Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by dpw417

Stonehands...Facinating idea.

You guys are all over this and I'm anxious to see what comes of it. Two of your classifications fall under more of a subjective nature 'Adversity Overcome' and 'Ring Generalship'. All the other rankings are objective which is great.

How many subcatagories do you have represented in Ring Generalship? Is it a ranking of each individual fighter's assets such as speed, strength, durability, counterpunching ability, etc.

I changed "Adversity Overcome" to "Character" and may rename it again to "Intangibles"...

The subcategories will be loosely identified, but I don't want to get too mathematical about it, and apply %s and all that. So, there will have to be a measure of subjectivity but at least I'll know it's informed...! Ring Generalship is level of skill, athleticism, adaptability/tactical ability and strategic capability. "Durability" is in its own, lesser category.

Does that sound fair...?

[dpw417]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I changed "Adversity Overcome" to "Character" and may rename it again to "Intangibles"...

The subcategories will be loosely identified, but I don't want to get too mathematical about it, and apply %s and all that. So, there will have to be a measure of subjectivity but at least I'll know it's informed...! Ring Generalship is level of skill, athleticism, adaptability/tactical ability and strategic capability. "Durability" is in its own, lesser category.

Does that sound fair...?

I like it...

On what part of "Ring Generalship" will you put the most emphasis on?

For instance, alot of your great fighters will dictate a fight by being more mobile, some will play to their strengths by jabbing and controling ring center, some have superior defensive technique, workrate, ability to fight inside, power, combination punching...and so forth.

It's all important as far as ranking...but some are more important than others.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by dpw417

I like it...

On what part of "Ring Generalship" will you put the most emphasis on?

For instance, alot of your great fighters will dictate a fight by being more mobile, some will play to their strengths by jabbing and controling ring center, some have superior defensive technique, workrate, ability to fight inside, power, combination punching...and so forth.

It's all important as far as ranking...but some are more important than others.

I agree, but I think that it would be best to transcend style and it's singular parts and look at how effective that fighter was in the ring. If forced, I'd probably consider how well that fighter controls the field, his game at every range, and how defensively adept that fighter is.

[Sweet Pea]

The "Intangibles" category sounds like a great idea, and a very telling one. What truly seperates the greats. I'd go with that, Piedra.

[Stonehands89]

And now the unveiling: Feel free to tear it up or commend it, but please critique it. This is quality control and collectively speaking, I trust your judgement...

Here is the first draft of rankings #10 counted down to #6:

10. Eder Jofre
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 10
LGV 11
DOM 12


(10 pt must)
PLO 6
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 70


9. Charley Burley
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 13
LGV 8
DOM 12

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 10
INT 7

TOTAL = 72


9. Muhammad Ali
(15 pt must)
RG 11
EXP 13
LGV 11
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 9
INT 9
TOTAL = 72


8. Willie Pep
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 12
LGV 14
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 6
DUR 7
INT 6
TOTAL = 73


7. Archie Moore
(15 pt must)
RG 11
Exp 15
LGV 15
DOM 11

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 6
INT 8

TOTAL = 74


6. Roberto Duran
(15 pt must)
RG 13
Exp 15
LGV 13
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 9
INT 4
TOTAL: 75


-------------------------------------------------------------
(...I would appreciate that Burley-Ali tie being broken and so ask for argument relating to that. Also, remember to try to suspend who you feel should be included and who you think is better than who. Let's look at the values in a comapartive manner and not get locked in on the same old general debates.)

[Stonehands89]

5. Henry Armstrong
(15 pt must)
RG 13
Exp 14
LGV 11
DOM 15


(10 pt must)
PLO 8
DUR 8
INT 7
TOTAL = 76


4. Ezzard Charles
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 15
LGV 13
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 9
DUR 5
INT 8
TOTAL = 77


3. Mickey Walker
(15 pt must)
RG 14
EXP 15
LGV 12
DOM 12

(10 pt must)
PLO 10
DUR 7
INT 8
TOTAL = 78


2. Ray Robinson
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 13
LGV 15
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 7
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 80


1. Harry Greb
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 15
LGV 15
DOM 14

(10 pt must)
PLO 9
DUR 9
INT 10

TOTAL = 87

[Jaws]

Very interesting list.

This Top 10 I happened to randomly stumble upon once shares a lot of similarities:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Very interesting list.

This Top 10 I happened to randomly stumble upon once shares a lot of similarities:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

That list isn't bad at all.

[Flea Man]

To be fair that's a feasible list. It seems to work. I think Burley is too high however, but I assume that the method works and has therefore placed him that high due to all the stats you input.

I mean, the top five is as obvious as it would be placed on opinion. So I assume the stats don't lie

Very intrigued to see a top 100 using this sytem.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by fleaman

To be fair that's a feasible list. It seems to work. I think Burley is too high however, but I assume that the method works and has therefore placed him that high due to all the stats you input.

I mean, the top five is as obvious as it would be placed on opinion. So I assume the stats don't lie

Very intrigued to see a top 100 using this sytem.

Burley or Ali? and why in terms of numbers and comparisons?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on it.

[Sweet Pea]

I just can't see Burley that high because of the fact that he may not have even been the best fighter of the Murderer's Row, just the most reknowned, and the only one we actually have footage of.

[sweet_scientist]

I agree, but I think that it would be best to transcend style and it's singular parts and look at how effective that fighter was in the ring. If forced, I'd probably consider how well that fighter controls the field, his game at every range, and how defensively adept that fighter is.

Stoney, would you agree with the following?

"Ring Generalship properly understood is about how effective a fighter is in controlling his opponent. Whether this is done by singing and dancing, laughing and crying or laying an egg is besides the point. What should be measured is the effectiveness one has in controlling an opponent, not the method via which the control is achieved. Whether someone achieves control via defensive strategy or bumrushing a foe is equal in worth if the level of effectiveness is the same."

As to your list, I'd like to ask, did Benny Leonard make your 1920 cut off? If he did, I'd think he'd have to be in the top 10.

One other question, where did Barney Ross come in? Surprised someone like Jofre is ranked higher than him.

[GPater11093]

i was thinking about this heaps today but forgot my idea

[ChrisPontius]

Haven't had time to read the entire thread, but Ali only 11 out of 15 on ring generalship? I'd say he deserves at least 13.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Stoney, would you agree with the following?

"Ring Generalship properly understood is about how effective a fighter is in controlling his opponent. Whether this is done by singing and dancing, laughing and crying or laying an egg is besides the point. What should be measured is the effectiveness one has in controlling an opponent, not the method via which the control is achieved. Whether someone achieves control via defensive strategy or bumrushing a foe is equal in worth if the level of effectiveness is the same."

I like that definition. Ring Generalship should revolve around effectiveness, but I have a dilemma... I do think that skill should be factored in to some notable degree. I don't know how notable, but boxing is a skill sport before it is an "athleticism" sport and history has proven that. Pure athletes have doen well -Naseem, Ali of course, Jones of course, Foreman I, but they are exceptional. Most guys who rely on physical strength or speed or some other athletic quality or combination thereof are chased out of the gym before their 19 years old...

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

As to your list, I'd like to ask, did Benny Leonard make your 1920 cut off? If he did, I'd think he'd have to be in the top 10.

I had a tough time with Benny. He did make the cut-off, but came in at 11. That surprised me too.

11. Benny Leonard
(15 pt must)
RG 15
Exp 12
LGV 10
DOM 13

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 7
INT 7
TOTAL = 69

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

One other question, where did Barney Ross come in? Surprised someone like Jofre is ranked higher than him.

13. Barney Ross
(15 pt must)
RG 14
Exp 13
LGV 7
DOM 11

(10 pt must)
PLO 5
DUR 9
INT 7
TOTAL = 67

Eder beat him based on Longevity. Barney was all done early...