I'm very happy with my HW through MW lists. Well I'm quite happy with all my provisional lists tbh, but my HW through MW I've finalised. I should get the others finalised in time, I'm leaving P4P till last because splitting fighters at that level is just very tedious.
Heavyweight was the only one I was 100% confident coming in with, but I’m questioning that more than anything above feather. Johnson at 5 just seems like a big anomaly on my list. I also started writing out a brief summary of each fighter and why I put them there and I feel like I’m robbing Liston & Holyfield putting them at 12 & 11
The only problem with this is for some divisions going past a top 5 is essentially meaningless. LWW is stacked historically as is SFW. The rest of them are really shallow in terms of greatness. For example take SMW you have to include someone like Eubank who never once had a claim of being the best fighter in the division.
I don’t see what that has to do with anything: you can have more than one ATG in a division at the same time. Think late 1970s/early 1980s light heavyweights.
Because its only due to the proliferation of belts that people consider Eubank a world class title holder. He never showed any motivation to want to fight the best in the world, Jones, Nunn, Liles etc. How many men, can claim to be a divisional ATG without ever being the best in their division nor seeking to fight the best in their division? Conteh and Galindez never fought each but both were ranked number 1 at some point in their career. I'm not sure Eubank ever went above number 3 divisionally speaking. So the reason that has to do with anything, is the in between weights are very shallow which makes ranking in terms of greatness very hard,when you get past the first few names.
I may wind up doing something like that, but I actually had a different idea for the next survey. Having recently watched a bunch of Aaron Pryor bouts, the idea does have some appeal to me. But I've always found those weight classes tricky and less interesting to rate, primarily because of the lack of a rich history. I'll definitely keep in mind. I'm still debating right now whether I want 9 short reveals and a 10th summary that's more in-depth. Or whether I should just go with a 2-parter with each part being more involved. Still leaning towards the first option, as it will allow me to crank these out as I go.
Well, if there is to be a junior/super survey, I for one would count myself out ("No loss to us, you twat, Gudetama", I hear you cry!!!) Only because I generally do my rankings 2/3rds on H2H and 1/3rd on resume. I also factor weight in. (For example, I think Marciano, Langford, etc. are among the top Cruiserweights). At the end of the day, it's all just a bit of fun, and after all is said and done, this is a fantastic exercise. I'm not too worried about the results (ie. I will be checking both this forum and Rummy's YouTube channel twice a day religiously, in eager anticipation of the results). Happy Days
Yes, yes it would be easy. Which is why I'm kindly asking you once again to please edit and revise your list in accordance with the rules, so that your final submission is numbered sequentially, with the appropriate number of names per list, and no career amateur boxers included.