The Gods of War

But I hope it will. Even when it´s just the names :good

 

Can't see Duran making it now.

StoneHands your prose is awesome mate :good

 

You should be on TOP CHEF, S, serving-up a feast like MOORE.

 

Stonehands another great piece but don't you feel you are romantasising these fighters. Moore was a great fighter but he lost three times to Ezzard Charles; now maybe Charles will be above him in that list but the points based system that you are using favours old timers who had extremely long careers and fought everybody.

Modern fighters ( I'd say post 60's ) have their resumes broken down and their losses analysed whereas a guy like Archie Moore could get away with it because of what he achieved. Should a fighter gain so much kudos for longevity when he was a better fighter at 35 than he was at 25? It took Moore many years and countless bouts to gain the experience that allowed him to succeed at that advanced age. You could also claim that the fighters he faced earlier in his career were superior to the Joey Maxims of this world; a very good fighter but not in the class of Charles, Burley and Jimmy Bivins.

It was a great read but I think the majority of posters will feel that Moore is ranked too high on this occasion.

 

:good

Looks like Ali won't make the list, nor will Joe Louis. I'm fine with a Louis exclusion. But no HW making the list? Bothers me... says a lot about your point and the fact that it favors the little guys who can fight more often and not get damaged as much. Big guys and big punches don't make a lot of fights or a long career.

 

I can't say I disagree, but I wasn't expecting to have the same general rankings as Stoney, at all. I'm just enjoying the case he makes for his fighters and the delicacy with which he writes his articles.

A quick point though, one of the main reasons the old timers can get away with a head scratching loss here and there is because of the amount of times they fought, and the circumstances in which they fought them. Often during non-title and/or exhibition type bouts against lower opposition it's a lot more understandable that they wouldn't have been at their very best for every fight.

Today's top fighters have their fights scheduled months in advance, primed for pay-per-view showings, even in simple showcase bouts. This gives them all the time, incentive and motivation needed to get in shape and show their stuff.

Guys like Moore and and a lot of those guys fighters didn't have it the same way. They were fighting every week or every other week, with little time to analyze and train for their opponents. They were constantly in shape due to all the fights they fought, but not always in the same frame of mind.

It's understandable even at their best how they could've lost multiple outings to member of the Murderer's Row, for instance. But the fact that they had to face each other so often, with numerous bouts in between, could really take a toll.

 

I gotta say I think Ali should've definitely made it, though. Stonehands is using a points based system for his rankings, by the way. It isn't all bias or romanticism.

 

Isnt't that how it should be?

 

Hw overall is the least talented division historywise - aside from minimumweight perhaps. Ali wouldn't make my list either.

 

105, 108, 115, 122, 154, 168, and Crusierweight are all lesser divisions historically, IMO. Some of them easily so. The Heavyweights actually have a pretty rich history, they've just been down in the dumps for a while now.

 

I think Pete made a very good point that heavyweights dont have as many fights as lower weight fighters do due to the time it takes them to recover from a fight. All i'm saying is that the high number of marks given to 'experience' means that as long as you stick around and do what every other fighter did in that era did 'fight the best' then you will get very high marks whereas fighters who have more condensed careers but still have great resumes will score lower.

I also disagree with your claim that heavyweights is the least talented division. How are 200 pound guys supposed to show the same skills as a welterweight?

Nevertheless i dont really care who gets ranked where because of the superb quality of the articles. They are told with great insight and knowledge and attaching the rankings are almost a sideshow IMO, each story is like a condensed biography of the era and the fighter.

 

Ali deserves to be there. His achievements were unrivalled in heavyweight history IMO and he truly transcended the sport; I would be interested to see what points were attached to him as well.

You never know he may still make the list...