For my 5,000th post : My Pound-for-Pound Top 50 Fighters of All-Time..

do you not think that the factors you mention are too intertwined to separate them?

 

P, you post with such righteous fervor, that the fact that you think my opinion that Joe Louis was a more DOMINATE fighter in his career than Ezzard Charles, is utterly false...Well as they say,"let's look at the record ".
Ezzard Charles :Total bouts 122-Kos 48- Lost-17 ko'd 7 times
Joe Louis : Total bouts 71- Kos 54 Lost- 1 time Kod 2 times
Now P, U tell me who had the more dominate CAREER, therefore who was the greater fighter P4P ?
Ezzard Charles was one of the greatest fighters of his era...
Joe Louis, who REIGNED as heavyweight champion for THIRTEEN YEARS,
was along with Ray Robinson considered by all of boxing in the "golden era", the GREATEST fighter of his or any other time...Just look at the record P...Louis in 71 bouts LOST 3 times.
Ezzard Charles in 122 bouts lost 24 times. Do the MATH P. Cheers...

 

Correction : Ezzard Charles in 122 bouts kod 58 and lost 24 fights...

 

Haha you love to play the sven ottke card don't you.

 

The lines are hazy but I can still separate. For example I think langford and greb's legacy is the sheer quality of their resume. I think robinson's legacy is the sheer brilliance he displayed in the ring.

Sometime they go hand in hand and sometimes it seems like certain things score double but it's good enough for me as it stands.

Bringing me back to a point you made earlier in this conversation, you said a formula doesn't work in boxing and to a degree I agree, however I think there has to be some sort of consistency when separating fighters in a list. After my top 3 (who I feel are the greatest in each category) I believe i've been consistent.

Ofcourse it is subjective due to it being me win judges the strength of a legacy, resume and skillset etc.

But this brings me to a point popkins made earlier in my conversation with him; without my own subjectivity and interpretation there is no point me making a list and putting my own time and effort into it. I literally might as well pick up the ring's top hundred and call it my own.

The beauty of boxing is we can all watch fight after fight and walk away with a variety of opinions. Ofcourse some consensus will be made but variety is good for opinion and debate, especially on the classic where it's largely knowledgeable and lighthearted.

 

Well once i've had my fill of the heavyweights I might consider the middleweights with the same attention to detail. But every time I log on I always find myself drawn to names like jeanette and tyson etc.

One of my first posts on this forum was expressing a lack of knowledge regarding the colour line and since then i've read so much about so many heavyweights that I naturally think each of the other divisions pale in comparison.

 

I agree, especially when it's common knowledge to every true boxing fan that the vast majority of these losses occured in final few fights. And the vast majority of prime losses got overturned.

It annoys me when people use excuses like "charles lost 24 times" when by my reckoning about 17 or so of those were when he was past prime.

 

luf. I was responding to P about the Charles resume, superior to Joe Louis's. Of course many of Charles's losses was after his prime.Sure was.
But he was citing that the boxing resume of Charles's was "superior" to that of Joe Louis's ,so I responded to him in cold statistics.
Truly it is a no win argument about "who" was the "greater" fighter. I happen to think more highly of Joe Louis ,as during the 1940s ,the Brown Bomber was considered a fistic God,and the most dominating fighter of his times. If I am wrong in my opinion, than I am in good company...Cheers..

 

it goes without saying that any list is subjective. that's neither here nor there. my point was that a formula (rigidly applied) cannot do justice to the history of the sport. but, you've described how your formula is imbued with your own interpretations of events and if certain things 'count double' then i can see your method working somewhat, although dare i say it, such a flexible approach ceases to be 'formulaic' in any real sense. i like the list on the whole.

regarding the factors intertwined, i was thinking especially of dominance. but i think popkins has covered that point with his extreme examples.

 

Yeah the formual is entirely based on my interpretation so in a way it does not represent any actual formula.

Yeah dominance for me comes into both legacy and h2h it's hard separating the two but I guess dominance in the ring is part of my h2h criteria and dominance of an era is part of my legacy criteria. However someone's legacy could be their dominance in the ring such as roy jones and mike tyson etc.

Sketchy I know but if everyone felt the same as me, we'd all have identical lists and where would be the fun in that!