View Single Post
Old 09-27-2009, 11:59 AM   #28
East Side Guru
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,870
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
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.

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 ******* 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.
sweet_scientist is offline  Top
Reply With Quote