Ranking fighters

[salsanchezfan]

I notice a lot of threads here begging the question "where do you rank so-and-so." I winder if the author means this literally, and then I tune in to see the replies. Sure enough, there are actually people that will spout of with such things as "I rank him 34th all time at that weight" or some such.

This absolutely boggles my mind. I just can't get my brain around this type of thing. Who would actually sit down and document a list of anything past maybe number ten at the most? What criteria do they use, and don't the lines blur after a while? I mean seriously, is there any REAL distinction between a number 23 heavyweight and a number 31? Does it even matter?

Do any of you seriously do this? Sit down and write out you top 100 all-time lists and weigh number 79 against number 55? That's just amazing to me.

[salsanchezfan]

I rank George foreman at number 1843 all time p4p



............There are people here who could actually readily supply a list of the 1842 before him, too.

[Thinman]

I notice a lot of threads here begging the question "where do you rank so-and-so." I winder if the author means this literally, and then I tune in to see the replies. Sure enough, there are actually people that will spout of with such things as "I rank him 34th all time at that weight" or some such.

This absolutely boggles my mind. I just can't get my brain around this type of thing. Who would actually sit down and document a list of anything past maybe number ten at the most? What criteria do they use, and don't the lines blur after a while? I mean seriously, is there any REAL distinction between a number 23 heavyweight and a number 31? Does it even matter?

Do any of you seriously do this? Sit down and write out you top 100 all-time lists and weigh number 79 against number 55? That's just amazing to me.

I don't mean to be an a****, but you are right. I have always wonder how they do it.

I can try but... that is the most that I can do...

Let me try again..... the best at 135 are....:happy :happy :happy ..... In not particular order.. :thumbsup


Esteban de Jesus,
Barney Ross
Roberto Duran
Ken Buchanan
Alexis Arguello...

.........I hate this, but I forgot the rest...... sorry. :huh Does my ranking sound right? :think

[Thinman]

............There are people here who could actually readily supply a list of the 1842 before him, too.

Not kidding. :yep And they can tell you their tel. # and e-mail address too.

Did you box before you started posting in this forum?.....be careful...because you might be on that list too. :yikes

[TBooze]

I notice a lot of threads here begging the question "where do you rank so-and-so." I winder if the author means this literally, and then I tune in to see the replies. Sure enough, there are actually people that will spout of with such things as "I rank him 34th all time at that weight" or some such.

This absolutely boggles my mind. I just can't get my brain around this type of thing. Who would actually sit down and document a list of anything past maybe number ten at the most? What criteria do they use, and don't the lines blur after a while? I mean seriously, is there any REAL distinction between a number 23 heavyweight and a number 31? Does it even matter?

Do any of you seriously do this? Sit down and write out you top 100 all-time lists and weigh number 79 against number 55? That's just amazing to me.

It is silly to a degree, but one mans #50 could be the next mans #5, and neither are right or wrong.

Rankings period are entirly opinions... Even today if you asked 100 people who knew a lot about boxing to rate the top ten middleweights it would be highly, highly improbable that everyone would have the same ten.

And that is just rating the fighters who weigh 160lbs today. Now rate every single 160lber there has been since 1885 and it becomes bit more ludicrous, but it can be fun to do, just take everything written down with a pinch of salt.

[redrooster]

it is absurd yet it means so much to so many. The best I ever saw was the 1999 fan poll conducted by Ring magazine of which I was a proud participant :good

I'm surprised that this poll never comes up in the threads, I suspect the reason being that few if any know about it.

[Dempsey1238]

Ross is number 1.
Follow by Armstrong who beat a shot Ross
Than Robinson who beat a shot Armstrong
Than well you get the point.

[Dempsey1238]

And whats wrong with that?? Here is a guy that beat fellow top ten pound for pounders IN there prime like Cani and McLarin. I want to hear about Robinson getting that claim. He beat a shot Armstrong. And of couse Galvian didnt fight that many great fighters compare to Armstrong and Ross.

[JohnThomas1]

Great post Sal, very interesting. You'll notice i've barely done a list in my life lol. I think i did a top 10 Heavyweight one, but even at this simple level it's complicated. I do respect guys efforts like SS and MM (and others of course) tho, they do get right into it and nut out some very good comments and opinions.

[redrooster]

Great post Sal, very interesting. You'll notice i've barely done a list in my life lol. I think i did a top 10 Heavyweight one, but even at this simple level it's complicated. I do respect guys efforts like SS and MM (and others of course) tho, they do get right into it and nut out some very good comments and opinions.

Your lists look as bad as your shit smells! :lol:

[Dempsey1238]

Ross held 3 weight titles at the same time in 1934. A good 4 years before Armstrong repeated the feat.

And beating pound for pound champ like Cani, Great underated fight Petrolle, Fellow Welterweight great McLarin, He beat Garcia who Armstrong muster a draw with, beat the highly underated Frankie Flick, beat fomer champ Sammy Fullmer, and Battling Battalino. These guys are a murders role of who's who's and can not be dismissed. Robinson made his run out of fighting Fullmer and Balsio muiltpy times in yes bouts that are rember, but he didnt take on evey one like Ross did. A certain Charley Burly is lacking a title shot the last time I heard.

[Street Lethal]

10 or 20 and then honorable mentions seems sufficient.

[Dempsey1238]

Robinson lost to fighters he shouldnt have like Turpin. He also is best rember for series vs Lamotta, Fullmer, and Balsio. All 3 one dimsion sluggers that gave Robinson problems. Also Robinson held only 2 weight titles compare to Ross's 3, Outside of fight these 3 guys over and over again, and beating Galivan and perhaps Sammy the Clich Angott, He relly didnt do anything compare to Ross, He also had WAY more losses on his record during his middleweight championship days. He coulnt hold it for a year until a Turpin level of fighter was holding the crownd. He was not the weight jumper Ross or even Cani was.

[JohnThomas1]

Your lists look as bad as your shit smells! :lol:

What are you doing smelling my turds? You're a worry you are

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

Who woulda thought this thread would turn into debate about particular rankings lol

[Dempsey1238]

Because Canzi did more than Baslio, Fullmer, Olsan, LaMotta, Thsos 2 wins over a fellow pound for pound fighter.

Also Zivic was the Baldmoir of his day, beating a fading champ(Armstrong)
Rock was there at the right place with a past it Toney Zale, and was pretty well shot when he fought Robinson.

Doyle was not much, he even died vs robinson.
Angott was the Ruiz of his day.
Armstrong was SHOT.
Servio was a decent champ.
Most of these guys made names because they fought Robinson. Had say Doyle never fought Robinson, and died. I dont think people be talking about him today. Ross fought guys in there primes.

[Dempsey1238]

You relly going to give Robinson credit over past it fighters like Rocky and Henry?>? Had Robinson beating Fullmer and Balsio the FIRST time, they wont be as well known. They got there greatness because they beat Robinson.

[Dempsey1238]

You just Assume Armstrong would have lost to Robinson at WW??? This is were people start viewing Robinson as a God at this point. I belive Armstrong has a great shot in beating Robinson at WW.

[Thinman]

Who woulda thought this thread would turn into debate about particular rankings lol

Do you mean about the 135 lbs. ranking? :lol:

[dmille]

It is silly to a degree, but one mans #50 could be the next mans #5, and neither are right or wrong.

Rankings period are entirely opinions... Even today if you asked 100 people who knew a lot about boxing to rate the top ten middleweights it would be highly, highly improbable that everyone would have the same ten.

Ratings are merely opinion based, there I agree. But if one rates a fighter at 5 and the other rates him at 50 (either within his prime/natural weight division or pound-for-pound); one of them is wrong.

And you may not get the same 10 middleweights everytime, but the total number of fighters overall will not be 1000 or even 100. The same names will keep being cited.

[dmille]

You just Assume Armstrong would have lost to Robinson at WW??? This is were people start viewing Robinson as a God at this point. I belive Armstrong has a great shot in beating Robinson at WW.

Everyone has a shot as long as they are throwing punches. And Armstrong wouldn't have achieved what he did without being superhuman. So, of course, he would have a shot.

BUT he was a natural/prime lightweight.

[dmille]

You really going to give Robinson credit over past it fighters like Rocky and Henry? Had Robinson beaten Fullmer and Basilio the FIRST time, they wouldn't be as well known. They got their greatness because they beat Robinson.

1. Graziano only 29 when he fought him, so just how "past it" was he?

2. Marty Servo, Jake LaMotta and Kid Gavilan were NOT past it when he fought them.

3. Basilio was already a two-time WORLD welterweight champion, who had won two Ring "fight of the year" fights in a row and was also in a "round of the year". I say that he was already well known AND great before he fought SRR.

Both their fights ended in split decisions. If Carmen had lost both rather than going 1-1, they would be argued to this day. Hell, look at all the draws and unanimous nods that are still argued! And if he lost the first and hadn't gotten a RE, many would have claimed that Robby ducked him the same way they question why there was no rubber match.

[dmille]

He was past his prime for the vast majority of his losses. You know this, he was past 35 years of age for 15 of them.

Ross has the 3 weight classes, whoopedy doo, Mayweather has 5, does that make him better?

Overall resume of of Robinson: Basilio, Fullmer, Olson, Graziano, Turpin, Gavilan, LaMotta, Fusari, Cali Jackie Wilson, Doyle, Levine, Angott, Armstrong, Servo, Zivic, Shapiro, etc. Most of them MULTIPLE times.

Gimme Ross's and tell me why it surpasses it please. Thank you.

While I don't agree that Ross was better than Robinson, I don't agree with you thrashing his resume like this.

Mayweather's five titles were not undisputed. Ross' were.

Ross' ledger includes wins over Champions like Jimmy McLarnin, Canzi, Bat Battalino, Ceferino Garcia and titleholders like Sammy Fuller, Frankie Klick and Izzy Jannazzo as well as many tough rated contenders.

[Dempsey1238]

1. Graziano only 29 when he fought him, so just how "past it" was he?

2. Marty Servo, Jake LaMotta and Kid Gavilan were NOT past it when he fought them.

3. Basilio was already a two-time WORLD welterweight champion, who had won two Ring "fight of the year" fights in a row and was also in a "round of the year". I say that he was already well known AND great before he fought SRR.

Both their fights ended in split decisions. If Carmen had lost both rather than going 1-1, they would be argued to this day. Hell, look at all the draws and unanimous nods that are still argued! And if he lost the first and hadn't gotten a RE, many would have claimed that Robby ducked him the same way they question why there was no rubber match.

Lamotta was past it when he lost the title to Robinson. Jake was like 32 or something. Rocky had a short prime, and HIGHLY overrated. I say the Rock was pretty well used up by that time. Also the Rock had been knockout a few times. Had Rocky never beating Zale, it would have been other of the mill win for Robinson. But Rocky had the honor of being a name former champ. If you dont get hit with that right hand, the odds were pretty good you win.

[TBooze]

Ratings are merely opinion based, there I agree. But if one rates a fighter at 5 and the other rates him at 50 (either within his prime/natural weight division or pound-for-pound); one of them is wrong.

And you may not get the same 10 middleweights everytime, but the total number of fighters overall will not be 1000 or even 100. The same names will keep being cited.

Fair points... but ultimately your opinion, which was my point.;)

Opinions on a hypothesis that is unlikely to ever happen (eg: If Jimmy Wilde fought Lennox Lewis at the same weight; Wilde would win) cannot be proven right or wrong.

[Decebal]

I notice a lot of threads here begging the question "where do you rank so-and-so." I winder if the author means this literally, and then I tune in to see the replies. Sure enough, there are actually people that will spout of with such things as "I rank him 34th all time at that weight" or some such.

This absolutely boggles my mind. I just can't get my brain around this type of thing. Who would actually sit down and document a list of anything past maybe number ten at the most? What criteria do they use, and don't the lines blur after a while? I mean seriously, is there any REAL distinction between a number 23 heavyweight and a number 31? Does it even matter?

Do any of you seriously do this? Sit down and write out you top 100 all-time lists and weigh number 79 against number 55? That's just amazing to me.

shall I enter you for the ESB Essay Writing Competition:

[Only registered and activated users can see links] ??:lol:

[McGrain]

I rank George foreman at number 1843 all time p4p

This guy is for sure I Am Legend (with a better avatar). If someoen else hasn't done it already, this is it being done officaly, now.

[sweet_scientist]

There's a lot of speculation involved in list making, but it isn't all subjective. I mean, I challenge anyone to tell me Jose Luis Castillo is a better lightweight than Carlos Ortiz, or that Oscar de la Hoya is a better lightweight than Tony Canzoneri. Some points become debateable, others don't.

Provided you have a decent criteria, ranking fighters can be done quite easily. You may ask, "well, what makes your criteria right?", but I don't think people would disagree too much about what fundamentally goes to making a good fighter.

Things like fighting and head to head) ability, resume and level of comp, and longevity are pretty much staples in everyone's thinking.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I rank George foreman at number 1843 all time p4p


I wonder who this is. :p