Please Participate--All-Time Light Heavyweight Poll (POLL CLOSED)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Rumsfeld, Jul 19, 2009.


Page 11 of 13
  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,982
    48,059
    Mar 21, 2007
    I think that we can be really, really proud of this 10. Further down the list there are some anomollys that don't read well (Bivins shouldn't be that low) but we were asked for a ten and the ten we've delivered is great. It's a fair resolution to the various problems in a tougher division to rate than the HW's where we did less well I feel.

    Word up to Rumsfeld for organising. Good man. Let him never be labelled "bum" again :lol:

    Middleweights up next. Good luck everyone, that's a murderous division to rank, WTF do you do about Flowers, Tiger, Williams, Burley...
     
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    #151
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    I am EXTREMLEY dissapointed Harold Johnson nor John Henry Lewis did not make the top 10. What a crock of ****. At least one of them deserves a spot.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    #152
  3. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,517
    15,934
    Jul 19, 2004
    I'm fairly happy that both of my lists have largely resembled the collective lists thus far, and I agree--this is a very good light heavy list, IMO.

    Or a "sack of ****"!

    :lol::good

    I'm probably going to get everything fully organized with this on Tuesday, where I will write my analysis.

    I will put the middleweight poll up then.

    I'm thinking, going forward, I'll put a 2 week limit on the survey rather than a full month? Thoughts?
     
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    #153
  4. Mr Butt

    Mr Butt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,678
    183
    May 16, 2009
    yeah thanks rumsfeld very good job


    still can`t get over lalonde
     
    Mr Butt, Aug 21, 2009
    Mr Butt, Aug 21, 2009
    #154
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,982
    48,059
    Mar 21, 2007
    ...let's not go nuts.


    Maybe take a look at the data gathered in the additional two weeks and see what value it had?
     
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    #155
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005

    Carpentier and Gibbons were not punchers. Carpenter maybe, but the dude was pretty washed up at the time Tunney fought him. i dont think Carpentier as a puncher compares to a Berlenbach, or Stribling. Slattery could wack a bit too.
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    #156
  7. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    Wow, that is an awful list. You have the consensus # 1 all time Ezzard Charles all the way down at 4th? You then have Archie Moore out of your top 5? :shock:

    You also have Tunney at # 1, when he arguebably lost to a 19 year old version of your # 10(whom he outweighed by 10lb), never giving him a rematch...and lost twice to your # 9 whom he outweighed by 10lb. He beat Carpentier and Gibbons, but both were past there prime(especially carpteniter). Tunney also never fought any lightheavyweight punchers, and drew the color line. I do not see how he could possibly be # 1.

    Fitzsimmons at 3 is a real stretch. He did not win the lightheavyweight title until 40 years old and quickly got dispatched at this weight by Phildelphia Jack O Brien. What did he accomplish at this weight?
     
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    SuzieQ49, Aug 21, 2009
    #157
  8. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,517
    15,934
    Jul 19, 2004
    :lol:

    I'm thinking two weeks is usually enough time? :think

    You were right about one thing, McGrain: The evidence of diminishing returns is already evident. Although, I suspect the middleweights will show a slight bump upwards.

    So from here forth, we will continue doing the original eight weight classes, then we will do an all time P4P list, and then we will survey the other divisions, starting with cruiser and working our way down.

    :good
     
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    #158
  9. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,517
    15,934
    Jul 19, 2004
    Thank you, very much.

    :thumbsup
     
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    Rumsfeld, Aug 21, 2009
    #159
  10. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    This is ****in great what you've done here Rumsfield. I really like how it's a long process, not just a quick thing, then it's all on Sticky and we get to keep it right at the top of the page.
     
    teeto, Aug 21, 2009
    teeto, Aug 21, 2009
    #160
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,982
    48,059
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah, I would say so. But say that the votes in the second week made significantly firmer positions lower down the order (7-10), does that tell us something? And if we compare the first two weeks with the second two weeks (As seperate votes) do we see differences to the fighters on the lists or the positions? If you felt it was worth checking and the two sections showed differences it might be worth keeping the extra two weeks...

    On the other hand, without wishing to nettle anyone, it's probably human nature for people to want to be involved in something like this, and guys who don't have the grasp of the facts can draw a decent list from the other posts...just saying.

    The wheels will come off at that point; even boxing nuts (me) don't have lists for all of these divisions. You'll be stuck with the real list-hardcore, guys like TBooze and Sweet Scientist maybe...nothing wrong with that, but not the inclusive, definitive sense the other lists will generate. Still, I could be wrong and the whole thing could snowball. I don't currenly have a MW list for example, but I'll be working on one.
     
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    McGrain, Aug 21, 2009
    #161
  12. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    I reckon we do all the divisions eventually. But doing the likes of cruiserweight or strawweight, maybe we don't have to produce a list of ten?

    I'm sure Rummy will sort it out though.
     
    teeto, Aug 21, 2009
    teeto, Aug 21, 2009
    #162
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,724
    29,075
    Jun 2, 2006
    Well done R a lot of work but worth while I feel :good
     
    mcvey, Aug 21, 2009
    mcvey, Aug 21, 2009
    #163
  14. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,670
    98
    Feb 18, 2006
    Thanks for your efforts, Rumsfeld. I think this is a very good list.
     
    OLD FOGEY, Aug 21, 2009
    OLD FOGEY, Aug 21, 2009
    #164
  15. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,354
    Jun 29, 2007
    I think Tunney, Langford and Fitz were better head to head fighters at 175 than Charles was. The first one would out box him, and the other two would knock him out. Hence, he's 4 for me.

    I just don't share the same infatuation for chinny fighters in the 1940's and 1950's who can look good vs veteran/journeyman fighters on film.
     
    Mendoza, Aug 22, 2009
    Mendoza, Aug 22, 2009
    #165
Page 11 of 13