Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

I'm not sure I agree here but thanks for the clarification :good

If we look at him in comparison to Jofre:

You have given Jofre an 11 for longevity and Leonard a 10. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Sure Jofre hung around until he was older, but if we look at the years they were world class for, there's not that much of a gap: Leonard 1915-1924, Jofre 1958-1966, 1972-73, and 1976. But when you bare in mind how many times Leonard was fighting (and against such tough opposition) for every one of those years, there's no way you can meaningfully say that Jofre had a longer career.

With regards to performances against larger opponents, you gave Leonard a 5 and Jofre a 6. I think I would reverse that. Sure, Jofre beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes. I'd say Leonard's wins against Jack Britton (x2), Willie Ritchie, Soldier Bartfield (x4) and his draw with Ted Kid Lewis should carry a bit more weight.

With regards to durability, you gave Jofre a 9 and Leonard a 7. I'd probably bring those a bit closer together, giving Leonard an 8. He spent a 10 year prime, facing tough opponent after tough opponent and never got ko'ed in that time. That's pretty durable. No doubting Jofre's toughness either, but I think Leonard's toughness is pretty proven here.

When it comes to intangibles I'd probably give Leonard the edge. He took on everyone (multiple times), he was ingenious in finding ways to win, relying on wit and cunning as well as skill, and when he was past his prime and facing great fighters like Lew Tendler he still found a way to fend them off and take the win. I don't think Leonard's comeback in the 30's detracts from his achievements or character one iota.

I'll be back to discuss my thoughts on Jofre/Ross later :good

 

With regards to Jofre/Ross, where I'd disagree with you is in the following areas:

In terms of longevity, Jofre scoring 11 and Ross scoring 7 presents too much of a disparity, especially considering they had roughly the same amount of fights. I'd say 11-9 is a more fitting score. Jofre scoring more for being at a world class level for quite a few more years, but Ross staying within ear shot because he compacted his work.

When it comes to performances against larger opponents, Ross HAS to be higher than Jofre. There's no real justification for Jofre scoring a 6 and Ross a 5. Ross beat bigger men like Jimmy McLarnin (x2), Ceferino Garcia (x3) whilst they were in their primes, as well as other fighters of note like Sammy Fuller (whilst being 3 and a half pounds lighter), Billy Petrolle (x2 whilst being 4 and a half pounds lighter on one ocassion 2 and a quarter pounds lighter on another) and Chuck Woods (whilst being 5 pounds lighter).

Jofre as I said earlier beat the likes of Vicente Saldivar, Jose Legra, Godfrey Stevens and Frankie Crawford, but they were all considerably past their primes and Jofre give or take a pound weighed in the same amount as they did when he fought them.

I think a fairer score here would be Ross 7 and Jofre 5, maybe 6.

With those changes in mind, Ross should be ahead.

 

Yeah stoppage losses have to count for something, but they should be judged in context. If a guy hangs around until he is utterly shot and then get's Ko'ed whilst having shown a granite chin in and near after his prime, whilst another fighter doesn't hang around until he is deteriorated to a shell and thus doesn't get stopped, I'd be inclined to dismiss the stoppage for the first fighter as being relevant. I think you can only judge the durability of one fighter in comparison to another fighter if he has been in a similar place.

There are also other instances where stoppages have to be judged with caution. For instance, I would never say Hector Camacho is more durable than Roberto Duran, even though Roberto has been stopped and Camacho hasn't. You have to take into account the level of comp they faced, and how they fought too. Camacho can run and hold until he is 101 years old and never get ko'ed, I'd never say he was more durable than Duran.

 

Cheers man:good

 

In your thread opening post, you mentioned that you considered Duran as the standard setter in this category. Naturally, I'm therefore curious as to why you have given him less than the 15 point maximum here. (Or is this merely a typo?)

 

If you don't mind me chipping in here, i think 13 is a good score for Duran here. His longetivity is among the very best, but not the best. For instance, Ali (i like him as a reference) scores 11 in this category, despite still beating the linear champ (ok, Leon Spinks, but still contender level) 18 years after his pro debut. By comparison, Duran's last significant victory, if i remember correct, was Barkley in '89, which is 15 years after his debut. Plus, Ali was still holding the title up to that point and questionable or not, scoring wins over top guys like Young and Shavers, while Duran mixed in losses to Lawlor (who?), Simms, Laing and Benitez. Come to think of it, i'd give Duran 12 and Ali 14 in that category.

 

Stonehands, nice work once again my friend. It's great to take part in something like this! I've come late to the party so apologies if these points have already been picked up on:

1. Are you sticking with just the top 10 greatest fighters? Inevitable this will mean that the usual suspects will probably occupy most if not all of the spaces. It might be more interesting to open it up to 20?
2. In the Character category how will you allow for the general 'care-bearing' of the sport since the 1920s. Modern standards means that fights get stopped earlier than every before, injuries are more carefully looked at and so on. It might be harder for more modern fighters to score favourably in this category.
3. For durability will you separate out outright ability to take a punch from recuperation ability?
4. What about natural athletic ability or is this just incorporated in the other categories? Some fighters played more heavily on athleticism than others, RJJ being an obvious example.

EDIT: I've realised that 2 of my points above are already moot given your initial draft.

 

No sweat. Better yet, that discrepancy afforded the opening to let you know I've been trying to give your hard effort the scrutiny it deserves, and I wanted to acknowledge your invitation to me to comment on this in some way.

While I've read through the thread, I frankly don't have the mental energy and intensity of focus necessary to offer useful feedback at the moment. Maybe that's a positive indicator of how the placements are going so far. (Meanwhile, I've been trying to confine myself to less demanding subject matter.) If I'm to offer any subjective analysis of potential value, it will have to come after I've had a chance to recharge my batteries. As often as you and I are on the same page though, I'm frequently quite content just to let your views stand without adding further comment of my own.

Most of what I might contribute would be in the form of nitpicking, tweaking, and the sort of devil's advocacy type argumentation Manassa's so adept at. (For example, I'd look for an instance where SRR's ring generalship might be called into question.)

 

Tricky one.

All fighters at one point or another will face adversity, no matter how good they are. How they handle that adversity is really what seperates the men from the boys.

I'd leave it in place if I were you.

On a side note, I will just be an interested spectator and see how this unfolds, if you don't mind. If I feel I need to add something I will, but otherwise I'll just leave it to the fellows who place a lot of stock in rankings.