Don't get me wrong I am not a neanderthal who feels every fight should be a bloodbath and that any fighter who protects his face is a sissy. I love Whitaker, Mayweather, Toney and other great defensive wizards. However I sometimes wonder how some posters on here ever got into boxing as they seem to rate and admire such boring fighters and performances. It started me thinking about how we rate fighters and I feel we should consider factors such as heart, entertainment value and charisma/showmanship a lot more when we discuss fighter's overall ratings. I understand that H2H is an assessment based purely on skills with the P4P assessment then covering other factors to build a complete picture for a final all time rating. I personally (and I know other posters do as well) like to bring in other factors as well in my consideration such as dedication, discipline and focus, things that are harder to quantify but I think are relevant. For example Larry Holmes will always be the Man of 80s HW boxing (until Tyson) because his rival belt claimants were so obviously lacking in things that made Larry great, his dedication to the sport and his conditioning. Along with these things I also feel we need to really consider how exciting a fighter was and how many classic bouts he was in. It seems that exciting fighters are always underrated, like fans will say "well Bobby Chacon was in so many thrillers" as sort of an after thought before they start debating why a whole bunch of fighters you would never want to watch are in their top 10. I am being a bit factitious but you get my point. Many of the most exciting fighters of all time had short careers, were maybe not champs for very long and lost to better technical fighters. But if we decided that "watchability", for want of a better word, is a significant factor then fighters like Arturo Gatti could be ranked much higher than they are. I sometimes think in the dusty corners of the Classic forum we forget that boxing is entertainment and that many of our favorite fighters who were in some of our favorite fights that we have watched 50 times probably don't even make our top 100 "greatest" fighters lists and I think it is a shame and indicates a rather limiting way of judging the sport. What are your thoughts?
I don't see why being exciting should count as a criteria for greatness. If someone likes exciting but unremarkable fighters, that's completely fine, no one said your favorite fighters should always be the great ones. But as far as in-ring greatness goes, then it shouldn't be a factor, just how sheer impact or popularity isn't a factor. We're not ranking Gatti and Tua up there with Mayweather and Jack Johnson, after all. Dempsey was an incredibly popular, exciting and impactful fighter during his time, no less than Ali and Tyson were during their own, but no one in their right minds should have him above fighters like Pernell Whitaker and Billy Conn. It's a matter of career at the end of the day, not how crowd pleasing you were.
I have a simple view on this (but then I am a simple man). How exciting a fighters style was impacts on how they'd be ranked on an entertainment scale. How good they were is based on their effectiveness at winning fights, relative to the quality and size of their opposition. How great a fighter was is about who they beat and lost to, when and how. I find it most straight forward not to conflate these separate issues, but that's just me.
I definitely think it makes assessment more complex. But it seems odd for example to have a list of the most exciting fighters in history and that not have any relevance to their overall standing. I also feel it makes reasonably mediocre fighters appear better than they are to many fans and also had less to the cult of the "0". Is Alexis Arguello a better fighter than Rafael Limon, yes of course and I would rate him much higher in all areas. But is John Ruiz or Sven Ottke a better fighter than Limon, hell no, because who the hell would want to rewatch any of these guys fights (bar Ruiz KO to Tua of course). You would watch them as a historian but IMO they are instantly forgettable fighters with meaningless achievements who will quickly be forgotten despite their superficially better records.
If i rate a boxer then i like many base it on numbers, wins, losses, titles etc, so a measurable rating scale that does not over tax my remaining grey cells. Now if you ask who i like to watch for entertainment value that is another question, but i see that as a preference, which is harder to quantify.
Near Impossible, too many TOP Fighters to consider, look at and review RECORED History... Clear & Free Champions & Contenders, or Paid for & Protected Fighters, Opportunity, BUSINESS. Boxing is not a Straight Hand of Poker, but rather full of Dealers, Shufflers, Cheats and Thieves. and that is a Shame really, because it has presented a skewed history and broke quite a few decent men.
I read this and thought of Bobby Chacon (triggered by mention of Arguello and Limon). I love watching Chacon fights and Limon fights (and particularly the bouts they had between themselves, of which part IV is a must-watch) Chacon is one of my favorites. I see him and Limon as great (small-g) fighters. But something needs to separate great fighters from the "Greats" (Arguello) and numbers are the only way to do this rationally, I would say. However, numbers don't tell the whole story either - at least, not just those of the fighters in question. One needs to look at the numbers associated with their opponents as well, in order to get a sense of the quality-level being fought. Beyond this, I don't think there is any way of getting away from a qualitative assessment, which takes into consideration the context of key fights, the levels of performance achieved in those fights (win or lose) as assessed by the observer and other intangibles. I must admit that I am one for the 'defining fight', though - I score these highly for the purposes of my own ratings (not that I can ever take ratings all that seriously, anyway). Battles that really tested the mettle of both boxers in such contests are typically worthy spectacles, as well. Then again, this can also be the case for competitively matched regional championship bouts. So it is, ultimately, about results over the career term against the best class of competition around at the time. Entertainment-value is just that and potentially applicable to all levels of fighters, in my view.
