Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

I think there'd still be plenty of wriggle room even if a fighter's resume did predominate the scoring portion of the ranking points, but that's the last I'll say on the matter I think (won't promise ). I guess the proof will be in the pudding when we see how the fighters are actually ranked and I'm sure the 'how can X be ranked higher than Y?' question will come to the fore to test our beliefs on this out.:good

 

That was a different era and largely a different sport back then. It required different skills. 1920 is as good a cut-off as any, though it does force out Langford. His record is spotty though... alot of suspicious stuff there. He'd get an honorable mention...

Fair... not sure i'd agree though. it's hard to compete when your dying your hair too.

I'm confident that the results won't contradict this.

 

If I see this for a JT post in the next hour or so:

hjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.......

-that's called a KO!

 

Oooooooh my durability is so much more!!!!!

Have gone peepy byes with the head on the keyboard years ago tho, i must admit :rofl

 

Level of opposition is the first thing that needs to be taken into account when measuring the importance of dominance in comparison to ring generalship.

 

Yeah, my last post was of course useless. I guess I didn't really take into account that a thread with McGrain, Stonehands, and sweet_scientist would've covered that long ago. And by the way McGrain, fantastic post at the beginning of page #2.

 

just want to add this

a quote from McGrain i have commited to memory

'boxing ain't maths its more like music'

The points and that is a great idea but boxing aint as straight forward as that and you need a biot of subjectiviveness

 

StoneHands this is a seriously good idea. You use a lot of things I like (post-1920, taking into account how the fighters performed and not just who is on their ledger) and I wish you a lot of luck in compiling your list. Should be interesting to see :good

 

I have always understood the term to be more a refference to the tactical aspects of a fight plan.

 

I'm drowning in a sea of my turbulent subjectivity. I'm reaching out to the best historians and analysts around to rescue me.

.... I just did some computations.... it looks interesting....

 

Tactics can change by the minute.... and they are akin to dipping into your toolbox during a bout. You have to be a pretty able mechanic/technician to do this. Strategy is better referred to as "grand strategy"....which comes from watching fight films and building a general fight plan. At least that's how I look at it.

 

that is the downside of subjectiveness is that its constantly changing, perhaps numbers will work

could you post up the compuitations as a sample to see hwat needs tweaked or whatever

 

it's on an excel program. Anyone know how to show it here? I can't figure it the hell out...

 

You may have defined the term better for me.

Perhaps it should describe an fighters ability to adjust and react to what is in front of him combined with his fight plan?

The ring general maintains control of how the fight unfolds.