why is it that among their ratings it 'seems' that all recent fighters of say the last 30 years or so, have such high scores associated with them? the only thing I can think of is that you get so many points for World title fights, and because of the prolific explosion of such bull**** titles fighters who have competed in them benifit from these points(?). also, though I believe the ratings are a good guide, the desparity in points even among the very top men is rediculous and widely misleading! what are the reasons for these scores?
first off as I have said repeatedly, you can't have a Top 10, 25 or 100 even, there are just far too many great & excellent fighters with little between them. But I do agree that these lists 'can' be a good guide. all of these fighters listed in that Top 10 are ATG fighters, but to say their the 10 best of 150 years of boxings versus hundreds & hundreds of greats is rediculous & impossible. I don't mind the lists, I just think they have to 'score' them in a manner where the fighters are closer in their respected scores, because that would be closer to reality. i.e Archie Moore, whom is a GREAT, is almost 2000 points higher than Lloyd Marshall who IS Equally Great, so that is extremely misleading, inaccurate and unfair to the thousands of great fighters throughout ALL the Divisions & History of the Sport. Tighten it up to a more believable & acceptably accurate system is all.
I've seen them as well, think they did a top thousand or something, it was shite. I think they do it on some sort of points system.
