I really dont understand lauding someone for fighting x amount of men who "rated at one time or another" The only rated contenders that should count on anyones record are men rated when they fought them. If a guy beats 40 former world champions but all of them are 68 years old, out of shape, unrated, and just looking for a payday should we give the guy some kind of credit for fighting 40 men who were at one time or another world champions? Thats a meaningless statistic if there ever was one.
Ring magazines ratings are historically worse than the NBA (later WBA), and WBC. They may have improved over the last 30 years to hold a somewhat higher standard (thats debateable) but I was told by Nat Loubet himself that they often ranked fighters and wrote articles about fighters (particularly foreign fighters) who were undeserving but did so because they wanted to increase sales in countries where those fighters were popular. Furthermore, the Ring's ratings are a pointless measuring stick because they had absolutely no bearing on who got a title shot nor did they have any bearing on who got stripped or sanctioned etc. Thats above and beyond the fact that for years they ignored the junior divisions meaning that for a long period in the 60s and 70s their ratings were completely out of touch with the reality of boxing at that time. When Oscar De La Hoya purchased Ring Magazine everyone groaned because a promoter now owned Ring and would have undue influence over the content, publication, ratings, etc. But people forget that Ring Magazine was beholden to promoters for most of its existence. The founding of the magazine by Nat Fleischer was financed by Tex Rickard. Rickard gave Fleischer office space in Madison Square Garden from which to run the offices of Ring, and they stayed there, closely attached to the promoters who followed in Rickard's footsteps and, like I alluded to above, they were always motivated by money as much as any promoter.
While Ring Rankings are not perfect, they are clearly far better than those of any sanctioning body. They also provide a measuring stick between eras, that the person arguing with you can't tamper with, to serve their own purpose.
Just because a guy is remembered no more fondly doesn't need mean he was better. Quarry is ridiculously overrated... especially on this forum. He had decent skills but when he fought top fighters he usually got his ass kicked... badly.
Prime Quarry loses to 1990's Foreman and Holmes as well. Whatever a fighter does in his own era is a good example of what he would do in at era. Let explain... it doesn't mean that a guy with 10 world title defenses today would have been able to do that in an era of one world champion in said weight division. What it means is the kind of fighter he would have defeated in another era would be similar to the kind of fighters he actually did beat. Do you really want me to believe that if Quarry was in his prime in the 80's that he would have/could have beat all of the HW World title holders with the exception of Holmes and Tyson? First of all he would want to fight the best ndHolmes and Tyson were the best... that's terrible beatings right there. Tim Witherspoon slices and dices him before the ref stop it. Dokes is too quick and too skilled. He might beat Weaver, Coetzee, or Smith but those fights would not be easy either.
This is of course correct,its when you beat them that matters eg Johnson beat an ancient Fitzsimmons and remarked how much unjustified credit he got for it.
Ali and Frazier both beat him comprehensively, although Ali only in their second fight. He blasted Earnie Shavers, stopped Thad Spencer, was the first to beat Mac Foster and also beat Ron Lyle and Larry Middleton. These were all top 10 guys on the way up.
As you totaled up, Ali had more wins over top ten fighters, 32 to 30 over Louis. But I counted the number of men, and Louis beat 27 different men who were rated, while Ali beat 26. Ali had more multiple wins over a single fighter. Hope my counting was correct. Perhaps someone can double check me. Why is this important? My thinking would be that as Louis scored more KO victories there was less controversy and demand for returns with Louis than with Ali.
If you can post all monthly ratings from the 1920's to present, that would be an amazing piece of information. Thanks for posting this.
Yes Sangria , Thats Quarry opponents at the time of the fight (as it should be) If you want to go by opponents that made Ring magazine top ten ever Quarry is 15-8-1 (10 Knockouts).