Another poster created his Seven Ranks of fighter: ELITE Robinson, Greb, Langford, Armstrong, Ali, Charles, Duran... GREAT Leonard, Whitaker, Jones Jr, Arguello, Saddler, Sanchez, Griffith... VERY GOOD Calzaghe, Winky Wright, Mosley, Tszyu, JM Marquez, Aaron Pryor, Azumah Nelson, Sonny Liston... GOOD Glengoffe Johnson, Vernon Forrest, Nate Campbell, Fernando Vargas, Earnie Shavers, Ray Mancini, Ayub Kalule... AVERAGE Angel Manfredy, Shannon Briggs, Micky Ward, Howard Eastman, David Diaz, Roger Mayweather, guys who never held a world title or held one alphabet very briefly, who had a good win or two but these were outnumbered by losses in big fights... BELOW AVERAGE Audley Harrison: guys who maybe competed at Euro/regional level but never world title level, were therefore below the standard of the average alphabet world title challenger... BUM Domestic journeymen who never made it to any title level and were used as bums to be KO'd by fighters on the way up. Do you think this system works? Can fighters be categorised in this way?
What's the point? People will continue to disagree about which groups certain fighters should be placed in. Rankings in general for me are starting to get less and less apprehensible. Just too many variables, especially with all time rankings.
I guess but Micky ward and average is a tough pill to swallow...avg skills...yes...avg footwork..yup...average will wo win...toughness...pride...heart...far from it
I have no problem with a tier system for rankings. The first poster I saw do it was Manassa, for punch resistance.
RJJ is a greater fighter than Mayweather, but if I was using this system I would put Mayweather in the 'Great' section too.
I know drunken bums who have a lot of heart and pride, that doesn't make them above average fighter. Ward was a very limited fighter and wouldn't have beaten any elites.
I don't see the point. Then you'll just argue who should be in which category, as opposed to numbered rankings.
