the Boxing Rating Project.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by thistle, Feb 3, 2021.


Page 2 of 2
  1. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,493
    3,718
    Apr 20, 2010
    Yes, of course I have seen discussions about the strength of various eras - but what does it mean with regards to this exercise? Are you saying, that we should include more boxers in our final "greatest" list from 1920s - mid 1930s... than from 1990s - present? Based on the former period being "better"?
     
    Bukkake, Feb 4, 2021
    Bukkake, Feb 4, 2021
    #16
  2. thistle

    thistle Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,387
    7,910
    Dec 21, 2016
    the Ring was Ranking 2000 fighters a year in 8 Weight Classes for about 4 Decades, Boxing numbers declined by the mid late 50s, so it's clear that the more Boxer's you have, you will end up will more among the Top too

    today's S-HWs are an example of decline in Era related ability, but in their unique case of size, being a extreme rarity in past times.

    so when we look at say 70 years of many, many great HWs from Elite to Very Good, well it is pretty safe to say IF we could match these Giants with 'most' of these normal size HWs, say meeting at say 6' 3" in height, I KNOW I'd be betting on the 70 Year Group, over the S-HW Group Everytime - WHY, because they were just simply Technically Better.

    So Era's work in exactly the same way, Strongest Era's are naturally going to throughout naturally Technically Better Fighters... it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, of course there are, but generally speaking, the smart money would 'mostly' be on the stronger Era Fighters.

    your making it into a complex course, it is quite a simple, practical and straight forward excercise...
     
    thistle, Feb 4, 2021
    thistle, Feb 4, 2021
    #17
  3. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,493
    3,718
    Apr 20, 2010
    Yes, it's quite simple... you rank the greatest boxers in whatever order you think, they should be ranked. That's it really! No need for any elaborate system to get it "right" (it's all subjective, anyway).

    Do you really think, that using your template will result in us coming up with a better, more "accurate" Top-100 than McGrain's:

    The Top 100 Pound for Pound All-Time Greats | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com)

    And another thing... how will using your system make me realize, that Jeremy Williams was a great fighter? If I don't already think he was, how will this process change my opinion?

    Also, is it really necessary to look into the boxing history of smaller (boxing-wise) countries... in order not to forget that Panama has a Duran, Brazil has a Jofre, Argentina has a Monzon, etc., who are all strong candidates for a "greatest" list? We alrady know that, and are not likely to overlook boxers like that - even if we don't use your system.

    Imo, your template is much ado about nothing. It won't change anything, with regards to how we rank fighters.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2021
    Bukkake, Feb 4, 2021
    Bukkake, Feb 4, 2021
    #18
  4. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,372
    26,608
    Jun 26, 2009
    I was born in Alabama, which is in south America, right?
     
    Saintpat, Feb 4, 2021
    Saintpat, Feb 4, 2021
    #19
Page 2 of 2