Rating resumes

Well, I'd suggest not basing a points system on a once-a-year rating by a magazine ... for starters.

Nearly every champion today fights guys who are either RANKED by the organization they represent or who they are TOLD to fight by the organization they represent.

And just because RING didn't or doesn't recognize someone in their YEAR-END ratings doesn't mean the champion fought inferior opposition.

RING is just as prone to bias as any other group -- particularly in an ANNUAL rating where they don't even include people they rated in other months throughout the year.

You at least have to determine if someone was rated by someone when the two people actually FOUGHT ... for example, the Tate-Knoetze match I mentioned earlier.

And you should consider some orgs didn't rate fighters from certain countries as a general rule.

And you have to consider that some years RING refused to recognize certain divisions, so you'd have cruiserweights rated at heavyweight who weren't even competing at heavyweight ... but the RING rated them there anyway because they refused to recognize the division the guy should've been rated in ... and another heavyweight probably should've been included.

But you certainly shouldn't just go by a final year-end tally of who is left standing.

 

Wladimir Klitschko

Lineal champions - 5

Hasim Rahman

HW beltholders and TOP 5 contenders (for contenders - only at the time of the fight) - 52

Chris Byrd
Chris Byrd
Ray Mercer
Samuel Peter
Lamon Brewster
Sultan Ibragimov
Ruslan Chagaev
Eddie Chambers
Samuel Peter
David Haye
Alexander Povetkin
Kubrat Pulev
Bryant Jennings

Other contenders - 33

Axel Schulz
Phil Jackson
Monte Barrett
Derrick Jefferson
Frans Botha
Jameel McCline
DaVarryl Williamson
Calvin Brock
Ray Austin
Tony Thompson
Tony Thompson

Losses (-9 points)

Total: 81 point

 

I agree with you.

Also, the Ring had Adilson Rodrigues, Michael Grant and Dimitrenko in their TOP-5

They had Phil Jackson in their top-10 (despite Jackson never beat any top-30 fighter at the time)

They had Chuck Wepner in their top-10 in the middle of 70's.

Their rankings are not that good, too

So it's just for fun, and it's very good thread:good

 

How do we rate guys from the early 20's and before that time when we don't have contemporary lists of stuff like a top 10 contender list ? we have to use different criteria don't we ? Also it isn't always easy to work out who all the linear champs are.

 

Yeah I have to agree very much with this, we are talking about a sport where usually fights between two greats are most lopsided as far as one guy is in prime and one is either early in career and long way from prime or long past prime. The only true ranking is when two guys fight and the result usually says it all but that is just how the two match up on a single day in their lives, the variables in resumes are almost endless and the more you go through them the more you find names in those resumes you have to study only to see that they beat many guys that beat the guy who beat them or beat every guy who beat the guy who beat them and to do this to every fighter who ever had a reputation at some stage in a career makes this endless, there is no such thing as a RIGHT list, and those who think their lists are even close to perfect have an ego problem.

 

Sadly, Dubblechin is right. ^

However, I think that this rating system is still a fun exercise that I'm betting will spit out fighter rankings closer to a real top 10 list than we think.

 

Wlad fought in a weak era. No way he ranks above holyfield.