ATG lists. Main criteria for Judging?

Longevity/Dominance.
WHO they fought and WHEN they fought them.
Skillset.
How they would do in other eras.

That's my criteria.

 

Resume is everything to me. Skills by themselves are nice and all that, but if you didn't have anyone of note to apply them to, then commending their abilities becomes more of a hypothetical gesture than a concrete judgment. Many fighters may appear to have great skills within a certain style, and can't deliver against the highest of opposition.

 

Resume - Far and away the most important.
Adversity - I don't factor anything outside of the ring when rating a fighter. Overcoming adversity mid-fight is a huge bonus, but not as it's own category. Someone who's overcome adversity in the ring gets higher points for their H2H ability.
H2H - Quite important, but it's by far the most subjective area of comparison, and must be treated as such.
Size - Only important when factoring into their H2H rating.
Historical context - Irrelevant.
Athleticism - Again, this only goes to their H2H rating.
Modern training and nutrition - I judge fighters by what they were for their era, and this is most important when talking about size (primarily with the Heavyweight division). I'm not big on the supposed superiority of modern training & nutrition anyway.

Basically, my criteria is such, ranked in order from most significant to least:

Resume
Consistency/Dominance
H2H Ability
Longevity

Paper accomplishments and such might be taken into account if it's difficult to split two fighters, but those are the main categories I look at when ranking fighters all time.

 

1. Hd 2 Hd
2. Resume
3. Consistency/Dominance
4. Longevity

 

For me I look at:

Resume (judge purely within context of a certain era)
Legacy (how long do I think the fighter was the best in the world)
Skillset (watch some fights and make a judgement call of the fighter at his peak and score it dependant upon how effective I think that fighter is with his skillset)
Intangibles (bonus points things like weight jumping, remaining unbeaten, successful comeback, avenging losses etc)

The only controversial viwepoint I might have is that the phrase "weak era" is absolute bull**** because a an can only fight who is around at his time.

 

this is a conclusion I have recently reached.

At first I wanted to play out an imaginery round robin between the top 50 of each division but it gets far too subjective and hard to back up (trying to justify a 1000 fight picks is hard enough!)

I've decided it best to watch a man at his best and judge how well he puts his tools together.

EDIT: this makes it very difficult to rate the skillset of guys like britton and greb, a quandry I'm still undecided on)

 

For me. How they do in big fights holds the most weight. Skill and overall resume matteers but in all sports the greats win when it matters against other top ratted boxers, and not just in a throw away trumped up exibation. That is why 100 + fights/wins is sometimes misleading.

 

Yeah, the resume is easily the most important thing. It shows who they beat, how they beat them and when. H2H is irrelevant because it is far too difficult to compare fighters across generations.

Longevity and dominance come under resume for me.

 

skills obviously, which are proven by fighting the greats and beating the greats.

 

Longevity and dominance over their peers in their weight class is most important.
quality of opposition is important of course.
taking on and defeating the best available challengers.
overall record at the top level (allowing for early career and late career diferrentations)
and when they suffer losses its best to not lose too often by being outclassed or knocked cold.

I would also consider how they perform against a VARIETY of styles. thats the true test of skills.
Also fighters who took on bigger opponents as well as smaller faster ones demonstrating the greatness of their skills.

 

CONN'S assessment is pretty much a carbon copy of mine - nothing is really set in stone though say with resume as a guide when you get results like Ali loses to Frazier and Ali loses to Norton then they both get destroyed by Foreman - so Foreman faces Ali and Ali goes and beats Foreman!!?? I tend to look at circumstances surrounding fights as well

 

Why has no admitted on the basis of 'my favourites' yet?

Personally my question is 'who is the best of the best and in what ways have they proved it'. So resume, dominance (not just winning but manor of victory), ability against various styles, longevity and losses within the period of a boxers prime.

 

None of these things can´t be separated !

H2H is extremely related to Resume, and everything else....

A great win means what to you ? Is better beat a fighter with a good resume or beat a fighter with good H2H ability ??

Not sure if I explained well enough hahaha....but I can´t see H2H and resume as two things so different.....