View Single Post
Old 09-27-2009, 11:42 AM   #19
East Side Guru
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
- 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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
- 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.

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist View Post
- 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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote