Anyone think The 1940's Heavies Were On A Par With The 1970's?

mcvey, to be fair, if Farr and Schmeling were rated in the top 5 at the end of 1939 ... in fact in the February 1940 issue ... then isn't it fair to call them rated in the 1940s ?

 

:rofl
True.

Same as Liston for the 1970s then. (... but without the being dead for the remaining nine years of the decade part ..)

 

no.

 

I agree with you.

But I'd say Liston (who you've conceded) and even Patterson are irrelevant or barely relevant to the 1970s ... and C00ney too, but then I don't think C00ney was ever particularly relevant for long in the '80s either.

If I'm honest, Mongoose's list took far more liberties than yours, squeezing fighters in from other decades ... but then he might have left a few deserving ones off too. :good

 

To be fair, he invaded Crete.

 

My thread was a parody of Mcvey's to emphasize how bizarre and useless his list was by just listing every big name that snatched a rating in the 70s, no matter how briefly or trivial, whlie following a more strict formula for the 40s. It was hilarioiusly obvious what he attempted here.

Mcvey only started this thread because I posted this in another thread, and he took offense as usual:

"All the "Weak Era" talk you see on these forums just seems to be a way to say I don't want to give credit to a guy. "Strong Era" usually is code for I want to give more credit to a guy than he is do. Its all a bunch of ****.

All supposed eras are different, but no more different than any snapshot in time. More difference between a single year than any grouping of years. There were points when more boxers were fighting, and there was more quality top to bottom but the top 10 and fringe that defines the sport has always been the same shuffling of genuine contenders, pretenders, lucky one fight wanders, mainstays..etc.

Overall it seems strength of management is the largest determing factor between fighter's competition in any time frame. There will always be guys who are going to have an easy road to the top, always will be guys who are going to be lame duck Champions, and there will always be guys who take on all comers. "

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=17024978#post17024978

 

What is this? The 20th unanswered response from somebody who called me "nothing" the other day. How embarressing. Take a hint.

 

The National Boxing Association rated quarterly going back to 1929. Apparently boxrec.com is starting to post those ratings, but so far have gotten only so far as 1932.

I found the NBA ratings for the final quarter of 1950 (google and google again, I haven't been able to find the ratings for 1949)

Here is a comparison with The Ring ratings

Ring Magazine ratings

Champion----Ezzard Charles

1----Joe Louis
2----Lee Savold
3----Joey Maxim
4----Clarence Henry
5----Bob Baker
6----Rex Layne
7----Jersey Joe Walcott
8----Jack Gardner
9----Lee Oma
10---Rocky Marciano

NBA Ratings

Champion----Ezzard Charles

1----Joe Louis
2----Lee Savold
3----Rex Layne
4----Jersey Joe Walcott
5----Lee Oma
6----Rocky Marciano
7----Roland LaStarza
8----Bob Baker
9----Jack Gardner
10---Cesar Brion

*No comment on these. Just put them up if anyone is interested.

**As for The Ring ratings being respected, the NBA ratings are not easily available, so The Ring has had the field more or less to itself for boxing historians. If boxrec.com eventually posts all the old NBA ratings, they might gain traction.

Also, Nat Fleischer was respected, and was good at promoting himself and his magazine.