Pre_Ring Magazine Year-end heavyweight ratings 1882-1922

I think Miske kinda sticks out like a sore thumb. Ive got to question his rankings especially in 19 and 20. His biggest win in 19 was over Brennan who wouldnt even be rated by any modern standard considering his toughest comp was a middleweight that dominated him. Beyond that Miske had zero wins worth rating him in 19 and lost his biggest fights. In 20 he had two fights, one against a complete nobody and the other a one sided totally undeserved title shot loss. How is he rated higher than Norfolk who kicked his ass twice in conclusive fashion? Carpentier is an odd pick for 19 as well. Beckett was his best win out of only 3 that year and Beckett was little more than club fighter. The only way I can see his high rating prior to the suspected fixed Levinsky fight is if you give him an automatic top ten rating based on nothing more than being a Euro champ,, as Fleischer did, which I totally disagree with. Picks like that make me suspect that those guys were rated more in hindsight based on their later fame via association with Dempsey than their actual accomplishments and ring credentials. I think better contenders can be found who could beat guys like that, have better accomplishments, etc even if you have to poach from lower divisions. But, im not trying to be critical because its a neat exercise and worthy effort.

 

Not ready to provide my own rankings, but I don't see Hadley or Godfrey deserving a top 10 ranking in 1882. They were basically amateurs, with little experience of real fights (quoting Jan 1882 National Police Gazette - "Ed. McGlinchey's novice, Morris Hadley"). Hadley had troubles vs old Morris Grant (local newspaper reporter thought Grant was over 60 years old, so bad did he look, his date of birth at CBZ is possibly wrong, NY Herald reported in April 1881 that he was born in 1837). One CT newspaper in May 1882 reported that Hadley had been bested by Scott Freeman, colored pugilist, recently. Godfrey couldn't pace himself in a 4-round bout with Hadley, running out of gas after a couple of rounds.

 

I agree with Carpentier jumping up in 1920 based on the Levinsky win. Particularly because I do believe that the fight was a fix to set up a Dempsey showdown you have to take it on face value. You could argue that a won over a lhw who was hiding behind the nd laws and likely wouldnt be champion without them in 1920 isnt much to rocket a guy up the hw rankings but the lines were so blurred between those divisions in that era that im ok with it.

I just don agree on Miske. I dont think he kept it together at all in 19 and 20. He retired halfway into 19 after a string of winless fights. He returned a year later against a total setup and then lost his only other fight that yr by one sided ko. In fact you could argue that if he even deserved to he rated in 19 his year of inactivity and return against a nohoper would have likely seen him dumped completely today.

But like I said, minor quibbles and I understand the urge to include those guys.

 

Also, with carpentier in particular, dont forget that he had huge popularity.

Like it or not, popularity does pay a massive role in rankings. The best example i can think of is when Mike Tyson came out of retirement and fought Pete MCNeeley, he had not earned anything. Yet realistically he would have been one of the top 10 after that win, probaby top 5.

some times impressing the press with a win and creating a wave of positibe publicity is more important than real results or impressing the smart money. Ratings can be and are a really complicated thing. IMO, it would be so much better if all organisations simply implemented a lineal rankings system. I did this in details once. Ironically, i think i used Matts early rankings as the starting point. I thought it was really interesting and it largely produced a pretty true indication (not perfect of course) of how things were. Most of the contenders even those we no longer rate, usually had a solid lineal ranking.

 

Here is the link to the lineal rankings i was talking about. the earlier ones are in the link in the first post of that thread.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/lineal-rankings-system.239445/

 

Just compared Matts rankings to his 2010 lists. No changes, not even Fitxsimmons!


1899

Champion Jeffries
2. Sharkey
3. Fitxsimmons
4. Maher
5. McCoy
6. Corbett
7. Kennedy
8. Ruhlin
9. Childs
10. Martin


Also comparing the lists to the lineal lists, the Choynksi, OBrien, West chain earned top ten rankings based on Choynski's win over Maher. Matt, what do you think of this wins does it cement Choynski as a top 10 fighter and legitimise the others, or were there other explanations/excuses. It does seem like Choynski was a legitimate top 10 fighter at this time. Certainly very underated today.

Champion Jeffries
2 Fitzsimmons
3 Corbett
4 McCoy
5 Ruhlin
6 Sharkey
7 Childs
8 Maher
9 Kennedy
10 Martin

Lineal
1 Jeffries -Beat Jack Finnegan and Jim Corbett
2 Fitzsimmons – Dunkhorst, Ruhlin, Sharkey and others
3 Ruhlin – W Finnegan, Sharkey, Kenny L Fitzsimmons – ND - Maher
4 Sharkey – W Goddard, Choynski & others L Ruhlin, Fitzsimmons
5 Corbett – W McCoy L Jeffries
6 McCoy – W Maher, Choynski, Ryan & others – L Corbett
7 O Brien – W West, Bonner and others L Young Peter Jackson(O Brien not Ranked)
8 West – W Walcott, Bonner and others L O brien Root (West not ranked at time)
9 Walcott – W Choynski, Bonner, Smith & others L West
10 Choynski – W Maher, Russel & Others. L McCoy Walcott Sharkey
11 Maher – W Klondike, oDonnell, Haynes, Jeffords, - ND Ruhlin, L McCoy, Choynski
12 Kennedy – No Fights
13 Childs – W Bonner, Russel, Everett and others D - Bonner
14 Martin – W Kenny, Galvin and Scully ND Klondike and Armstrong1900

 

I understand that but dont agree with it. I think then question begs to be asked: Are we ranking the top ten BEST fighters, or just what we think the press and/or public would have arbitrarily rated as their top ten favorites. I think they are two different things. In those early eras a guy like Carpentier was famous yes but I believe that was due largely to the lack of available international media coverage. By media I mean television, film, etc. Today we have seen more of Georges Carpentier than 99.9% of the experts and pundits of that era. That hints to a huge problem with those guys ability to accurately gauge his ability and accurately rate him. That is beyond the fact that the press in Britain and France who covered him more than anyone seemed wholely taken in by the cult of personality and as such viewed him with rose colored glasses. But, like I said, I have less an issue with his rating than with Miske. I would however probably feel more comfortable rating Carpentier as a LHW champion. Rather than a top HW. I think then you would have a situation comparable to Frazier-Foster whereby Foster was not a rated HW but as a LHW champ his challenge was intriguing and perfectly acceptable. I think this is imminently more acceptable than rating him as a HW contender off his victory over Beckett who likely wouldnt have been rated either.

 

I agree with this. They are two different things. it was kind of the point i was getting at.

As you say, most people did not have access to what we have today. The top 10 if it existed in those days, would have by necessity given more credit to press reports and perceptions of results than what actually happened. This is often why the fouling out tactic was so popular. In todays world, it would not help a fighter in the slightest.

I think the top 10 BEST fighters in that year is a different question to the top 10 contenders for the year. Just another small thing though, if we are ranking the top 10 BEST fighters, shouldnt we also then be at liberty to use hindsight? It actually throws up some interesting questions using this method. Look at say Muhammed Ali, a year before he won the title. He might not have deserved a number 1 ranking as he had plenty to learn but then again, maybe he was still the best fighter in the world?

And when Ali los to Holmes, was he really a top 5 contender? I dont know, although the draw with a top 5 fighter in trevor Berbick suggests he might have been.

 

Bump to a really cool thread.

 

Great list! I think I would have found a spot for Paddy Ryan early on. I appreciate all the thought and research that must have taken place to arrive at these rankings that predate RING. Great job!

 

from So and So "Enhanced their reputation" and eventually met and defeated other 'Noted' fighters, Backers, Investors, Managers advanced they're Fighter(s), until eventually the two remaining Top men, meet and compete for said Title, World or otherwise...

I believe that's how it was done before Ratings, Elimination Contests and then Title Encounters (which ultimately were still 'Backers & Investor' controlled), but seemingly or supposed to have been more a competition based elimination process as per Ratings & Contests...

so I imagine Matt, this was contrived at by a "Who" met Who, met Who type gathering of Competition Based Wins until arriving at said Champion - which of course is the right way to do it.

Is that how you Boiled it down Matt... I ask in full admiration, because that is certainly a dedicated piece of research. Well Done.

How does it tie in with the sort of consensus or preferred Reports of these men from those years, did you find any discrepancies or anomalies, that were either acceptable or down right contradictory in your conclusions?

again - RESPECT Matt, that is a Great Work.

 

this is impressive do you have ratings to all 8 main weights!