View Single Post
Old 07-28-2007, 03:36 AM   #5
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 11,603
vCash: 1186
Default Re: Ranking fighters

Originally Posted by 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.
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.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote