ESB Classic Forum All-Time Rankings by Division - P4P Survey Updated in October 2011

The way I do it.

How good was the era?

How good were they in there era?

I.e: better to come fourth out of ten in a Worlds Strongest Man contest than first in a spastic race.

 

:good and that's a perfectly reasonable way of doing it.

I asked how good is their resume, where they rank in my mythical round robin scenario of the division and what did they actually achieve in their careers. Plus a bonus for intangibles.

I.e. Better to have success in your own era than mythical success in another era.

 

Hold on....you rank on mythical matchups but not on mythical eras?

Somethinhg very weird here. my rankings mean nothing in terms of 'would he beat him' but are just what the fighter actually achieved in their era/how strong that era was.

Sorry if I'm over complicating things but I seem a little lost mate :huh

 

Yeah my overall ranking of a fighter is based on 3 criteria: what they did, who they beat, how well their style matches up against other greats. Then any intangibles.

Each to their own eh?

Gee I love the subjective nature of boxing :good

 

Fair dos, I just go by what actually happened.

Yours is more like 'who is the hardest Power Ranger'? ;-)

 

No it's more like:

Blue power ranger and red power ranger saved the world the same amount of times so how to split them? Well I think red power ranger kicks blue's arse so i'll give him the nod.

 

Okay, fair enough.

But what if Red Ranger is a Bantamweight and Blue Ranger is a Heavyweight.

I really don't like 'if they were the same size....' arguments. Do you?

 

I absolutely detest them arguments.

But this hypothetical is something i'm currently unsure of in a p4p ranking. I'm torn between comparing both ranger's h2h prowess within their natural division, or a simpler skill analysis based on available footage. I can still compare resume and achievement but comparing ability is more difficult.

 

Just go with what they did and when it's hard to rank one over another, go with what you like.

As McGrain put so well 'Boxing is music, not maths'.

For a maths teacher maybe a little bit harder to stomach

 

For example: Is it really fair ranking Walker over Moore or vice versa? No, but I ain't having joint 11th place, so I'll go Walker based on Welter to Heavy.

Just a hypothetical but as you're saying, when you get to the whittling down the brackets, there's really nothing between most of 'em.

 

Part of me died when he said that :-(

 

But it's true though, there's no formula, don't stress yourself over it.

If that's a way of you picking 'who you like' then fair enough, but if it's close I usually say 'what impresses me more' rather than 'what are the impressive things these two have done' if that makes any sense.

 

There's always a formula out there

It's more that some guys whole legacies within a division are built upon being a "h2h monster" so I just like to recognise that accolade (i.e. Liston at hw, hearns at ww, jones at smw etc)

 

Hearns ranks highly based on his mental career! Welter to Light Heavy at the top level.

Liston ranks outside the top 10 Heavys for me, so gets nowhere on my top 100.

Jones gets somewhere in the top 100. But nowhere near the top 10 in any of the classic 8.

 

Where do you rank hearns as a ww?

Liston is also outside my top ten despite being my number 2 h2h hw.

Jones is in my top ten lhw i'm almost 100% sure of it. I think he's my number 3 smw also.

I understand why people don't include any mythical h2h bonus, I just think it's fun to compile and is a valid criteria towards an encompassing criteria (eventually an encompassing formula )