Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

 
  


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-03-2009, 09:18 AM   #91
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius View Post
If you don't mind me chipping in here, i think 13 is a good score for Duran here. His longetivity is among the very best, but not the best. For instance, Ali (i like him as a reference) scores 11 in this category, despite still beating the linear champ (ok, Leon Spinks, but still contender level) 18 years after his pro debut. By comparison, Duran's last significant victory, if i remember correct, was Barkley in '89, which is 15 years after his debut. Plus, Ali was still holding the title up to that point and questionable or not, scoring wins over top guys like Young and Shavers, while Duran mixed in losses to Lawlor (who?), Simms, Laing and Benitez. Come to think of it, i'd give Duran 12 and Ali 14 in that category.
Your input is more than welcome. I'd pay you if I could -per post, becuase it is helping me out.

Let me try to convince you to give Duran a 13 instead of a 12. That Barkley win was 21 years after his pro debut, not 15. It was 16 years after his first world title (Buchanan).

Ali at a 14 is too high. Remember the 15s go to guys like Moore and Greb -look at their number of fights. Ali didn't have a whole helluva lot of bouts...
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 09:22 AM   #92
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Stonehands that disabilities overcome category and yopu mention guys not getting title shots etc...

surely there is factors out of a fighters controll here that could enhance/penalise a fighter

perhaps maybe a category for specail things like Greb being blind in one eye could be made instead
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 09:28 AM   #93
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Stonehands, nice work once again my friend. It's great to take part in something like this! I've come late to the party so apologies if these points have already been picked up on:

1. Are you sticking with just the top 10 greatest fighters? Inevitable this will mean that the usual suspects will probably occupy most if not all of the spaces. It might be more interesting to open it up to 20?
I've done most of the names offered in one of my threads from some months ago asking for who Classic posters believed should be considered in the running for the Top 10. If you feel strongly about another potential, give me the name, I'll do up a chart and we can argue it or agree. Be merciful though, time is of essence!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
2. In the Character category how will you allow for the general 'care-bearing' of the sport since the 1920s. Modern standards means that fights get stopped earlier than every before, injuries are more carefully looked at and so on. It might be harder for more modern fighters to score favourably in this category.
I'm not considering those nuts like Battling Nelson whose heyday was before 1920. They'd be off the charts.

However, you are correct in my being really forced to lend some weight to fighters through the 50s, when they had to overcome injury without much help from refs like today. But then there are exceptions. Ali for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
3. For durability will you separate out outright ability to take a punch from recuperation ability?
Those guys who had a lot of fights, faced bangers or bigger men, and remained erect will score high here. Hagler is the standard, as mentioned. Recuperative ability helps, but I don't see Charles and Moore as durable in the same vein as say Greb or Ross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
4. What about natural athletic ability or is this just incorporated in the other categories? Some fighters played more heavily on athleticism than others, RJJ being an obvious example.
EDIT: I've realised that 2 of my points above are already moot given your initial draft.
No problem, I've tried to answer you anyway.

Natural athletic ability is absorbed into RG, although my preference for skill has been noted in an earlier post.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-03-2009, 09:31 AM   #94
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duodenum View Post
No sweat. Better yet, that discrepancy afforded the opening to let you know I've been trying to give your hard effort the scrutiny it deserves, and I wanted to acknowledge your invitation to me to comment on this in some way.While I've read through the thread, I frankly don't have the mental energy and intensity of focus necessary to offer useful feedback at the moment. Maybe that's a positive indicator of how the placements are going so far. (Meanwhile, I've been trying to confine myself to less demanding subject matter.) If I'm to offer any subjective analysis of potential value, it will have to come after I've had a chance to recharge my batteries. As often as you and I are on the same page though, I'm frequently quite content just to let your views stand without adding further comment of my own.

Most of what I might contribute would be in the form of nitpicking, tweaking, and the sort of devil's advocacy type argumentation Manassa's so adept at. (For example, I'd look for an instance where SRR's ring generalship might be called into question.)
Whatever you like, I trust your judgment. And a stamp of approval by Duodenum would make this effort shimmer.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 09:32 AM   #95
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by fists of fury View Post
Tricky one.

All fighters at one point or another will face adversity, no matter how good they are. How they handle that adversity is really what seperates the men from the boys.

I'd leave it in place if I were you.

On a side note, I will just be an interested spectator and see how this unfolds, if you don't mind. If I feel I need to add something I will, but otherwise I'll just leave it to the fellows who place a lot of stock in rankings.
Sure thing. I have since absorbed "Adversity Overcome" into a new category called "intangibles"....
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 09:35 AM   #96
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
Stonehands that disabilities overcome category and yopu mention guys not getting title shots etc...

surely there is factors out of a fighters controll here that could enhance/penalise a fighter

perhaps maybe a category for specail things like Greb being blind in one eye could be made instead
Greb's "Intangibles" are very high. Robinson will be publically penalized for ducking Burley. I believe that he absolutely did duck him. Nothing less. So, he pays. In fact, it is a major reason why he isn't number one on my list.... Robinson ducked Burley and now, finally, he pays for it. He's number 2.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 09:40 AM   #97
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Greb's "Intangibles" are very high. Robinson will be publically penalized for ducking Burley. I believe that he absolutely did duck him. Nothing less. So, he pays. In fact, it is a major reason why he isn't number one on my list.... Robinson ducked Burley and now, finally, he pays for it. He's number 2.
thats fair enough
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2009, 10:06 AM   #98
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
Your input is more than welcome. I'd pay you if I could -per post, becuase it is helping me out.

Let me try to convince you to give Duran a 13 instead of a 12. That Barkley win was 21 years after his pro debut, not 15. It was 16 years after his first world title (Buchanan).

Ali at a 14 is too high. Remember the 15s go to guys like Moore and Greb -look at their number of fights. Ali didn't have a whole helluva lot of bouts...
My bad, i quickly looked up his first pro fight at boxrec, but forgot there was a page 1. 13 is fine indeed. I'd have Ali at 12.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 10:00 AM   #99
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Mathematically, the system's values are too low to allow for a top 100. I as thinking of increasing them so as to better differentiate between the candidates. As it stands now, there will be many ties if we do a top 100. If we increase the values then we will lurch into absurdity. For example:

If Ross's RG is a "28" and Burley's is a "26" --how the hell do you explain the difference? It would be arbitrary. We could devise a computer program that would use % and all that... but that would be a ton of work and I'm no expert on computers.

No, I like that ESB Classic experts submitted names into a pool and then the top ten are scored using the present system.

..Just thinking out loud here!
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2009, 05:15 PM   #100
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Excellent job...and great work.
With your rating system, thsi is one of the most objective lists that one could produce.
Now that the compliments are done with...
I need to campaign for Henry Armstrong!

My listing for Henry would place him top three
RG 15
EXP 14
LGV 11
DOM 15
PLO 10
DUR 8
INT 9

total: 82

Where we differ at are the ratings in RG, PLO, and INT.

Why should Armstrong have a higher RG rating?
Stylistically Armstrong would make the ring a much smaller place. Fighting on the inside and shutting down an opponent's offense by crowding and not allowing them to get set was a science to him. Armstrong always imposed his style on the procedings...Always!...and against larger opposition.

PLO?
This should be Armstrong's catagory. Imagine if Armstrong would have gotten the decisions against Ambers (Armstrong was deducted several points for low blows unnecessarily) and Garcia, he would have held 4 of the 8 original weight division titles! Simply mind boggling.

INT?
To be consistantly outsized in his welter reign, but to be able to overcome the disadvantages underlines Armstrong's greatness.

Ray Robinson?
Using your system, I'd grade him out as follows:
RG 15
EXP 15
LGV 15
DOM 14
PLO 7
DUR 9
INT 8

total: 83

A few more points for LGV. A 25 year career fighting rated fighters from teh start to the finish...What more do ya have to do?
INT? Sustained excellence...nuff said. Still second to Greb, but a little closer...Which it should be.

*Just nitpicking* I applaud your effort and I'm sure everyone else does as well.
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 07:08 AM   #101
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

dpw, damn good arguments.

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree? Henry did fight larger men, but he was rarely the weaker man in there. With Walker, and Duran for that matter, different story. I think Henry is good there.

RG and Int .... I will reconsider those again, you are pretty persuasive...

Tell me though, do you believe that Armstrong deserves to be ranked over Ezzard? I've been rethinking that lately because Armstrong, as great as he was, did have a relatively short prime.
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 07:04 PM   #102
dpw417
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehands89 View Post
dpw, damn good arguments.

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree? Henry did fight larger men, but he was rarely the weaker man in there. With Walker, and Duran for that matter, different story. I think Henry is good there.

RG and Int .... I will reconsider those again, you are pretty persuasive...

Tell me though, do you believe that Armstrong deserves to be ranked over Ezzard? I've been rethinking that lately because Armstrong, as great as he was, did have a relatively short prime.
[html]-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree?[/html]
Yes and No...How's that? Walker certainly deserves the high grade, no question. Armstrong, I feel deserves the credit due him as well. For all intents and purposes should have been recognized as featherweight, lightweight, weterweight, AND middleweight champion...Not only is that off the charts as a testimony for greatness, it's just plain absurd... Armstrong may have been the stronger man? Perhaps so. But what about his style? A smallish, pressure fighter who routinely got low and uprooted all of his opponents. He leveraged everybody, by driving underneath them.

Taking advantage of your rankings and tweaking them to my view, I feel Armstrong comes in at third with an 82, while Ezzard Charles comes in at 79. A score of 13 (Charles) to 11 (Armstrong) in LGV seems fair. But in my view anyway, it wouldn't unseat Armstrong.
dpw417 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 07:24 PM   #103
Stonehands89
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,270
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw417 View Post
[html]-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree?[/html]
Yes and No...How's that? Walker certainly deserves the high grade, no question. Armstrong, I feel deserves the credit due him as well. For all intents and purposes should have been recognized as featherweight, lightweight, weterweight, AND middleweight champion...Not only is that off the charts as a testimony for greatness, it's just plain absurd... Armstrong may have been the stronger man? Perhaps so. But what about his style? A smallish, pressure fighter who routinely got low and uprooted all of his opponents. He leveraged everybody, by driving underneath them.

Taking advantage of your rankings and tweaking them to my view, I feel Armstrong comes in at third with an 82, while Ezzard Charles comes in at 79. A score of 13 (Charles) to 11 (Armstrong) in LGV seems fair. But in my view anyway, it wouldn't unseat Armstrong.
The middleweight commendations Armstrong gets is a bit blown up. Ceferino Garcia was no more of a MW than Armstrong himself, Armstrong already beat him at WW and drew with him at MW. Garcia was 5'7 and a natural Welter.... and the so-called MW title was recognized by one state... CA.

PS/ Love the "leveraged/uprooted" description, I may have to steal that one, okay?
Stonehands89 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 07:28 PM   #104
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

How off the carts would Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, Terry McGovern or Young Corbett II would be??

Can you thown a few out there please. Perhaps Corbett II?
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2009, 10:34 PM   #105
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,978
vCash: 685
Default Re: Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Has anybody rated Bob Fitzsimmons? If rated against his own time, which seems to be the key, i think he has close to the perfect score.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013