Where do you put Joe Louis all time, p4p?

[dmt]

1.Henry Armstrong
2.Ray Robinson
3.Willie Pep
4.Sam Langford
5.Roberto Duran
6.Harry Greb
7.Benny Leonard
8.Ezzard Charles
9.Joe Gans
10.Eder Jofre
11.Archie Moore
12.Joe Louis
13.Muhammad Ali
14.Ray Leonard
15.Barney Ross
16.Marvin Hagler
17.Carlos Monzon

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by ChrisPontius

Where do you have Marciano? He has stoppage wins over your #6 and #8 while they were a bit past their best and a bit outweighed. But i don't think there are many fighters who have stoppage wins over two guys in your (or any) top10.

Marciano would rate about 40th.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yeah, having Burley in your top 20 is very much a state of mind....you may get there yet



Seems odd to punish him twice though (not that it matters in the great scheme of things, but you see what I mean)...I put Langford around Greb's spot...i see a parity between these two.

Which of the two do you think has the better scalps at weights above their natural weight?

It's not so much punishment, it's just I can't judge Langford with much certainty, so it would feel wrong to just 'assume' he was better than more documented fighters such as Roberto Duran.

I think Langford got the slightly better wins over the heavier fighters, however Greb was more consistent.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

So if someone goes totally rank for say 4 years, winning titles from Lightweight to Middleweight or better then retires at say 23 undefeated with multiple titles and wins over a couple of great fighters you rank them down. You're a fine man and have some nice insights, but you also have some of the wierdest criteria's i have ever seen.

Yes, because it needs to be biased against someone the ultimate old man Archie Moore....

So Moore IMO you rate all his achievements and then give him a bias of 1.5. Someone like Ali who had a full career gets a bias of 1, someone like the scenario you put would could a bias of 0.5.

The point I make with Greb, is he lacked a finale to his career, so weighing up all his achievements I give him a bias of 0.8 when rating him.

That way my rating take into account Sanchez, Papp, and Ketchel had shortened careers. Greb did as well just not as much as the three I named. Someone like Ali had a full career, the likes of Moore, Robinson and Foreman had extened careers above the norm thus get rewarded for that.

[Manassa]

So Greb gets punished for dying?

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Manassa

So Greb gets punished for dying?

Crudely, yes.

[Manassa]

I'd hate for you to be at my funeral. You'd probably be booing and hissing throughout the entire ceremony.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Manassa

I'd hate for you to be at my funeral. You'd probably be booing and hissing throughout the entire ceremony.

No, I just try not to let emotion get in the way of making a cold decision of fact.

I am sure many of my work colleagues would agree with though. But I can live with that flaw in my character.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by TBooze

No, I just try not to let emotion get in the way of making a cold decision of fact.

What emotion? We aren't rating Greb highly because we feel sorry for him that he died early; infact, most of us probably don't even think of it when rating him. He had three hundred fights and an amazing - no, phenomenal - career! That... Is the fact.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Manassa

What emotion? We aren't rating Greb highly because we feel sorry for him that he died early; infact, most of us probably don't even think of it when rating him. He had three hundred fights and an amazing - no, phenomenal - career! That... Is the fact.

But you wrote yourself that you are judging me for punishing Greb because he died early. That is an emotion.

The same way as I reward fighters for redemption. That is in part a form of emotion. Indeed because these sort of things are so objective mine and your emotional feeling will be a large part of our ratings. Otherwise you might as well just have a cricket style list of numbers to rate fighters.

[Manassa]

What are you rattling on about? Here's what I think; you are wrong, I know you're wrong, everybody knows you're wrong and even you know you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it, so you've tried to whip up some sort of corrupted logic to try to make yourself sound respectable.

It ain't working though. So far my conclusion is that you're a confused idiot.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by Manassa

What are you rattling on about? Here's what I think; you're wrong, I know you're wrong, everybody knows you're wrong and even you know you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it, so you've tried to whip up some sort of corrupted logic to try to make yourself sound respectable.

It ain't working though. So far my conclusion is that you're a confused idiot.

That is your call, everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just gave mine and always will defend it if it is questioned.

What I am rattling on about is everyone is influenced by personal opinion and peer pressure when it comes to writing a list this is purely objective.

[Bummy Davis]

@ # 1