How much different do your "historic" rankings compare with your head to head ranking

[Johnstown]

I can understand the difference.....you might feel that Marcanio did more in his career than say Tyson, and hence deserves a higher ranking, yet you might feel that Tyson would win in a fight between the two due to having almost 40 pounds on the Rock and some other factors.

Anyhow, how different are your historic rankings as compared to your pound for pound ranking.

[lufcrazy]

totally different.

h2h my top 5 is

robinson
pea
jones jr
armstrong
duran

atg my top 5 is

robinson
greb
armstrong
fitzsimmons
langford

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

I always rate the level of ability first. Then evaluate the resume....Resume is more important, but I evaluete the resume based in the ability of the opponents....know what I mean ?

[janitor]

I consider resume to be backed by a higher level of proof than head to head.

Therfore if fighter A has a better resume, it will buy them some benefit of the doubt in a fantasy fight with fighter B.

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

What define a good resume would be an interesting question......IMO is the level of ability of your opponents during your career, that´s what define a great resume. Using that criteria, you actually are rating ability before resume.....

[Boilermaker]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

totally different.

h2h my top 5 is

robinson
pea
jones jr
armstrong
duran

atg my top 5 is

robinson
greb
armstrong
fitzsimmons
langford

how do you do a head to head pound for pound list without it being dominated by heavyweights

Is it a mythical concept of all fighters being the same size for eg.

[Shake]

They have to be. Matching fighters from different era's is in inherently unfair. You adapt to beat and thrive in your era. If there's a huge fighter in 20 years that has slow feet but is impossible to outslug, should we discredit Tyson for that? Not in a historic sense. That could only happen if every fighter was tested for the same exact difficulty. Circumstances were there first, then the fighter that thrived in them.

Head to head is another matter.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

how do you do a head to head pound for pound list without it being dominated by heavyweights

Is it a mythical concept of all fighters being the same size for eg.

no fuck the same size argument that's a concept I hate (even more than triangle theory) it's just a ranking on the eye test.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

no fuck the same size argument that's a concept I hate (even more than triangle theory) it's just a ranking on the eye test.

yeah but you can't really do head to head with pound for pound..at least not..head to head between say Joe Louis and Floyd Mayweather..the best you can do is say....Floyd would win.., lets say he has 10 fights against each other all time great 147 pounder, and you say 90% of all fights against all time great 147 pounders (just putting in a bullshit percentage, dont hold me to that). But Louis would be 94% wins with 10 fights against all time great heavyweights.....

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Johnstown

yeah but you can't really do head to head with pound for pound..at least not..head to head between say Joe Louis and Floyd Mayweather..the best you can do is say....Floyd would win.., lets say he has 10 fights against each other all time great 147 pounder, and you say 90% of all fights against all time great 147 pounders (just putting in a bullshit percentage, dont hold me to that). But Louis would be 94% wins with 10 fights against all time great heavyweights.....

Well that's not what I mean when I say h2h p4p. I'm talking about purely skill level.

When I see wlad and I see Jones I can safely consider Jones a better fighter, despite safely picking wlad to knock him out.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Well that's not what I mean when I say h2h p4p. I'm talking about purely skill level.

When I see wlad and I see Jones I can safely consider Jones a better fighter, despite safely picking wlad to knock him out.

yeah but...hmmmmmmm......how is that different than your historic rankings.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Johnstown

yeah but...hmmmmmmm......how is that different than your historic rankings.

take an easy example

historically I have fitz as much greater than whittaker.
based on skill level I have whittaker much greater than fitz.

I did show my top 5 for them both.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

take an easy example

historically I have fitz as much greater than whittaker.
based on skill level I have whittaker much greater than fitz.

I did show my top 5 for them both.

Makes sense...although, i think comparing skills between different size guys is hard business. Smaller guys always seem more skilled..just having less bulk allows you to move in more ways, you tend to be faster, all those things lead to at least the appearance of more skills.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Johnstown

Makes sense...although, i think comparing skills between different size guys is hard business. Smaller guys always seem more skilled..just having less bulk allows you to move in more ways, you tend to be faster, all those things lead to at least the appearance of more skills.

tis tricky business that's why I don't put much stock in it

[turbotime]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

take an easy example

historically I have fitz as much greater than whittaker.
based on skill level I have whittaker much greater than fitz.

I did show my top 5 for them both.

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding the different concepts.