Ranking the Greats: your assistance please

Very cool stuff here.

One thing that comes to my mind is, is there anyway of standardizing the different rules/trends of boxing throughout the eras?

12 rounds/15 rounds has already been brought up (which I don't think modern fighters should be punished for), but boxers also used to be able to fight far more often in the past. That is an impossibility in recent decades, and it isn't a fault of the fighters, nor do I think modern wouldn't be capable of handling it either. The game has just changed.

So, do you see these criteria skewing data towards one era or another? And if so, again, how can this be standardized.

Also, Longevity seems to be highly represented (more than once--it is listed as a part of the Dominance score as well) in this criteria. Sometimes longevity can be a result of poor competition or other factors, such as different fight frequencies. More than just a period of time should be looked at.

Also, how are fights far beyond a fighter's prime taken into account? Are overall records looked at as purely numbers?

And while I agree that H2H is primarily speculation, it seems that talent/impressiveness shouldn't be completely ignored.

Just some brainstorming.

 

I dont understand this rating. Is a win over Golota or Carnera worth more than a win over Ali? Do Tunney and Spinks' forays into the heavyweight world rate them much higher than foster in this category? Is Dempseys win over Willard worth less than Schmellings win over Louis or Tunneys over Dempsey? I really think this category is best left alone.

 

I reckon you've described adaptabilitity to a tee.

 

I would like to ask what kind of relationship exists between the categories themselves? Do you think you have hit upon distinct characteristics with these categories, making them perhaps easy to compute? What I am driving at is the idea it seems the categories overlap and are interconnected. A number of people seem to be asking questions which lead in the same direction.

Take you first category "RG." It includes such wide concepts as "level of skill" which itself seems to be presupposed by, say, the category "PLO." Wouldn't you agree? If so, what way then is level of skill or even athleticism, another characteristic of RG, tied to performance against larger opponents? (Many peopel would claim they are relevant).

I chose PLO but a number of your categories may be in the same boat, ie, depending upon the characteristics of RG.

Perhaps you wanted to say that such characteristics are tied to other of the categories. But then does this not render a redundancy in the categories? Then you would end up computing it twice.

It would seem if the categories are going to be useful they must be rendered precisely enough that their distinctness can be maintained. Hence there computional value. I think that this would be the bedrock for anyone who wished a measure of objectivity. It may be though you intended this interconnection and are just bringing more precise focus and computional facility with the other categories.

Another question I have is related to what appears to be a manifest circularity in your enterprise. For in order to rank a boxer you are required, as it were, to put the boxer in an evaluative context. That is why you speak of "ranked" and "world class" competition and so on. But then, would you not have to have already presupposed an evaluative ranking which is precisely what you own enterprise is supposed to do?

Perhaps such questions seem a little remote but they may be the sort of thing that comes back to bite us in the ass when we try to be as "objective" as we can. We realize we have been presupposing a set of values either our own or ones we have grown up within.

 

Great idea Stonehands!

Perhaps we could see a first draft of the rankings to see if everybody agrees on the list?

Im sure people may be able to raise a few interesting points or pick out a few holes once the first has been compiled then re-adjusted?

 

just try and copy and paste it

 

Stonehands...Facinating idea.

You guys are all over this and I'm anxious to see what comes of it. Two of your classifications fall under more of a subjective nature 'Adversity Overcome' and 'Ring Generalship'. All the other rankings are objective which is great.

How many subcatagories do you have represented in Ring Generalship? Is it a ranking of each individual fighter's assets such as speed, strength, durability, counterpunching ability, etc.