Is rating a fighter on the basis of social importance relevant?

[mr. magoo]

Often in debate, fans, experts and internet posters will give an all time great fighter a boost in the ratings for things like drawing the color line, revolutionalizing the rules, or other social contributions.

I guess my question is, should these items be taken into account in the same context as things like, records, title defenses, competition quality, etc?

Although I thoroughly respect the social contributions that some champs like Louis for example have made, I'm not sure that I'd rate fighters based on them. It's sort of like rating a doctor for being a good family man, rather than how many lives he's actually saved.

Just my opinion though.

[dmt]

no

ability, opposition and accomplishments matter more. Contributions to make the sport better don't count the same as how good a fighter really was

[Thread Stealer]

No.

I never really understood why people ranked fighters, or athletes, based on social impact or popularity.

Performance in the ring is what I judge fighters on.

[Mendoza]

Here's my take. Part of boxing is what the athlete meant to the era, and a group of people. This is how it has been, and suspect how it will continue to be in future.

As such, " Old timers " like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, and Muhammad Ali tend to gain massive amounts of media coverage today, which in my opinion makes them all over rated in comparison to the champion who did not enjoy an equal amount of media coverage or worse yet were cast as villains by the media.

So in terms of " greatness " , yeah it means something’s, BUT in terms of head to head rankings, objective film analysis, or stastics it should not!

[arther1045]

No.

I never really understood why people ranked fighters, or athletes, based on social impact or popularity.

Performance in the ring is what I judge fighters on.




Exactly. They ruin the lists when they do that. In that case I will take Martin Luther King bowling 150 over Ali or Jordan. Whats the point.

[Jear]

I dont think it should, and dont really agree that most people do give that boost.

I would guess you are refering to Johnson, Ali and maybe Louis. All of whom can have legitimate arguements made purely on skill and accomplishments as to their high rankings.

John L Sullivan would be ranked much higher if social relevance were a factor.

I believe that it is more that there social relevance just makes more posters much more aware of their feats than actually influencing their rankings.

[Asterion]

No.

[TBooze]

Yes of course you do, everyone does. And if you say you do not, then all your doing is giving a bias to those who have less social importance, to make your point, even if you do not realise it.

We are all human we will always judge using criteria like that, we cannot help it.

[McGrain]

Hell no. But i'd love to see a list based primarily upon just this?

TBooze?

[ripcity]

It is an intersting subject but should not be consedered when ranking boxers.

[Manassa]

I suppose it would depend on if you were rating them by social significance for their era, or for our era. Obviously Joe Louis is less significant today than he was in the '30s and '40s.

[TBooze]

Hell no. But i'd love to see a list based primarily upon just this?

TBooze?

That is a tough one:huh

I do not think even I am that happy with this, but here goes:

10 Rocky Marciano
9 Ray Leonard
8 Ray Robinson
7 Jack Johnson
6 James J Jeffries
5 Jack Dempsey
4 Mike Tyson
3 John L Sullivan
2 Joe Louis
1 Muhammad Ali

Mentions: James J Corbett, Harry Wills, Georges Carpentier, Benny Leonard, Harry Greb, Gene Tunney, Micky Walker, James J Braddock, Billy Conn, Rocky Graziano, Jake LaMotta, Joe Frazier, Roberto Duran, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns, Evander Holyfield and Oscar de la Hoya

[McGrain]

:lol:

Cracking effort! Possibly there should be a spot for Archie Moore, possibly Jack Johnson should be higher....and there must be a way to wedge Burley in there

:huh

[TBooze]

:lol:

Cracking effort! Possibly there should be a spot for Archie Moore, possibly Jack Johnson should be higher....and there must be a way to wedge Burley in there

:huh

Yeah, you probably are right.

[ChrisPontius]

....and there must be a way to wedge Burley in there

:huh

You're starting to need professional help. :lol:

[Langford]

I think it can have its place, though when I make my own lists up, I do not let it be a factor.

I think you can make some kind of master list, where you combine overall skill, quality of opposition, wins, performances, legacy, social impact, etc all into one. But, but it would be tough to place weight on one thing or another.

It says a lot for a fighter to define his era, usually, fighters who do this must have more than a few reasons why they do that. Joe Louis wouldn't have been a national hero if the people who saw him didn't think he could fight well.
Ditto everyone else.

Depends on how you look at things.