All time fighter rankings on ESB

Leonard would have the better top wins than just about anybody, but outside of those top wins his resume is pretty thin compared to the others like Armstrong, who defeated 16 champions. Also, if going by dominance, Armstrong has that too with his 19 consecutive WW defenses.

This is always true, and you have to incorporate, once again, how strong the era he fought was, or at least who he fought.

 

When compiling rankings do you guys ever take losses into account? Or just wins?

I'm just curious.....

 

You take prime losses into account, but also nature of the loss and all that good stuff. Late career losses when a fighter is on the slide don't count as much, as they're supposed to happen, but late career wins do count.

 

Thats what I figured, but was just curious cause when people are aguing rankings you only hear about their wins, and never their losses

 

Good initiative, KG. I like the fact that the thread in question got you contemplating.

It's no secret, that I am one of those, who feel that old era fighters becomes overrated in comparison with modern fighters.

It's a hard task, and I wouldn't really know where to start, other than looking at what the differences are for the eras.

There are pros and cons for each era, ie pros for classical fighters are they fought several times a month and didn't pick fights to protect a zero, and cons that they fought massive amount of total rookies or "bums". While pros for modern era is that competition has stiffened, and cons being they fight only a few times a year when reaching the top rankings. These things should be taken into consideration. But other than that it seems to be an almost impossible task, since the premises are so very different.

I will go into a thinking box, and see if I can add something constructive.