1} I am a greater boxer at my weight than you were at your weight list. 2} High water mark list. 3} P4P. I perfer option [1] if you think that Jimmy Wilde was a better Flyweight than Rocky Marciano was a heavyweight then Wilde would be ranked higher in the list. option [2] somebody like Roy Jones Jnr would do well in such a list, as some people think he was unbeatable for a year or two, i don't like this type of list otherwise you could end up with Joe Bloggs as the #1 option [3] seems to favour boxers who jump weights during their career, somebody mentioned on here that Benny Leonard fought most of his career at 1 weight {i have not checked this myself} could he be disadvantaged when compared to boxers who jump weights, also fully blown heavyweights are unable to jump weights, therefore could they be disadvantaged.
I tend to agree with your assessment ,with the proviso that the higher ranked champ must have beaten quality fighters in his own division.As we know some weights have been legendary for their depth while others are not so strong.
Longevity.. Quality of opponents.. Durability in battle.. Nostalgic memories.. Constant comparisons to past champs.. Ability to re-bound from a loss.. Chin at a higher level.. destructive removal of #1 contenders... The list goes on .. Any possible reasoning comes into effect, especially during debates.....
80% accomplishment and historical significance - this invloves fights with the fellow all-time greats, title held, punching power and boxing skills displayed and longetivity. 20% timeliness and contribution to the growth of the sport- this is why ali, dlh, trinidad, srl and jcc are ranked a little bit higher. Tyson is great but his legacy suffers because it can not stand the test of time. monzon's longetivity is matched by hopkins thus monzon's rankings would go he would go down. henry armstrong legacy of jumping in weight in a year is unmatched of more than 50 years...thats so long and he deserves to be in the top 3 ATG. "I am a greater boxer at my weight than you were at your weight list" involves a lot of speculation and subjectivity because it takes into account the potential of a boxer that never really been scratched. ATG should always be based on what the boxer accomplished rather than mere speculation. P4P rankings is ok for he so long as it is based more on accomplishment rather than speculation and unseen factors
All Ranking Lists are subjective {i have seen ATG points based ranking lists, which i find very interesting but most people dislike} I am a greater boxer at my weight than you are at your weight type list involves the least speculation of all, as it is just comparing boxers achievements at their own weight. If you take historical significance and contribution to the sport into consideration you are not going to have a list with the best boxers in order on it ? I like accomplishments in the ring only ?, that is why i favour a boxer who has beaten another boxer in the ring in ranking lists {as long as they are in the same ballpark standard wise obviously}
Jimmy Wilde very popular boxer in North America as well as UK Freddie Welsh very popular boxer in North America as well as UK Joe Louis only fought in the US Roy Jones Jnr only fought in the US Jimmy Wilde is often ranked above Joe Louis anyway but with consideration given to 'growth of the sport', Wilde fought and was known,watched,supported by Americans, Canadians and Brits = total population of those countries approx 400 million people. Joe Louis = exposure to only 300 million people {US population} Freddie Welsh exactly the same as Wilde in fact proberbly fought in the States more often than the UK, he even fought approximately a dozen fights in Canada, total exposure = 400 million people. Roy Jones Jnr never boxed outside the US, total exposure = 300 million people. Don't forget lots of boxers in an ATG list fought before TV {i know that is not the case for all of the above four, but they are just an example} Bringing in this historical significance and growth of sport bit is not going to work, boxing is not just a US sport, it is Worldwide, i guess you must be American 'asero', how are you supposed to know, what contributions overseas boxers have made to the sport ? Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Hatton could both draw a 'live' crowd of 100,000 spectators. Mayweather and Pacquaio would be lucky to draw a 'live' crowd' of 20,000 spectators. Therefore if a world record crowd watched Hatton, we should rank him above Pacquaio as the 100,000 crowd that turned up to watch the fight was of 'historical sigificance'. The above is only an example of what could possibly happen this year ? {if Calzaghe has 1 more fight in Cardiff you would be looking at a huge crowd and if Hatton had a mega fight at Wembley you would also be looking at a huge crowd} Thats why i say, achievements in the ring only.
i only put 20% to the combination of timeliness and contribution to the growth of the sport. again monzon's legacy is extremely hurt by the fact that Bhop was able to match his longetivity while marciano still holds the purest record. dlh and trinidad should be given around three steps higher for their popularity. when you go to puerto rico, trinidad is the standard used for measuring the career of every puerto rican boxers.. trinidad up to now is timeless which was never the case for mike tyson. again ring accomplishment & historical significance are 80% that is too much weight and i think its fair enough.. hatton and cazaghe crowd in UK along with DLH ppvs should be included in the 20% and not be considered in historical significance and ring accomplishments
