Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's a good point... the problem rises out of my preference -dubious or not- to factor in skill. As in technique. Ali got by in an historically weaker division because of his size and athleticism in the first phase and by size and will (and a little luck) in the second.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

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...

I'm not sure I agree here but thanks for the clarification

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

If we look at him in comparison to Jofre:

You have given Jofre an 11 for longevity and Leonard a 10. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sure Jofre hung around until he was older, but if we look at the years they were world class for, there's not that much of a gap: Leonard 1915-1924, Jofre 1958-1966, 1972-73, and 1976. But when you bare in mind how many times Leonard was fighting (and against such tough opposition) for every one of those years, there's no way you can meaningfully say that Jofre had a longer career.

With regards to performances against larger opponents, you gave Leonard a 5 and Jofre a 6. I think I would reverse that. Sure, Jofre beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes. I'd say Leonard's wins against Jack Britton (x2), Willie Ritchie, Soldier Bartfield (x4) and his draw with Ted Kid Lewis should carry a bit more weight.

With regards to durability, you gave Jofre a 9 and Leonard a 7. I'd probably bring those a bit closer together, giving Leonard an 8. He spent a 10 year prime, facing tough opponent after tough opponent and never got ko'ed in that time. That's pretty durable. No doubting Jofre's toughness either, but I think Leonard's toughness is pretty proven here.

When it comes to intangibles I'd probably give Leonard the edge. He took on everyone (multiple times), he was ingenious in finding ways to win, relying on wit and cunning as well as skill, and when he was past his prime and facing great fighters like Lew Tendler he still found a way to fend them off and take the win. I don't think Leonard's comeback in the 30's detracts from his achievements or character one iota.

I'll be back to discuss my thoughts on Jofre/Ross later

[sweet_scientist]

With regards to Jofre/Ross, where I'd disagree with you is in the following areas:

In terms of longevity, Jofre scoring 11 and Ross scoring 7 presents too much of a disparity, especially considering they had roughly the same amount of fights. I'd say 11-9 is a more fitting score. Jofre scoring more for being at a world class level for quite a few more years, but Ross staying within ear shot because he compacted his work.

When it comes to performances against larger opponents, Ross HAS to be higher than Jofre. There's no real justification for Jofre scoring a 6 and Ross a 5. Ross beat bigger men like Jimmy McLarnin (x2), Ceferino Garcia (x3) whilst they were in their primes, as well as other fighters of note like Sammy Fuller (whilst being 3 and a half pounds lighter), Billy Petrolle (x2 whilst being 4 and a half pounds lighter on one ocassion 2 and a quarter pounds lighter on another) and Chuck Woods (whilst being 5 pounds lighter).

Jofre as I said earlier beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes and Jofre give or take a pound weighed in the same amount as they did when he fought them.

I think a fairer score here would be Ross 7 and Jofre 5, maybe 6.

With those changes in mind, Ross should be ahead.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

I'm not sure I agree here but thanks for the clarification


If we look at him in comparison to Jofre:

You have given Jofre an 11 for longevity and Leonard a 10. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sure Jofre hung around until he was older, but if we look at the years they were world class for, there's not that much of a gap: Leonard 1915-1924, Jofre 1958-1966, 1972-73, and 1976. But when you bare in mind how many times Leonard was fighting (and against such tough opposition) for every one of those years, there's no way you can meaningfully say that Jofre had a longer career.

With regards to performances against larger opponents, you gave Leonard a 6 and Jofre a 5. I think I would reverse that. Sure, Jofre beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes. I'd say Leonard's wins against Jack Britton (x2), Willie Ritchie, Soldier Bartfield (x4) and his draw with Ted Kid Lewis should carry a bit more weight.

With regards to durability, you gave Jofre a 9 and Leonard a 7. I'd probably bring those a bit closer together, giving Leonard an 8. He spent a 10 year prime, facing tough opponent after tough opponent and never got ko'ed in that time. That's pretty durable. No doubting Jofre's toughness either, but I think Leonard's toughness is pretty proven here.

When it comes to intangibles I'd probably give Leonard the edge. He took on everyone (multiple times), he was ingenious in finding ways to win, relying on wit and cunning as well as skill, and when he was past his prime and facing great fighters like Lew Tendler he still found a way to fend them off and take the win. I don't think Leonard's comeback in the 30's detracts from his achievements or character one iota.

I'll be back to discuss my thoughts on Jofre/Ross later

Great work. You've convinced me.

One qualifier. If a fighter was stopped -even early on or past prime, I have to deduct at least a point compared to the fighter who was never stopped, all else being roughly equal. thsi is because the standard is the guy who was never stopped.... like Burley. Leonard was stopped in his first and last...

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

With regards to Jofre/Ross, where I'd disagree with you is in the following areas:

In terms of longevity, Jofre scoring 11 and Ross scoring 7 presents too much of a disparity, especially considering they had roughly the same amount of fights. I'd say 11-9 is a more fitting score. Jofre scoring more for being at a world class level for quite a few more years, but Ross staying within ear shot because he compacted his work.

When it comes to performances against larger opponents, Ross HAS to be higher than Jofre. There's no real justification for Jofre scoring a 6 and Ross a 5. Ross beat bigger men like Jimmy McLarnin (x2), Ceferino Garcia (x3) whilst they were in their primes, as well as other fighters of note like Sammy Fuller (whilst being 3 and a half pounds lighter), Billy Petrolle (x2 whilst being 4 and a half pounds lighter on one ocassion 2 and a quarter pounds lighter on another) and Chuck Woods (whilst being 5 pounds lighter).

Jofre as I said earlier beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes and Jofre give or take a pound weighed in the same amount as they did when he fought them.

I think a fairer score here would be Ross 7 and Jofre 5, maybe 6.

With those changes in mind, Ross should be ahead.

The Longevity discrepancy is an oversight -thanks for the catch. The other points will be diligently re-examined.

Great posts -and thank you.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Great work. You've convinced me.

One qualifier. If a fighter was stopped -even early on or past prime, I have to deduct at least a point compared to the fighter who was never stopped, all else being roughly equal. thsi is because the standard is the guy who was never stopped.... like Burley. Leonard was stopped in his first and last...

Yeah stoppage losses have to count for something, but they should be judged in context. If a guy hangs around until he is utterly shot and then get's Ko'ed whilst having shown a granite chin in and near after his prime, whilst another fighter doesn't hang around until he is deteriorated to a shell and thus doesn't get stopped, I'd be inclined to dismiss the stoppage for the first fighter as being relevant. I think you can only judge the durability of one fighter in comparison to another fighter if he has been in a similar place.

There are also other instances where stoppages have to be judged with caution. For instance, I would never say Hector Camacho is more durable than Roberto Duran, even though Roberto has been stopped and Camacho hasn't. You have to take into account the level of comp they faced, and how they fought too. Camacho can run and hold until he is 101 years old and never get ko'ed, I'd never say he was more durable than Duran.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

The Longevity discrepancy is an oversight -thanks for the catch. The other points will be diligently re-examined.

Great posts -and thank you.

Cheers man

[McGrain]

Great read boys.

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Yeah stoppage losses have to count for something, but they should be judged in context. If a guy hangs around until he is utterly shot and then get's Ko'ed whilst having shown a granite chin in and near after his prime, whilst another fighter doesn't hang around until he is deteriorated to a shell and thus doesn't get stopped, I'd be inclined to dismiss the stoppage for the first fighter as being relevant. I think you can only judge the durability of one fighter in comparison to another fighter if he has been in a similar place.

There are also other instances where stoppages have to be judged with caution. For instance, I would never say Hector Camacho is more durable than Roberto Duran, even though Roberto has been stopped and Camacho hasn't. You have to take into account the level of comp they faced, and how they fought too. Camacho can run and hold until he is 101 years old and never get ko'ed, I'd never say he was more durable than Duran.

Agreed.

This will help me systemize it: The standard of all chins is Hagler. Few match him and no one matches him who has been stopped. The fact that they hung on is beside the point because we can't make assumptions but we can use the measure and go from there.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

6. Roberto Duran
(15 pt must)
LGV 13

In your thread opening post, you mentioned that you considered Duran as the standard setter in this category. Naturally, I'm therefore curious as to why you have given him less than the 15 point maximum here. (Or is this merely a typo?)

[Stonehands89]

Originally Posted by Duodenum

In your thread opening post, you mentioned that you considered Duran as the standard setter in this category. Naturally, I'm therefore curious as to why you have given him less than the 15 point maximum here. (Or is this merely a typo?)

I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks. Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?

[ChrisPontius]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks. Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?

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.

[Doppleganger]

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?
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.
3. For durability will you separate out outright ability to take a punch from recuperation ability?
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.

[Duodenum]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

I screwed up and you caught me. Duran didn't have enough fights to command a 15 and his inconsistency is probably a problem too.

I'll address it. Thanks.

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.

Any of the placements get under your skin or do they seem right?

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.)

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by Stonehands89

Someone play Devil's Advocate.

I'm considering taken out "Adversity Overcome" because those fighters who were too good for their own good shouldn't suffer by scoring low here. Charley Burley, for instance.

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.