What are your criteria for an all-time ranking list?

This thread is inspired by Stoney's thread 'Ranking the Greats'.

I'm just interested in what criteria everyone uses in compiling their all time p4p lists.

I've recently tried to 'scientise' my list and I've been using the following criteria with which to rank fighters:


RESUME (50 POINTS)

The focus is on the quality of fighters beaten, but:
- The size of the opponent and difficulty of the task is relevant to the quality of the opponent (e.g. John Ruiz is a better win for Roy Jones than Juan Manuel Marquez is for Floyd Mayweather, even though Juan Manuel Marquez is a better fighter than John Ruiz).
- Beating someone at their peak/in their prime counts for more than beating someone past their peak/prime, so it's not just the 'name' that is relevant but the stage they were at in their careers.
- The quantity of fighters beaten counts a little too, so beating a quality opponent more than once is a plus.
- Close losses contribute to assessing the quality of one's resume.
- Not close but nevertheless honourable losses count somewhat too.



DOMINANCE (40 POINTS)

Indicators of dominance include:
- Consistently winning (early losses or past prime losses don't get penalised that much).
- The manner of victory (ko's, shut outs and near shutouts etc. are all indicative of dominance).
- Cleaning out divisions.
- Conquering in multiple weight divisions.



LONGEVITY (10 POINTS)

A fighter scores well for longevity if:
- They are around at a high level for a long duration of time.
- They have a lot of fights at a high level.
- Ideally a fighter should have a combination of both to score extremely well for longevity.



CHARACTER (10 POINTS)

One gets points for character if they do things like:
- Take risks (e.g. fight everyone in and around their weight division and not duck opponents, offer rematches, go out on their shields in an effort to win fights rather than hold on just to survive etc)
- Overcome adversity.
- Bear up well to adversity even if they don't win (and this is shown by the ability to take an ass whipping when it's your way coming, so durability counts here).




I would like to incorporate a head-to-head category too, but it would bias some of the older guys that we don't have footage of, so I decided to do away with it as a category.

Any suggestions on the criteria and the points I allot for each category? I initially started grading dominance with 20 points but it just didn't seem to be doing justice to the top guys and I upped it to 30 and then finally 40. It might sound like a lot but I think it's a fairly big part of grading fighters, and it helps even out the 'resume' bias for older fighters by allowing fighters that dominated in the modern era (but didn't have a 2 or 3 hundred fight win resume) to stay within range.

Would like to hear some criticisms and see people's own criteria when compiling lists. :good

Now doubt most will say the proof will be in the pudding, but it's interesting to theoretically set out what we are judging when we judge greatness, because sometimes it can help clarify what it is that we are missing when we make a list by that theoretical standing and see anomalies in how the list comes together, and other times it can help us get rid of biases that are inherent in our beliefs.

 

An interesting one, I probably should reserve a place for this. I was reluctant to do so because a lot of the great fighters in the past didn't achieve or accomplish things (e.g. winning titles) because they were denied the opportunity (not because they lacked the ability) and so it would bias them if I included that category. There's a good argument for still doing so and saying 'tough-luck' to the Langfords and Burleys etc. One I'll have to think about.... Cheers bodhi :good

 

I think a h2h criterion would bias us against fighters we haven't seen or seen grainy, worthless footage of. If I was merely dealing with fighters I had seen fight quite a bit, for sure it'd be worthwhile as a criterion, but I don't feel it would be fair across the board to make an all time list and penalise guys just because we can't see them fight.

Does that mean that there'll be a limitation to how my list will turn out? For sure. But I'll cop that.

 

I think a good halfway point is to give some credit for accomplishments and achievements and thereby acknowledge those that made a lot of title defenses and what not, but not too much credit so as to punish the unfortunate ones too harshly for missing out. It makes sense to give maybe 2 points max for high achievements. Perhaps I could do the same for h2h ability. I wouldn't really want to push it beyond that, but if I was looking for a compromise, that would probably be the way I'd go. It's a tough one though....

 

Same... though at the same time something should be said for it.... after all, most guys come in their best shape for title fights. It's easier to catch a good fighter napping in a non-title effort than it is when a title's at stake....

 

Yeah it helps those that fought in weak eras and specifically the modern guys be represented a little better, but at the same time, the resume category is so vital that even if they are very dominant, they won't come out near the top of my list unless they had at least decent comp.

Someone like Ricardo Lopez would still be outside my top 100 on my criteria (as I judge it of course, others may use my criteria and have him in their top 100).

 

Looking at the inherent ability/worth of a fighter is definitely something that needs to be looked at when making an overall assessment of a fighter and it's definitely a limitation of my criteria that it's missing.

You're right that this assessment can only really be made when you've seen a decent amount of a fighter and therein lies the problem when making an 'all-time' list, because we don't have that luxury with a lot of the all time greats.

I think I'll make two all time lists and use this criterion when making a list simply for the fighters I've seen a decent amount of. Say, perhaps an hour's footage or more...