Heavyweight Champions + Notable contenders resume against current top ten opposition

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Apr 28, 2011.


  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Then do it. Go ahead and do it. Stop crying about Wilder ffs.
     
  2. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,581
    11,093
    Oct 28, 2017
    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.
     
  3. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist

    29,619
    20,150
    Apr 3, 2012
    The Ring has been caught taking bribes from Don King.
     
    cross_trainer likes this.
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Someone posting the old police gazette ratings would be very good indeed. Something tells me he has no intention of doing that.
     
    SimonLock likes this.
  5. Journeyman92

    Journeyman92 Mauling Mormon’s banned Full Member

    19,739
    21,761
    Sep 22, 2021
    Excellent work.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.
  6. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,282
    19,538
    Jun 25, 2014
    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!"
    :hang
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  7. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,581
    11,093
    Oct 28, 2017
    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.
     
    70sFan865 likes this.
  8. KasimirKid

    KasimirKid Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,355
    3,554
    Jun 1, 2018
    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?
     
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    There's a few things wrong with this.

    Firstly, I've done something similar where I included people who had been ranked at any point, not just the month there were fought. Someone asked me to do this, so I did. In fact that's the very reason this thread got bumped, someone was on the other thread and asked for this one.

    Secondly no rankings are as simple as "pretty good" I told you there's a thread were the rankings of every HW from 1882 to 1922 are given, you just won't take the time to read it, because you aren't actually bothered about the answer, you just want to moan about non issues.

    Thirdly, every fighter I did was nitpicked, that's pretty much the point of the thread.

    Fourthly, it isn't about who gets as many points as other people, the formulae can change to whatever you want, it more about compiling the data for each of the listed fighters.

    Lastly your solution about using organisational rankings is God awful, but if you have the inclination to do that, then do thay. Your solution about using police gazette rankings was good, but without access to all of those rankings I really don't know what you expect from me.

    Do something similar. Do what I did, but using your polcia gazette and all the alphabet rankings of the organisation for which the fighters claimed to be champions. Although we know you won't do that, because again, you just wanted to cry and moan without any form of construction.
     
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    I think it was because I was reliant on the ring archive from boxrec, and in the year Carnera fought them, they weren't ranked.

    Now usually in this case @hhascup corrected me to fill me in on the specific monthly rankings.

    If he's still around these parts hopefully he'll clarify!
     
    KasimirKid likes this.
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    Cheers for the info.

    Well it was a made up formula anyways, but if you plug his data in you'll see what total he comes out with and can compare accordingly.

    Not just me this thread has existed over 10 years and no one has spotted that until now. Maybe Carnera just doesn't get a lot of love at all.

    As for confidence, absolutely none. People should always look things up themselves. I made a spreadsheet based on Matts rankings pre 92 and rings post 92. There'll be many other errors that haven't been picked up. There was no algorithm, just me cross checking lots of things so human error is bound to occur. Don't have any confidence in it whatsoever.
     
    cross_trainer and BitPlayerVesti like this.
  12. KasimirKid

    KasimirKid Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,355
    3,554
    Jun 1, 2018
    Believe me, they were ranked. Uzcudun fought Primo on Oct. 22, 1933, and Paolino was ranked no. 8 in the Ring's Sept, Oct., and Nov. ratings.
    Loughran fought Carnera on March 1, 1934, and Tommy was ranked no. 2 in Feb. March, and April.

    So how does this affect Carnera's ranking according to your system?

    I haven't done any checking on your underlying statistics at all. This just leaped out at me on a first read.

    (Note: I've deleted a couple of injudicious sentences which I regret having written.)
     
    lufcrazy and BitPlayerVesti like this.
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,088
    3,779
    Sep 14, 2005
    His data is fine. He put a lot of hours into it, relax. The big Italian oaf will get his due. Did you check up on if Leroy Haynes was rated top 10 for rematch when he battered Carnera all over the ring?
     
    lufcrazy and cross_trainer like this.
  14. KasimirKid

    KasimirKid Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,355
    3,554
    Jun 1, 2018
    Not my job to check!!
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace

    82,092
    22,236
    Sep 15, 2009
    No worries at all. I'll include the two you listed.