Harry Greb #33 heavyweight of all time?

Excellent which is EXACTLY what I've been saying about my boy JJW.. The amount of top contenders he beat and ATG he beat or took to the limit is very impressive. It's about time somebody factored that in.. and didn't just look at his inconsistent losses early in his career when he was a part time fighter. That said, most of the list is pretty god aweful.. except for my boy JJW of course.

 

I love this list for that.. you know it McGrain :happy

 

QUOTE "Fight points generally rise over the decades, so modern fighters are more likely to make the chart." So mathematically they already understand that their model is deeply flawed and are either
1. Aware of the flaw but technically incompetent to correct the model deficiency
2. Uninterested in correcting the deficiency because of a bias toward modern fighters that would appeal to a broader base
3. Complete doofuses that are so clueless about statistical modeling methodology that they are unaware that they have a flawed model.

Let us take for example The World Chess Federation's deeply flawed rating model...

Rating inflation is the apparent tendency of the average rating of all players to rise over time because of some inherent flaw with the system. A good illustration of this can be seen by the average rating of the top 100 players in the World Chess Federation rankings.

A consequence of this inflation is that Sergey Karjakin of Russia, currently No. 10, and rated 2767, has a MUCH higher rating than the peak rating (2690 in January 1971) of Boris Spassky, the 10th world champion. While Sergey is a talented player, it would be surprising if he turned up on anyone’s list of the greatest players of all time, particularly ahead of Spassky. While Spassky lost the greatest match of his life we won tons of matches against World Champs and top GM for many internation tournaments for decades, he is a legend in the world of Chess and Movsesian has currently accomplished about 1/5 of what Spassky did. The flaw in the modern chess rating system is undeniable. Any system that inflates over time - not directly with performance - isn't measuring relative strength.

 

Mrrrrrrrmmmmmph!

I guess Cream at #10 could have stood well into the 70s.

Much as I admire the great Barbados Joe's acomplishments at heavyweight, I think that he rather relies upon his record at lower weights for his p4p status.

 

Which is why his rating of modern boxers is way better.
[url]http://www.sports-ratings.com/fights/heavyweight-boxing-top100.html[/url]

(This only factors the active boxers, or atleast who have been active the last 5 years)

 

Huh? You like he's in the 70's in terms of ranking?

 

I smirked when I saw it, your reply had me in stitches.

 

That would be harsh.

 

QUOTE "Fight points generally rise over the decades, so modern fighters are more likely to make the chart."
So mathematically they already understand that their model is deeply flawed and are either
1. Aware of the flaw but technically incompetent to correct the model deficiency
2. Uninterested in correcting the deficiency because of a bias toward modern fighters that would appeal to a broader base
3. Complete doofuses that are so clueless about statistical modeling methodology that they are unaware that they have a flawed model.

Let us take for example The World Chess Federation's deeply flawed rating model...

Rating inflation is the apparent tendency of the average rating of all players to rise over time because of some inherent flaw with the system. A good illustration of this can be seen by the average rating of the top 100 players in the World Chess Federation rankings.

A consequence of this inflation is that Sergey Karjakin of Russia, currently No. 10, and rated 2767, has a MUCH higher rating (nearly a full CLASS) than the peak rating (2690 in January 1971) of Boris Spassky, the 10th world champion. While Sergey is a talented player, it would be surprising if he turned up on anyone’s list of the greatest players of all time, particularly ahead of Spassky. While Spassky lost the greatest match of his life he won tons of matches against World Champs and top GM's and a great number of international tournaments and he did so for decades. Spassky is a legend in the world of Chess and Sergey Karjakin has currently accomplished about 1/5 of what Spassky did. The flaw in the modern chess rating system is undeniable. Any system that inflates over time - not directly with performance - isn't measuring relative strength.

 

Holmes best win is now Muhammad Ali

Holyfield's is Buster Douglas

Seeing Povetkin at 66 is insulting.

 

Whilst the list is horrid Greb could make the HW rankings IMO, 40-50 maybe. Considering his beating of a good few good HW's, and most notably the exceptional fighters who went on to challenge Dempsey.

If only Dempsey had manned up, we'd have footage of Greb and as middleweight, arguably best light heavy, and heavyweight champion he'd be the lock for no.1 greatest of all time he should be

 

****ing Jack :verysad I'm dropping him from my ATG heavies for that alone.

 

:yep

 

I agree whole heartedly with this understanding, and it should apply to so, so many great fighters, JJW is one of my favs too. But overall the list is mental.

BoxRec too, for reasons unfathonable to me. Why is it Modern day fighters score higher than so many past fighters? I think they give too many points for World Title fights and therefore past greats don't score as high, as they may have only been involved in One, a Few, or none at all. and modern fighters every flippen fight is a title fight :roll:.

anyway there is an easier way to rank fighters, but all these old methods must just be too long excepted I guess!

 

Dyna, that is an excellent point - thank you, sir!

This is a much more reasonable list but I find a couple of questionable points even at just a brief glance. With the top 2 places being scored at 70.40 and 48.26 there is a statistically significant discrepency between #1 and #2.
So under this system - does anyone believe that there would be a broad consensus among knowledgeable boxing fans that Wlad is nearly 1.5 times the boxer his brother is? If that isn't what the ratings reflect I have to wonder what they DO reflect...

I have tried to make sense of the author's description of his rating algorithm. I may have nightmares tonight