Boxing News Top 10 Vs BoxRec Top 10 Lineal Heavyweights

sticking TF in any Top 10 Historical lists is absolutely crazy, how many true Great HW Champions are far better than him, Great Historical Contenders over the Decades and even some among the Fringe too... BoxRec really worked hard over the last few years to tweak their Ratings to be both as Modern & British Centric as possible... terrible lists.

 

Isn’t the BoxRec one simply a list sorted by the number of title defenses? Ali and Clay are the same man but in separate positions in the list. But it’s clearly a ranking of the number of defenses rather than ability or achievement, unlike the Boxing News list.

 

tommy burns ****ing lol

 

Tommy Burns's first 2 title defenses listed here should not be considered canonical.

 

Where the Hecks Lennox on the lineal list?

 

yes, it looks that way,

but the 'number' of defences can have little regard 'if' a) the champion was himself secured into position and/or b) if opponents in said defences themselves aren't much...

it also shines the light on how Achievement Based 'Greatest' Lists themselves can be completely inaccurate as to who 'might' be better than who over the History of Boxing,

for me there can only be One such list for trying to measure the Best or Greatest and that is H2H, who would or 'might' beat who based on the Basic Criteria - Champion and/or Contenders, Opponents, Wins & Q'd Losses, Number of Fights, Eras and Longevity at the Top.

that all seems a better way of being somewhat more accurate, as near impossible as that actually is too be.

 

Both lists are meh but the Boxing News one is a bit better. The Boxing News top three is fine but everything after that is pretty bad. Holmes is way too low and Foreman and Marciano are way too high.

 

I feel like I would be closer to the first list.