Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I'm now reconsidering the Dominance question.... your statement about it being an accurate reflection of RG may be persuasive. I have to mull that over.

Sorry to complicate it even further, but as you asking...

...i think ring dominance translates into ring ability in a crucial way. You are correct to say Burley's MW wins are more impressive than Jones's, although he was more dominant, but there is another side to the coin. A fighter who can remain in condition with maintained concentration in the "Calzaghe fashion" (not a compliment for Joe that!) will tend to be a fighter who continual maintains focus and concentration in the ring, for any given fight, regardless of the opponent. Tyson for example, was never going to maintain at the top - he just couldn't maintain a lifestyle condusive to boxing or an attitude condusive to winning, long term. In the ring, we saw him frustrated and boxing badly versus Smith when frustrated, and biting of Evander's ear when out-manned. Domination at the top is worth more than just raw stats. Historically, dominant fighters tend to be the most unflappable and focused in the ring (see Joe Louis for the definitive example, but Monzon may be an even better one). Dominating opposition over an extended period tends to herald a fighter as perfect as that fighter could be. I'd argue that your category for EXP takes up the slack here.

[JohnThomas1]

Good to see ya!

Where would these possibly fit in

Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights - SRL being an excellent example.

Ability to use (And resist, i guess) external sources and psychological warfare in order to put an opponent off his game - Ali and SRL anybody? There are fighters that could put people off (Ali, SRL), and fighters that could be put off (Hagler etc)

Perhaps i bark up the wrong tree, a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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

- 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

- 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

- 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]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Sorry to complicate it even further, but as you asking...

...i think ring dominance translates into ring ability in a crucial way. You are correct to say Burley's MW wins are more impressive than Jones's, although he was more dominant, but there is another side to the coin. A fighter who can remain in condition with maintained concentration in the "Calzaghe fashion" (not a compliment for Joe that!) will tend to be a fighter who continual maintains focus and concentration in the ring, for any given fight, regardless of the opponent. Tyson for example, was never going to maintain at the top - he just couldn't maintain a lifestyle condusive to boxing or an attitude condusive to winning, long term. In the ring, we saw him frustrated and boxing badly versus Smith when frustrated, and biting of Evander's ear when out-manned. Domination at the top is worth more than just raw stats. Historically, dominant fighters tend to be the most unflappable and focused in the ring (see Joe Louis for the definitive example, but Monzon may be an even better one). Dominating opposition over an extended period tends to herald a fighter as perfect as that fighter could be. I'd argue that your category for EXP takes up the slack here.

Listen, complicate the hell out of me. I welcome it. Nit-pick and nag me til I call you mother-in-law!

Excellent points. I think that you are convincing me.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Listen, complicate the hell out of me. I welcome it. Nit-pick and nag me til I call you mother-in-law!.

I would, but I think that's basically me. Will keep an eye on this thread, and i'll be keen to see what you do next.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Good to see ya!

Where would these possibly fit in

Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights - SRL being an excellent example.

Ability to use (And resist, i guess) external sources and psychological warfare in order to put an opponent off his game - Ali and SRL anybody? There are fighters that could put people off (Ali, SRL), and fighters that could be put off (Hagler etc)

Perhaps i bark up the wrong tree, a few beers under the belt and just trying to brainstorm.

Glad to see you and thanks for posting.

Great points. I'd say that "Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights" is threaded underneath a few categories. The psychological edge thing, and I'm thinking of Robinson drinking blood in the presence of Lamotta would be under RG.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by McGrain

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.

I'm hearin' ya Mac, i am hearin' ya hahaha. Been enjoying your work too.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by McGrain

When is this ever a good idea, John? That shit there almost got me married.

I still chuckle about that time you put up a drunken post taking credit for one of my posts. And then you had that "drunk top ten" thread. Classic, classic stuff.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I still chuckle about that time you put up a drunken post taking credit for one of my posts.

That one even confused me in the morning.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Glad to see you and thanks for posting.

Great points. I'd say that "Ability to get up for and perform at one's greatest for the biggest fights" is threaded underneath a few categories. The psychological edge thing, and I'm thinking of Robinson drinking blood in the presence of Lamotta would be under RG.

Cheers mate, i'll look again totally sober tomorrow. Might even comment after another Jimmy B or so too, tho

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Cheers mate, i'll look again totally sober tomorrow. Might even comment after another Jimmy B or so too, tho

By all means! As long as you're not reduced to typing with your nose pressed to the keyboard.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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 bastard 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.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

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.

I agree with this for the most part, but Stonie's system allows for just a little bit of wiggle-room for those fighters who didn't have a high level of competition available to them...there are categories that allow for a little speculation as to how the quality of a fiven fighter would translate in those conditions. I think that's as it should be, although you have to be careful about allowing too much scope.

[JohnThomas1]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

By all means! As long as you're not reduced to typing with your nose pressed to the keyboard.

We'll call that

Adversity Overcome (Adv): Comebacks, cuts, knockdowns by world class punchers, and handicaps, are all factored in here.