Top 10 fighters of past 30 years from light to middle.

Or as you said, what separates 36 from 35 and what prevents number 36 from being recognized as "great."

 

I did a top 100 once but lost it, I believe the likes of Ricardo Lopez, Bernard Hopkins, Young Griffo and Kid Gavilan were knocking on the door.

I did that top 35 list a couple years back, I need to re-write it. It will be intresting for me to see if there are any major changes, I know a lot more about a few fighters in that list of 35, some good, some bad, and there are few other fighters who I think may now get in that top 35.

 

I do want my question answered if at all possible.

You have a criteria that determines greatness. You rate fighters with it, and determine that they are or are not worthy of ATG status. You only rate 35 fighters as great.

What happens if another fighter becomes better than #35. Is #35 no longer great, even though he still fits all the criteria? He has done nothing since retirement. How does that work?

BTW....you still need to be consistant in your biases. Otherwise you make little sense. Greb died at the same age that Armstrong retired. And with more fights I believe. How is his career incomplete, and Armstrong's complete. If anything, if his career was incomplete, shouldn't he be given MORE credit for accomplishing what he did in an incomplete career?

I would love to see you criteria if at all possible. It's not the criteria that I concerned with.....it's if you use that criteria consistantly for every fighter, or if you use bias within the criteria itself.

 

Time... If Queensberry Rules started in 1867 properly and the last time I placed someone as great was in 2005, that means I roughly create a great fighter every four years... (140 years divided by 35 fighters), so around 2010 #36 will be great

 

I have explained this, Armstrong choose to retire, thus his career was complete, Greb if he had not died would of carried on, thus his career was not complete, so there needs to be a bias against that.

These lists are not going to be scientific, at the end of the day I am rating a 95lb man from 1910 (Wilde) against a 250lb man from 2003 (Lewis), and everyone who has ever boxed inbetween...

It is when put like that a complete folly, but because it is fun I still do it.

Personal opinion is always going to be my biggest bias.

But I do like redemption and I do like pioneers, thus fighters with them qualities IMO are going to have a bias towards them in my rankings.

I am going to be biased by fighters that I have read about (some good/some bad), and by no means least I am going to be biased by friends opinions and indeed you lot on this forum.

 

Actually I said, it is a (generally good) human quality to have a positive bias towards icons who died too young; Greb is an example, as is Sanchez. By giving Greb a negative bias for dying too young, I am correcting it, thus Greb is rated more fairly IMO.

 

1. Ray leonard
2. Roberto Duran
3. RJJ (lil biased maybe) :yep
4. sweet Pea
5. Hagler
6. JCC
7. Alexis Arguello
8. Hearns
9. B Hop
10. Floyd Mayweather Jr

 

You are only correcting it if it averages out, or if you can prove a bias that is there based on his death. Very few mention Grebs death....they mention his resume. Your bias is simply an extreme to counter another extreme, which may or may not exist.

 

I don't care about your bias. I care that you bias remains consistant. You shouldn't make criteria, full of bias, then add more bias to sway your criteria which is already biased towards another fighter.

 

Like I stated, I simply cannot make this scientific, it is near impossible. I know more about some fighters than I do others, thus there is bias straight away.

Then with the information I do have I have to bias again, because it is the sort of information that cannot be put into a formula that I know of.

If there was such a formula, there would no need for debate, because you could just put any fighter into the formula find out his place in boxings history...

 

Not as bad as Bigtime's but pretty bad. Mayweather is too high, along with Hopkins... Explain how they are over RJJ, much less JCC.atsch

 

1. Sugar Ray Leonard
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Roberto Duran
4. Marvin Hagler
5. Roy Jones Jr
6. Julio Cesar Chavez
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Alexis Arguello
9. Ricardo Lopez
10. Bernard Hopkins

 

Ahh ****er...didnt read the subject properly

 

1.duran
2.srl
3.hagler
4/5.arguello (interchangeable with whitaker)
4/5.whitaker (interchangeable with arguello)
6.hopkins
7.rjj
8.jcc
9.hearns
10.pbf

honorable mention:
benitez, de la hoya, trinidad, shane, tszyu etc.

 

Guess you can call me a drunk then. I think I would need to be drunk to understand how Trinidad and Hopkins exposed de la Hoya's lack of heart.:good