There are also other instances where stoppages have to be judged with caution. For instance, I would never say Hector Camacho is more durable than Roberto Duran, even though Roberto has been stopped and Camacho hasn't. You have to take into account the level of comp they faced, and how they fought too. Camacho can run and hold until he is 101 years old and never get ko'ed, I'd never say he was more durable than Duran.
Agreed.

This will help me systemize it: The standard of all chins is Hagler. Few match him and no one matches him who has been stopped. The fact that they hung on is beside the point because we can't make assumptions but we can use the measure and go from there.

[Duodenum]

6. Roberto Duran
(15 pt must)
LGV 13 In your thread opening post, you mentioned that you considered Duran as the standard setter in this category. Naturally, I'm therefore curious as to why you have given him less than the 15 point maximum here. (Or is this merely a typo?)

[Stonehands89]

In your thread opening post, you mentioned that you considered Duran as the standard setter in this category. Naturally, I'm therefore curious as to why you have given him less than the 15 point maximum here. (Or is this merely a typo?)
I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks. Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?

[ChrisPontius]

I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks. Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?

If you don't mind me chipping in here, i think 13 is a good score for Duran here. His longetivity is among the very best, but not the best. For instance, Ali (i like him as a reference) scores 11 in this category, despite still beating the linear champ (ok, Leon Spinks, but still contender level) 18 years after his pro debut. By comparison, Duran's last significant victory, if i remember correct, was Barkley in '89, which is 15 years after his debut. Plus, Ali was still holding the title up to that point and questionable or not, scoring wins over top guys like Young and Shavers, while Duran mixed in losses to Lawlor (who?), Simms, Laing and Benitez. Come to think of it, i'd give Duran 12 and Ali 14 in that category.

[Doppleganger]

Stonehands, nice work once again my friend. It's great to take part in something like this! I've come late to the party so apologies if these points have already been picked up on:



Are you sticking with just the top 10 greatest fighters? Inevitable this will mean that the usual suspects will probably occupy most if not all of the spaces. It might be more interesting to open it up to 20?
In the Character category how will you allow for the general 'care-bearing' of the sport since the 1920s. Modern standards means that fights get stopped earlier than every before, injuries are more carefully looked at and so on. It might be harder for more modern fighters to score favourably in this category.
For durability will you separate out outright ability to take a punch from recuperation ability?
What about natural athletic ability or is this just incorporated in the other categories? Some fighters played more heavily on athleticism than others, RJJ being an obvious example.

EDIT: I've realised that 2 of my points above are already moot given your initial draft. :)

[Duodenum]

I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks.No sweat. Better yet, that discrepancy afforded the opening to let you know I've been trying to give your hard effort the scrutiny it deserves, and I wanted to acknowledge your invitation to me to comment on this in some way.Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?While I've read through the thread, I frankly don't have the mental energy and intensity of focus necessary to offer useful feedback at the moment. Maybe that's a positive indicator of how the placements are going so far. (Meanwhile, I've been trying to confine myself to less demanding subject matter.) If I'm to offer any subjective analysis of potential value, it will have to come after I've had a chance to recharge my batteries. As often as you and I are on the same page though, I'm frequently quite content just to let your views stand without adding further comment of my own.

Most of what I might contribute would be in the form of nitpicking, tweaking, and the sort of devil's advocacy type argumentation Manassa's so adept at. (For example, I'd look for an instance where SRR's ring generalship might be called into question.)

[fists of fury]

Someone play Devil's Advocate.

I'm considering taken out "Adversity Overcome" because those fighters who were too good for their own good shouldn't suffer by scoring low here. Charley Burley, for instance.

Tricky one.

All fighters at one point or another will face adversity, no matter how good they are. How they handle that adversity is really what seperates the men from the boys.

I'd leave it in place if I were you.

On a side note, I will just be an interested spectator and see how this unfolds, if you don't mind. If I feel I need to add something I will, but otherwise I'll just leave it to the fellows who place a lot of stock in rankings.

[Stonehands89]

If you don't mind me chipping in here, i think 13 is a good score for Duran here. His longetivity is among the very best, but not the best. For instance, Ali (i like him as a reference) scores 11 in this category, despite still beating the linear champ (ok, Leon Spinks, but still contender level) 18 years after his pro debut. By comparison, Duran's last significant victory, if i remember correct, was Barkley in '89, which is 15 years after his debut. Plus, Ali was still holding the title up to that point and questionable or not, scoring wins over top guys like Young and Shavers, while Duran mixed in losses to Lawlor (who?), Simms, Laing and Benitez. Come to think of it, i'd give Duran 12 and Ali 14 in that category.
Your input is more than welcome. I'd pay you if I could -per post, becuase it is helping me out.

Let me try to convince you to give Duran a 13 instead of a 12. That Barkley win was 21 years after his pro debut, not 15. It was 16 years after his first world title (Buchanan).

Ali at a 14 is too high. Remember the 15s go to guys like Moore and Greb -look at their number of fights. Ali didn't have a whole helluva lot of bouts...

[GPater11093]

Stonehands that disabilities overcome category and yopu mention guys not getting title shots etc...

surely there is factors out of a fighters controll here that could enhance/penalise a fighter

perhaps maybe a category for specail things like Greb being blind in one eye could be made instead

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands, nice work once again my friend. It's great to take part in something like this! I've come late to the party so apologies if these points have already been picked up on:

1. Are you sticking with just the top 10 greatest fighters? Inevitable this will mean that the usual suspects will probably occupy most if not all of the spaces. It might be more interesting to open it up to 20?
I've done most of the names offered in one of my threads from some months ago asking for who Classic posters believed should be considered in the running for the Top 10. If you feel strongly about another potential, give me the name, I'll do up a chart and we can argue it or agree. Be merciful though, time is of essence!


2. In the Character category how will you allow for the general 'care-bearing' of the sport since the 1920s. Modern standards means that fights get stopped earlier than every before, injuries are more carefully looked at and so on. It might be harder for more modern fighters to score favourably in this category.
I'm not considering those nuts like Battling Nelson whose heyday was before 1920. They'd be off the charts.

However, you are correct in my being really forced to lend some weight to fighters through the 50s, when they had to overcome injury without much help from refs like today. But then there are exceptions. Ali for example.


3. For durability will you separate out outright ability to take a punch from recuperation ability?
Those guys who had a lot of fights, faced bangers or bigger men, and remained erect will score high here. Hagler is the standard, as mentioned. Recuperative ability helps, but I don't see Charles and Moore as durable in the same vein as say Greb or Ross.


4. What about natural athletic ability or is this just incorporated in the other categories? Some fighters played more heavily on athleticism than others, RJJ being an obvious example.
EDIT: I've realised that 2 of my points above are already moot given your initial draft. :)
No problem, I've tried to answer you anyway.

Natural athletic ability is absorbed into RG, although my preference for skill has been noted in an earlier post.

[Stonehands89]

No sweat. Better yet, that discrepancy afforded the opening to let you know I've been trying to give your hard effort the scrutiny it deserves, and I wanted to acknowledge your invitation to me to comment on this in some way.While I've read through the thread, I frankly don't have the mental energy and intensity of focus necessary to offer useful feedback at the moment. Maybe that's a positive indicator of how the placements are going so far. (Meanwhile, I've been trying to confine myself to less demanding subject matter.) If I'm to offer any subjective analysis of potential value, it will have to come after I've had a chance to recharge my batteries. As often as you and I are on the same page though, I'm frequently quite content just to let your views stand without adding further comment of my own.

Most of what I might contribute would be in the form of nitpicking, tweaking, and the sort of devil's advocacy type argumentation Manassa's so adept at. (For example, I'd look for an instance where SRR's ring generalship might be called into question.)
Whatever you like, I trust your judgment. And a stamp of approval by Duodenum would make this effort shimmer.

[Stonehands89]

Tricky one.

All fighters at one point or another will face adversity, no matter how good they are. How they handle that adversity is really what seperates the men from the boys.

I'd leave it in place if I were you.

On a side note, I will just be an interested spectator and see how this unfolds, if you don't mind. If I feel I need to add something I will, but otherwise I'll just leave it to the fellows who place a lot of stock in rankings.
Sure thing. I have since absorbed "Adversity Overcome" into a new category called "intangibles"....

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands that disabilities overcome category and yopu mention guys not getting title shots etc...

surely there is factors out of a fighters controll here that could enhance/penalise a fighter

perhaps maybe a category for specail things like Greb being blind in one eye could be made instead
Greb's "Intangibles" are very high. Robinson will be publically penalized for ducking Burley. I believe that he absolutely did duck him. Nothing less. So, he pays. In fact, it is a major reason why he isn't number one on my list.... Robinson ducked Burley and now, finally, he pays for it. He's number 2.

[GPater11093]

Greb's "Intangibles" are very high. Robinson will be publically penalized for ducking Burley. I believe that he absolutely did duck him. Nothing less. So, he pays. In fact, it is a major reason why he isn't number one on my list.... Robinson ducked Burley and now, finally, he pays for it. He's number 2.

thats fair enough

[ChrisPontius]

Your input is more than welcome. I'd pay you if I could -per post, becuase it is helping me out.

Let me try to convince you to give Duran a 13 instead of a 12. That Barkley win was 21 years after his pro debut, not 15. It was 16 years after his first world title (Buchanan).

Ali at a 14 is too high. Remember the 15s go to guys like Moore and Greb -look at their number of fights. Ali didn't have a whole helluva lot of bouts...

My bad, i quickly looked up his first pro fight at boxrec, but forgot there was a page 1. :patsch 13 is fine indeed. I'd have Ali at 12.

[Stonehands89]

Mathematically, the system's values are too low to allow for a top 100. I as thinking of increasing them so as to better differentiate between the candidates. As it stands now, there will be many ties if we do a top 100. If we increase the values then we will lurch into absurdity. For example:

If Ross's RG is a "28" and Burley's is a "26" --how the hell do you explain the difference? It would be arbitrary. We could devise a computer program that would use % and all that... but that would be a ton of work and I'm no expert on computers.

No, I like that ESB Classic experts submitted names into a pool and then the top ten are scored using the present system.

..Just thinking out loud here!

[dpw417]

Excellent job...and great work.
With your rating system, thsi is one of the most objective lists that one could produce.
Now that the compliments are done with...
I need to campaign for Henry Armstrong!

My listing for Henry would place him top three
RG 15
EXP 14
LGV 11
DOM 15
PLO 10
DUR 8
INT 9

total: 82

Where we differ at are the ratings in RG, PLO, and INT.

Why should Armstrong have a higher RG rating?
Stylistically Armstrong would make the ring a much smaller place. Fighting on the inside and shutting down an opponent's offense by crowding and not allowing them to get set was a science to him. Armstrong always imposed his style on the procedings...Always!...and against larger opposition.

PLO?
This should be Armstrong's catagory. Imagine if Armstrong would have gotten the decisions against Ambers (Armstrong was deducted several points for low blows unnecessarily) and Garcia, he would have held 4 of the 8 original weight division titles! Simply mind boggling.

INT?
To be consistantly outsized in his welter reign, but to be able to overcome the disadvantages underlines Armstrong's greatness.

Ray Robinson?
Using your system, I'd grade him out as follows:
RG 15
EXP 15
LGV 15
DOM 14
PLO 7
DUR 9
INT 8

total: 83

A few more points for LGV. A 25 year career fighting rated fighters from teh start to the finish...What more do ya have to do?
INT? Sustained excellence...nuff said. Still second to Greb, but a little closer...Which it should be.

*Just nitpicking* I applaud your effort and I'm sure everyone else does as well.

[Stonehands89]

dpw, damn good arguments.

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree? Henry did fight larger men, but he was rarely the weaker man in there. With Walker, and Duran for that matter, different story. I think Henry is good there.

RG and Int .... I will reconsider those again, you are pretty persuasive...

Tell me though, do you believe that Armstrong deserves to be ranked over Ezzard? I've been rethinking that lately because Armstrong, as great as he was, did have a relatively short prime.

[dpw417]

dpw, damn good arguments.

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree? Henry did fight larger men, but he was rarely the weaker man in there. With Walker, and Duran for that matter, different story. I think Henry is good there.

RG and Int .... I will reconsider those again, you are pretty persuasive...

Tell me though, do you believe that Armstrong deserves to be ranked over Ezzard? I've been rethinking that lately because Armstrong, as great as he was, did have a relatively short prime.
-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree?
Yes and No...How's that? Walker certainly deserves the high grade, no question. Armstrong, I feel deserves the credit due him as well. For all intents and purposes should have been recognized as featherweight, lightweight, weterweight, AND middleweight champion...Not only is that off the charts as a testimony for greatness, it's just plain absurd... Armstrong may have been the stronger man? Perhaps so. But what about his style? A smallish, pressure fighter who routinely got low and uprooted all of his opponents. He leveraged everybody, by driving underneath them.

Taking advantage of your rankings and tweaking them to my view, I feel Armstrong comes in at third with an 82, while Ezzard Charles comes in at 79. A score of 13 (Charles) to 11 (Armstrong) in LGV seems fair. But in my view anyway, it wouldn't unseat Armstrong.

[Stonehands89]

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree?
Yes and No...How's that? Walker certainly deserves the high grade, no question. Armstrong, I feel deserves the credit due him as well. For all intents and purposes should have been recognized as featherweight, lightweight, weterweight, AND middleweight champion...Not only is that off the charts as a testimony for greatness, it's just plain absurd... Armstrong may have been the stronger man? Perhaps so. But what about his style? A smallish, pressure fighter who routinely got low and uprooted all of his opponents. He leveraged everybody, by driving underneath them.

Taking advantage of your rankings and tweaking them to my view, I feel Armstrong comes in at third with an 82, while Ezzard Charles comes in at 79. A score of 13 (Charles) to 11 (Armstrong) in LGV seems fair. But in my view anyway, it wouldn't unseat Armstrong.
The middleweight commendations Armstrong gets is a bit blown up. Ceferino Garcia was no more of a MW than Armstrong himself, Armstrong already beat him at WW and drew with him at MW. Garcia was 5'7 and a natural Welter.... and the so-called MW title was recognized by one state... CA.

PS/ Love the "leveraged/uprooted" description, I may have to steal that one, okay?

[Dempsey1238]

How off the carts would Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, Terry McGovern or Young Corbett II would be??

Can you thown a few out there please. Perhaps Corbett II?

[Boilermaker]

Has anybody rated Bob Fitzsimmons? If rated against his own time, which seems to be the key, i think he has close to the perfect score.

[Stonehands89]

How off the carts would Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, Terry McGovern or Young Corbett II would be??

Can you thown a few out there please. Perhaps Corbett II?
This endeavor is since 1920. I will say that Gans would have ranked very high. Probably well inside the top 10, although his era poses a range of problems that force me to exclude them from P4P rankings of what really is a different era, the modern era.

Has anybody rated Bob Fitzsimmons? If rated against his own time, which seems to be the key, i think he has close to the perfect score.
Fitzsimmons would rank high if he was ranked relative to his own time, but I personally consider most of the fighters from the era before 1920 to be "pioneers". Their style was different because the sport was basically a different sport when you factor in the number of rounds, the lack of rules, the NDs, and the higher rate of shenanigans. Even Sam Langford, who was as great as it gets, has a record with more than a few dives and carries.