Heavyweight Champions + Notable contenders resume against current top ten opposition

Well, for example, I'd start with ACTUAL ratings from the time.

You know, like the Police Gazette ratings, and not a guy named MATT's ratings from 100 years later.

And I'd use ratings from today, like the organizations that champions represent since those are the challengers they tend to defend their titles against. They don't tend to fight who the RING tells them to fight.

Since the RING NEVER had the authority to tell anyone who to fight.

You know, numbers a statistician would actually use so there would be some consistency over the decades.

 

Corbett beat Choynski for the amateur championship, and later in the pros.

When Choynski fought Corbett in the pros, he had not only already been amateur champion, but had fought in finish fights.

 

The part about the Police Gazette I agree with. That sounds like a cool idea. Someone should do it. It would be a nice way to stretch our ratings system further backward in time.

On the Ring itself, I think it's the best we have. It's one of the only institutionalized rating systems -- not paid (at least unless they're bribed) to rate a fighter via sanctioning fees -- that has persisted across most of boxing history. It's a third party rating system with some independence from the competing alphabet organizations.

The alternative of using alphabet rankings creates its own problems, starting with the fact that they sometimes don't rate other belts' champions. And for that matter, there's the question of which one(s) to choose. When does the WBO become legit, and why? How about the IBF? That kind of thing. You'd have to create a bunch of rules for rating in a particular era that would bring in the same subjectivity that is being criticized in this thread. (i.e., whoever decides and weights which belts' contenders count just becomes another guy giving his opinion on the forum.)

 

The Ring has been caught taking bribes from Don King.

 

Yep. I did put that qualifier in there for a reason.

I don't think there are any clean actors in boxing. The alphabet belts get paid by fighters to rank them. Ring has been bribed. (Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the alphabet belts were as well.) Police Gazette, since it was brought up, was run by a guy trying to take boxing over, with clear conflicts of interest. The commissions at some points in history were Mob controlled. Champions have shamelessly ducked opponents, participated in fixed fights, etc.

Ring just strikes me as the best of a bad lot.

 

I agree.

 

Excellent work.

 

And when Tony Tubbs fought Riddick Bowe, Tubbs was a former heavyweight champion and a national amateur champion and World Cup champion. But he wasn't ranked the month Bowe fought him. So Bowe gets no credit for fighting him.

That's my point. I know who Choynski is. But where was he ranked at the time they fought? You don't have a guy a 100 years later throwing everyone who became top fighter later in just because you recognize the name ... and then don't include modern fighters who are names because "THAT MONTH" they weren't ranked when Bowe fought them.

That's what's bull**** about all this.

That was my point.

And if you can't point out where Choynski was RANKED, then no points.

You don't give some fighters where you can't find ratings a pass, and act like a dick to modern fighters.

Statisticians don't do that.

That's why these types of things always **** me off. Nobody uses accurate information FOR ALL the fighters ... and when you point that out, they act like "you don't know what you're talking about so I won't discuss it with you."

I could give a **** who "MATT" ranks a century later. How were they actually ranked when they fought matters most when that's how you're awarding points.

How does Marvin Hart have more points than Foreman? Because they nitpicked who they'd include in Foreman's and gave Hart points for fighting everyone with no rankings to back it up except who "MATT" thought they was "pretty good" at the time.

And people go "Great job!"

 

Have you got any regular rankings from the 1880s? Because if not asking where he was ranked at the time is a completely pointless question.

 

Lufcrazy, please explain to me why Carnera gets no credit for his successful title defenses against Loughran and Uzcudun when they were both rated in The Ring's Top 10 at the time? Am I missing something?