Heavyweight Champions + Notable contenders resume against current top ten opposition

Have you seen how old this thread is lol. I made it years ago I don't even know if I have my original spreadsheet any more.

But let's give Wilder every benefit of the doubt. Stiverne and both Ortiz fights 7 points each. That's 21.

No points for losing to Fury, obviously. No points for having a belt when there were other fighters rated above him the whole time, obviously.

Matts ratings were pre Ring, I wanted some way to compare from those eras and that was easiest. Yes I could have spent hours more trying to rank fighters myself, but someone else had already done it so i felt no need.

The ratings system doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be anything. It was raw data thay could be tabulated, no more, no less.

 

Yes the guys are separate in top 10 and top 5, someone doesn't get double points. Easiest check of that is Moorer. Then to see if someone got credit for beating same guy twice i worked out Bowes total as well.

I don't have to twist anything you weirdo, I just said I don't know if I have the original spreadsheet. It would be easy enough to plug in Stiverne and Ortiz x2 if I did. I don't care where someone ranks, I just like playing with data.

As for Corbett, the people who counted for him will be on one of the posts in this thread. You seem unable to find it, so I'll look for it now.

Corbett: 5 years: Choynski (x2), Kilrain, Mcaffrey, Mccoy, Sullivan (CC)

 

No one has to accept anything as fact, like I said a different poster did the year by year rankings for the years before ring. Find his thread and debate it with him. It wasn't me who did them.

For Riddick Bowe, and everyone I included wins against top ten ranked opponents, I'm not sure what your struggle is there.

Wilder never had a "championship" reign. There was always a man considered better in the division. And again, of course he doesn't get points for losing to Fury, why would he?

I don't balk at anything, I've literally answered every single point you've raise, despite this being a thread from last decade lol.

No one gets a pass, i tabulated victories against top ten ranked opponents and played with a formula. No more no less.

This thread wasn't ever designed to impress you. I don't even know if you were posting when I made it. I mean a lot of your objections you could easily clarify yourself. Go back to the McCaffrey fight and tell me which ten heavyweights you would have ranked above him at that point. Of course you won't because you have no actual interest in boxing history. You just want to pretend Wilder having a WBC belt for a long time is some thing everyone should be in awe of.

 

I've told you, go look at the thread and debate with him.

The keeper of the ratings? I'm the opposite I imported data from other sources as I've said.

Wilder didn't beat Fury, he gets no points for that, he didn't win.

Fury gets points for beating Wilder of course he does. But that hadn't happened at the time of this thread.

Rate it how you want lol, makes no difference to me. Its an old thread.

 

Wilder gets no points because he lost. Why do you not comprehend that.

Dismissing the fight as a no contest is exactly the point I'm making here. You don't understand the era or the context. You have no knowledge of that time in boxing history, so why continue?

If you're actually interested go read some clippings from that era, do some research. There was a thread here discussing it at the time I made this, go bump and debate it.

 

See again, with the 3-0, you have no concept of this era at all. But he was rated as top 10, outside of the top 5. Although Choynski was a HOF fighter and Corbett beat a peak version.

 

Remember when I said it was pointless answering your question because in reality you weren't interested?

I made this thread over 10 years ago. Matt hs made many threads about his rankings, go read one and debate him about it.

And you've no idea who Choynski is, no idea about the era he fought in, and no idea how to interpret his record.

For some reason it bothers you that Wilder doesn't get points for being a title claimant in an era when he was never ranked as the best HW. It bothers you that Wilder doesn't get points for losing fights. It bothers you that Wilder doesn't get points for defending against WBC ranked fighters. It's a very strange outlook to have.

You agonise over the wrong details. Instead you should look at how best to compile rankings from the pre ring era. How best to interpret the records from that era. How best to compare resumes across time. How best to articulate why you believe that Wilder should get credit for beating bigger men than he, who weren't rated in the ring top 10, when this system doesn't is based almost entirely on beating people in the ring top 10.

 

Are you being deliberately dense?

There's nothing to bail out with, it's literally all on the first post of the thread. I've written down what I was plugging into the spreadsheet, I then a few pages later wrote down the formula I would be trying.

Guess why I say ask Matt, because they were his ratings.

As I said are you being deliberately dense? This is a 10 year old thread where I literally said prior to the ring I'd be using Matts ratings.

You brought Wilder into the thread. His name didn't exist in the thread until you wrote it.

If you have the ratings from that time, post them, actually be helpful instead of being dense.

But one more time, as a reminder, this thread is from over a decade ago, it uses someone else rankings before the ring mag. I took those rankings and applied a formula to the resumes of certain fighters. I applied the same formula to the resumes of certain fighters according to the ring ratings so I could see a comparison.

I know it takes some people a while to grasp certain things but Jesus christ.