Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Your input is more than welcome. I'd pay you if I could -per post, becuase it is helping me out.

Let me try to convince you to give Duran a 13 instead of a 12. That Barkley win was 21 years after his pro debut, not 15. It was 16 years after his first world title (Buchanan).

Ali at a 14 is too high. Remember the 15s go to guys like Moore and Greb -look at their number of fights. Ali didn't have a whole helluva lot of bouts...

 

Stonehands that disabilities overcome category and yopu mention guys not getting title shots etc...

surely there is factors out of a fighters controll here that could enhance/penalise a fighter

perhaps maybe a category for specail things like Greb being blind in one eye could be made instead

 

I've done most of the names offered in one of my threads from some months ago asking for who Classic posters believed should be considered in the running for the Top 10. If you feel strongly about another potential, give me the name, I'll do up a chart and we can argue it or agree. Be merciful though, time is of essence!

I'm not considering those nuts like Battling Nelson whose heyday was before 1920. They'd be off the charts.

However, you are correct in my being really forced to lend some weight to fighters through the 50s, when they had to overcome injury without much help from refs like today. But then there are exceptions. Ali for example.

Those guys who had a lot of fights, faced bangers or bigger men, and remained erect will score high here. Hagler is the standard, as mentioned. Recuperative ability helps, but I don't see Charles and Moore as durable in the same vein as say Greb or Ross.

No problem, I've tried to answer you anyway.

Natural athletic ability is absorbed into RG, although my preference for skill has been noted in an earlier post.

 

Whatever you like, I trust your judgment. And a stamp of approval by Duodenum would make this effort shimmer.

 

Sure thing. I have since absorbed "Adversity Overcome" into a new category called "intangibles"....

 

Greb's "Intangibles" are very high. Robinson will be publically penalized for ducking Burley. I believe that he absolutely did duck him. Nothing less. So, he pays. In fact, it is a major reason why he isn't number one on my list.... Robinson ducked Burley and now, finally, he pays for it. He's number 2.

 

thats fair enough

 

My bad, i quickly looked up his first pro fight at boxrec, but forgot there was a page 1. atsch 13 is fine indeed. I'd have Ali at 12.

 

Mathematically, the system's values are too low to allow for a top 100. I as thinking of increasing them so as to better differentiate between the candidates. As it stands now, there will be many ties if we do a top 100. If we increase the values then we will lurch into absurdity. For example:

If Ross's RG is a "28" and Burley's is a "26" --how the hell do you explain the difference? It would be arbitrary. We could devise a computer program that would use % and all that... but that would be a ton of work and I'm no expert on computers.

No, I like that ESB Classic experts submitted names into a pool and then the top ten are scored using the present system.

..Just thinking out loud here!

 

Excellent job...and great work.
With your rating system, thsi is one of the most objective lists that one could produce.
Now that the compliments are done with...
I need to campaign for Henry Armstrong!

My listing for Henry would place him top three
RG 15
EXP 14
LGV 11
DOM 15
PLO 10
DUR 8
INT 9

total: 82

Where we differ at are the ratings in RG, PLO, and INT.

Why should Armstrong have a higher RG rating?
Stylistically Armstrong would make the ring a much smaller place. Fighting on the inside and shutting down an opponent's offense by crowding and not allowing them to get set was a science to him. Armstrong always imposed his style on the procedings...Always!...and against larger opposition.

PLO?
This should be Armstrong's catagory. Imagine if Armstrong would have gotten the decisions against Ambers (Armstrong was deducted several points for low blows unnecessarily) and Garcia, he would have held 4 of the 8 original weight division titles! Simply mind boggling.

INT?
To be consistantly outsized in his welter reign, but to be able to overcome the disadvantages underlines Armstrong's greatness.

Ray Robinson?
Using your system, I'd grade him out as follows:
RG 15
EXP 15
LGV 15
DOM 14
PLO 7
DUR 9
INT 8

total: 83

A few more points for LGV. A 25 year career fighting rated fighters from teh start to the finish...What more do ya have to do?
INT? Sustained excellence...nuff said. Still second to Greb, but a little closer...Which it should be.

*Just nitpicking* I applaud your effort and I'm sure everyone else does as well.

 

dpw, damn good arguments.

-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree? Henry did fight larger men, but he was rarely the weaker man in there. With Walker, and Duran for that matter, different story. I think Henry is good there.

RG and Int .... I will reconsider those again, you are pretty persuasive...

Tell me though, do you believe that Armstrong deserves to be ranked over Ezzard? I've been rethinking that lately because Armstrong, as great as he was, did have a relatively short prime.

 

[html]-The standard for PLO must be Mickey Walker. Would you agree?[/html]
Yes and No...How's that? Walker certainly deserves the high grade, no question. Armstrong, I feel deserves the credit due him as well. For all intents and purposes should have been recognized as featherweight, lightweight, weterweight, AND middleweight champion...Not only is that off the charts as a testimony for greatness, it's just plain absurd... Armstrong may have been the stronger man? Perhaps so. But what about his style? A smallish, pressure fighter who routinely got low and uprooted all of his opponents. He leveraged everybody, by driving underneath them.

Taking advantage of your rankings and tweaking them to my view, I feel Armstrong comes in at third with an 82, while Ezzard Charles comes in at 79. A score of 13 (Charles) to 11 (Armstrong) in LGV seems fair. But in my view anyway, it wouldn't unseat Armstrong.

 

The middleweight commendations Armstrong gets is a bit blown up. Ceferino Garcia was no more of a MW than Armstrong himself, Armstrong already beat him at WW and drew with him at MW. Garcia was 5'7 and a natural Welter.... and the so-called MW title was recognized by one state... CA.

PS/ Love the "leveraged/uprooted" description, I may have to steal that one, okay?

 

How off the carts would Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, Terry McGovern or Young Corbett II would be??

Can you thown a few out there please. Perhaps Corbett II?

 

Has anybody rated Bob Fitzsimmons? If rated against his own time, which seems to be the key, i think he has close to the perfect score.