I'll be honest... I love ranking active boxers in all of my lists. And I love making lists. If I didn't rank active fighters, my ATG lists might only alter every few years. It seems many here on Classic are reluctant. Is it fear of being wrong? I'm wrong often. No shame. I like moving people up and down. It makes your lists fun, dynamic, and organic.
I don't usually rank them, unless they are special, long active fighters like Pacquaio. Historical context is important to ranking, and Boxing is extremely mercurial.
There are too many answers to that question you will find both the optimistic and the self loathing types with your question.
Active vs Inactive is comparing an incomplete piece of work with a complete one. A lot depends on criteria as well. If your lists are based exclusively or at least primarily on accomplishments, you're missing a lot of infomation if a fighter is half way through their career. It's not so much a case of being wrong, but more not being in an informed position to start with. It's a preference call really, and it also depends on the point along their career the fighter is at, and their existing body of work. It's a lot easier ranking say Manny Pacquaio than it is Terence Crawford. There isn't much Pacquaio can do to undermine his accomplishments, and probably a ceiling on how far he can elevate himself as well. Crawford on the other hand, could hypothetically end up anywhere between the best fighter of his generation, and just one of a lot of guys who won a few alphabet belts. Some people feel comfortable ranking Crawford based on his existing body of work; others are reluctant to do so on the basis that he could get chinned by a journeyman in his next fight, and give a different context to what he has achieved to date.
Excellent post which sums up my position on ranking active fighters. An additional point is that when a modern fighter has a sum career total of 45-50 fights and half way through is about 25 fights, how much can you glean about their relative greatness at that point? It makes getting to the end of their career that much more important in evaluating them. If fighters were still fighting 100-150 fights for a career, I'd feel a lot more comfortable ranking them half way through.
I think you need to then question your motivation for how your lists are made. Is it because you like moving things around for the sake of moving them around, or do you want accuracy?
I am tough on them. I rank them on the assumption that they are going to die tomorrow, and if they have not demonstrated something int he ring, I rank them as if they can't do it. Once they retire for good, the policy is relaxed a little.
I tend to do this too. Can't give too much credit for potential. The accomplishments have to be there.
Ranking current fighters tends to not age well. If it were 1963 now, rating Sonny Liston as the best ever might seem perfectly reasonable, but just one fight later that was proven wrong. Or more recently, people were getting crazy over Andy Ruiz after he beat Joshua and that didn't hold up too well.
Ranking current fighters is always prisoner to the moment. Just look what a lot of people were saying about Wilder before Saturday and look at him now.
Microwave society. Who can possibly wait to see how things play out first? I think if your ranking a fighter in the middle of his career that would be like cooking a meal and eating it halfway in. The longer you follow the sport the more you begin to realize what makes it so interesting. You really cant see it coming. Plus a fighter will break your heart. That happens a few times then some humility along with it.
