So Ali has multiple wins over 3,4 and 7 on the list yet he rates behind Louis who had zero wins in the top ten? By the numbers this does not make sense. Can we get a look at 11-20?
Solid point. I just ordered it so kind of curious about many fighters. But the Ali placement I’m guessing has to do with losing to Frazier and Norton in prime (or post prime I think) Guessing because I haven’t read it. Then you have Jeffries placed ahead of Marciano and Liston ranked real high. Interesting way to list em though so I’m curious enough about it
Just saw this - i’ll Round out tier 1 for you which is 11-16. I don’t think i’m Explaining the rating system as in depth as it needed to be. 11. Sam Langford 12. Gene Tunney 13. Jack Johnson 14. Riddick Bowe 15. Vitali Klitschko 16. Archie Moore (that was big surprise)
Archie Moore at #16 ruins the list. There is no rating system that could justify that, unless you had Marciano and Patterson in the top 5, and even still... Archie Moore above Wlad Klitschko, Jack Dempsey and Evander Holyfield? I dare say no respected historian alive would agree with that. I don't own this book, but whatever rating system he's using needs to be explained. It possible because Moore had so many fights a rating system could give him a lot of points for what I would call singles, but Moore had no homeruns.
I do like looking at these methodical approaches to rating boxers. Although, I do so with a healthy dose of skepticism. For example, it would be interesting to know how the author puts a number on where the opposition was, at the point the listed fighter fought them. I guess I'm just going to have to buy the book now...
I love title bout! I don't know why people hate on it so much, it isn't outlandish. If you run a fight 100 times more often than not you'll see what you expected to. If you don't bubba that's because you don't know what you're talking about. Title Bout is terrible if you're super into Wlad or some **** and think Wlad could hang with an ATG list. Outside of that sort of thing it's damn respectable. Anyway, I'll definitely buy his book. Y'all ain't got to do much to sell me on a book.
It's subjective ranking dressed up to look scientific and objective. I'm not knocking it, we all do it. As hard as we try to find an objective way to rank them we always have to rely on our value judgments at the base of it all.
Its a good thing title bout came out long before Wlad put on a pair of gloves. ( 1979 ) They might have updated the cards for new fighters. If someone has all of the cards, can you scan them in and post it here? That would be interesting.
**** bubba I don't rightly know what I'm talking about. I know title bout championship boxing used to be a board game and assumed the title bout this thread was about is the board game that PC game is based on. The PC game uses character files. If those PC stats and what have you still work in the board game it'd be as simply as opening the file and copying and pasting the stats out of it. So, I reckon maybe, but, not on cards. I've hardly ever opened a character file but if memory is correct they have a good deal of information. You could probably make the cards you're interested in with that information. It's been a little while since I've used the sim. It's something I use more often when I have a fighter to update and see how he changes the game world. For example I am waiting on the folks at TBCB to make a Kyotaro Fujimoto because my HWs have been ran and ran and ran until I got bored. So presently it would take me some level of effort to find the files and if you already know what I'm talking about and it ain't what you're hunting for then I'd rather save the effort. Also, I dunno if any of y'all are interested in the PC version or personal modifications to it but there's a good chance that when I get time I'll get rid of the generic models and replace them with Little Mac and Afro Thunder. I'll share that too if y'all like.
Sure, post the PC cards. I'm interested to see the author's interpretation and if they match his rankings by the numbers.
I see no problem with a high ranking Archie Moore only issue is most of his fights weren’t exactly at HW although he did beat contending HWs of the era. He’s an ATG and make me want to read the book even more now. I haven’t read much into langford and to be honest don’t see the big fuss and constant high ranking is worthy. Maybe I’m completely missing something with him.
Ok just got the book. Love the break down of most of the fighters careers but was sad to see many of the lower level fighters were left off. Def an interesting way to look at it although have to read more in depth as to how he determined who was prime when and how. Some of it is def opinionated as opposed to scientific but at the same time I love some of the interesting tid bits on Liston, Marciano, exc...side note def thought Bird would be rated better
Right. The use of math doesn't make the book objective or its conclusions any more meaningful than other approaches used to rank fighters. In fact, approaches like this may be more likely to reach arbitrary conclusions as they essentially force the analyst to ignore a wealth of highly-relevant information.
It differs per fighter. Takes into account how active they fought how much they were winning caliber of fighters. Age is not used. It’s a difficult thing to do I could imagine.
it’s not based on specific age as to when you enter your prime but I do believe he wrote anything past age 34 is considered post prime. I’ll double check. I don’t agree with lot of book more I look into it but it is interesting