Hi Guys, i'm new to this forum and expect some grief. I came up with my own system for ranking the greatest champions in history. This is how I rank the heavyweight champions. I have taken into account their achievments as champions and done my list accordingly. Just because I have someone at no16 it doesn't mean I don't think they were not better or could not beat the fighters above them. This list is greatest champions on what they acheived and how they affected the sport. I have taken the following as my criteria:- 1>Total years as champions (Factual) 2>Number of defenses (Factual) 3>Number of times they became champion (Factual) 4>Quality of opposition (Subjective) 5>Impact on the sport (Subjective) And how I scored each category:- 1>Total years reigned = 5 points for every year 2>Total number of defenses = 5 points for every defense 3>Times champion = 10 points for every time they became champion, +2 points for every year since they won their first title, until winning 2nd title. e.g George Foreman won the title twice giving him 20points, he won his 1st title in 1973 and his 2nd in 1994 a gap of 21 years giving him a further 42 points. 4>Quality of opposition = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Of course this is subjective and my opinion) 5>Impact on the sport = A=20 points, B=10 points and C=5 points (Again this is subjective and my own opinion) Here is how the fighters scored 1> Muhammed Ali,8 yrs,19 def,3 time champ,A QofOpp,A Impact = 233 points 2> Joe Louis,12 yrs,25 def,1 time champ,B,A = 225 points 3> Lennox Lewis,9 yrs,14 def,3 time champ,A,C = 168 points 4> Larry Holmes,7 yrs,20 def,1 time champ,A,C = 160 points 5> Evander Holyfield,7 yrs,7 def,4 time champ,A,C = 145 points 6> Mike Tyson,5 yrs,10 def,2 time champ,A,A = 145 points 7> George Foreman,2 yrs,3 def,2 time champ,A,A = 127 points 8> Joe Frazier,5 yrs,9 def,1 time champ,A,B = 110 points 9> Jack Johnson,7 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,B,A = 105 points 10>Rocky Marciano,4 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,A = 100 points 11>Jack Dempsey,7 yrs,5 def,1 time champ,B,A = 100 points 12>Floyd Patterson,6 yrs,6 def,2 time champ,C,C = 97 points 13>James J. Jeffries,5 yrs,6 def,1 time champ,A,B = 95 points 14>Tommy Burns,2 yrs,11 def,1 time champ,C,C = 85 points 15>Ezzard Charles,2 yrs,8 def,1 time champ,C,B = 75 points 16>Sonny Liston,2 yrs,2 def,1 time champ,B,B = 50 points I did this quite a few years back and only used the 16 fighters you can see, so obviously I need to do it for the rest of the champions. So how does everyone compile their own greatest ever lists, and do you go on achievments or head to head? I noticed a cool thread someone created on here, where you used a census and people voted on the greatest for each division. I also did this a few years back and was pleasantly surprised by the results.
Welcome aboard Hurr!cane :good interesting results from this for sure - I see resume and accomplishment as kind of like drawing by numbers some larger bits give us more of the picture - some smaller bits do help make up the full picture and the picture would be incomplete without them even if they are tiny bits - but I see how they actually fought as if you like the lines of the drawing (the essence of them) - without the outlines you wouldn't know where to start or what you are drawing in the first place - like I say interesting exercise this but it does throw up the proof of where basing things like this solely on facts and figures gives us an incorrect final picture - ie (for me at least) Lennox and Holy both in the top 5 and Patterson and Burns ahead of Sonny Liston - but it does give us a gauge on how we might unfairly overlook what certain fighters did over the course of their careers even if we might not necerssarily put them at the top of tree based on it - always interesting to look at these types of things to see how things turn out though - stick around buddy :good
Interesting. I don´t agree with the "impact on sport" thing because that has actually not much to do with the sport itself but overall well thought through with some interesting results. Especially the high ranking of Burns. As a big fan I´d like to ask how high Schmeling scored? I have a few questions regarding your criteria though. When you talk about winning a championship are you talking about the real, linear title or about belts? Personally, I would only include the linear reigns. Did you include reigns as black hw champion, if you count belts I think you have to, for example for Johnson? Does your quality of opposition only include the quality of opposition in championship fights? What do you make out of fighters who never won the title but deserve to be ranked up there, like Sam Langford, Harry Wills, perhaps Elmar Ray and Jimmy Bivinns?
I see what your saying, I see so many disagreements when people put up their lists. Everyone uses a different criteria , some people just base it on a who would beat who. You can only measure greatness IMO by what they achieved, and the impact they made and who they beat. My list represents this and I wanted to take it further and add more criteria, although it is subjective. I was going to add speed, power, Ring Generalship etc etc and rate them out of 100 and add that to their scores. I was also going to run a simulation program and have them all fight each other head to head a 100 times each and somehow convert the results into a score that I could add to the other totals to try and come up with a greatest of all time list that incorporates as much as possible. I need a system to include the great black fighters of the past that were unfortunate enough not to be given a chance to establish their true greatness and fight for the title. I just want to come up with a really comprehensive list takes everything possible into account. Trying to pit old time fighters against modern is so hard, there are so many variables to consider. Everything has changed, not just technique but physical size and also lifestyle. Take two identical Jack Johnsons, the 1908 version and a 2010 version. The 2010 version would be technically much better, should be better conditioned, faster and more powerful. You could use a time machine and bring the 1908 version to now and have them fight, do we go old school rules or is it 3x12 rounds. You could have the 1908 version trained for 6 months under modern methods to improve him as a fighter, yet there is nothing you can do to the 2010 version to make him as tough as the 1908 version. Because of the times and the hardships a 1908 JJ would be more likely to not give up and fight to the end than a 2010 version would. Hope I'm getting accross what I mean.
It includes Belts, your right I need to consider quality of oppostion not just in title fights. And I know I need to incorporate the Langfords etc in all of this. Trying to come up with a fair way to do all of this. I love the old time fighters and personally Wills is a match for anyone IMO. I'd love to see McVey fight Tyson that would be a great fight.
You obviously have put a fair bit of effort into this so fair play to ya. Makes for an interesting read. Welcome to the forum:good
Too be honest I didn't. It was something I started a few years back and only used the 16 fighters on my list. I was meant to take it a lot further but cirumstances have conspired against me. I'm hoping to get some free time to continue where I left off.
Hurricane, you put a lot into this and I like your style. I've done many of these myself being a person who enjoys statistics. Not to nitpick but here's where I think the list is flawed. Number of years holding the title. Louis gets 20 points for being inactive during the war years. Not that I don't believe he wouldn't have reigned anyway during that time but you see where I am going. Next, number of defenses. Hard to argue with until you look at the comp. A fighter who has made weak defenses (such as a Bernard Hopkins or a Roy Jones) gets the benefit here over a fighter who made solid defenses purely by the numbers. Next, how many times reigned. Carlos Mozon once said when someone said that Robinson was champ 5 times to his 1, "Yes, but that would mean I would have to lose the title first in order to regain it." See where I'm going? Points are given to losing and regaining rather than a long-serving champ getting points for longevity. Your 4th point is sound. Can't question someone's comp. The last one is of course subject to celebrity status in some ways over a guy who just quietly wins. All in all, you classifications are good on a whole. I just happen to be one of these guys that always does a head to head tourney in my head. And again, I like your style, Hurricane. You've got a passion for the game. Scartissue
Thanks mate, and all points are appreciated. That's why I put it up so people can criticize and maybe put our heads togeather and try and come up with something really good.
