Good concise breakdown. I kind of want to see a baseball card version of this, since you have all these statistics. Ray Robinson batting average, RBI, runs, hits, etc.
I loved baseball cards as a kid in the 80s. In fact, in the Top 100 countdown prior to this, I was using baseball cards as a sort of inspiration for the boxer stat cards.
Pretty cool. Not perfect but surprisingly not as bad as I would have initially thought. What your system does well is it weighs a fighter overall success. The one weakness would lie within Ring Magazine itself. But where else are you going to get a better historical barometer of boxing?
Yeah, a lot of people complained I used Ring. And I agree that Ring is not perfect, and historically they have had their fair share of biases and oversights. But the fact that Ring has regular rankings that date back to 1924 is pretty incredible to me. If there was any publication that had an archive of rankings that predated that, I would have likely gone that route instead. I think the lists are pretty good (but certainly not perfect) for the all time lists for each of the weight classes. But guys who had really short primes or guys who died prematurely - like Sal Sanchez - the scoring system I used is inherently going to work against guys like that. And then in middleweight, Monzon was never really ranked much until he became champion, and surely he was a top 10 middleweight before he was considered such by Ring. So there are definitely problems with the ranking system. I was interested in seeing the decade lists from the 1920s, 30s, etc - as I thought it was an interesting way to compare boxers from the same era across different weight classes. The list that probably has the least "validity" was the top 100, which absolutely favored boxers from the last 30-40 years, as well as favoring boxers with greater longevity.
