The author is not claiming his method to be infallible, but it might be a good guide to which fighters you need to take a closer look at.
Part 2 in the series for those interested. I'm definitely far more interested in seeing the original 8 weight classes as I move southward, but I feel it's still worth giving the interim weight classes a look. This content is protected
yes thats what you are for not being able to count to ten. I've already told you, dont wear your folly with pride. its a list of contenders, so thats actually 7th, 2nd 2nd 9th 2nd 2nd 2nd champ. which averages between 3rd-4th over 8 years. 8 years? thats 2 short of a decade, mendoza! What on earth made you miss out 2 years in your list....lets have a look..is it because Mendoza still cant count up to ten...no, not this time...this time he left stats out deliberately. You've deliberately omitted his worst year when he wasnt top ten AND a year when he was 8th again, which means your 3rd-4th is another Mendoza lie, and I think you knew it was too, didnt you? I DIDNT LEAVE STATS OUT like you tried to, I USED THEM ALL And furthermore, a magazine's rating are just the tip of rating people. What counts is the way the bodies ranked them more importantly, and who they beat/didnt beat. YOU should be happy I rated Wlad number 1 in the 10s! But as usual you had to take issue with your man not being number 1 in the 00s when he got easily destoryed by multiple nobodies.
As warned, more comments 1940's--most overrated--Tami Mauriello. As mentioned in another post, the war produced distortions and logically must have weakened competition. Mauriello somehow gets ahead of Bivins, who beat him twice, due mainly to Bivins losing 1944 to war service. Mauriello did have a decent run, with wins over Nova, Savold, Oma, and Woodco-k, and being in the top ten is fair, but #2 is a bit much. Most underrated--Elmer Ray, who beat Walcott, Charles, and Savold. In fairness to The Ring, none of these men were champions at the time, so this is somewhat of a hindsight call. 1950's--most overrated--Nino Valdes. The Ring really loved him. He had some big wins, especially Charles, but how he managed to get ahead of Machen and Folley in the 1958 ratings is a head scratcher, when both beat him, and Machen KO'd him brutally. Most underrated--Rex Layne. Another with wins over two champions, Walcott and Charles, as well as Bob Satterfield and Turkey Thompson. Interestingly, Layne's opposition point total is 29. Floyd Patterson's (for his entire career) is 15. But I do think rating Patterson #3 in the 1950's is accurate. Layne was not into assiduous training which led to some poor showings, and I think was poorly managed, which together led to an early decline. 1960's--most overrated--Floyd Patterson. How he got ahead of Liston is another head scratcher. Liston was dropped from the ratings for a rotten showing against Ali in 1965, but Floyd was never dropped. Despite a couple of fairly impressive wins in 1966, Liston did not return to the ratings until 1968. Why? Only a guess, but Floyd was popular and "clean" and Sonny was not viewed as either. Most underrated--Well, I think Liston certainly should have been rated ahead of Patterson. *It has been noted that Ali, Louis, and Wlad rank at the top in longevity, but they are also three of the four who defeated the top rated man (other than themselves) in two different decades. Louis beat Schmeling of the 1930's and Mauriello of the 1940's (and also the more worthy Bivins and Walcott). Ali beat Patterson in the 1960's (and also the more worthy Liston) and Foreman in the 1970's. Wlad beat Byrd in the 2000's and Povetkin in the 2010's. (The fourth is Marciano who beat Louis of the 1940's and Charles of the 1950's) **--Just a question. Is Patterson the only heavyweight champion whose only victories over another heavyweight champion were over a man who only became champion by beating him? ***If Povetkin manages to edge out Wlad for the #1 spot in this decade, has he defeated anyone who rates in Rummy's top ten? and if not, what does this say about competition and fighting the best in the current boxing world? ****on the WWII distortions, I expect Lesnevich, Zale, and Cochrane to rate near the top of their respective divisions because of their titles being frozen during the war. Louis's was also, but I think in his case this might actually have hurt his ATG standing by preventing extra defenses. Zale is iffy on how much he was benefited, but Lesnevich and Cochrane are going to be wildly overrated.
Wlad was ranked by Ring Magazine Annual ratings for 8 of the ten years for the 00's I listed them for you to read. This might explain something to you. Might... Ranking Wlad as low as you did for the 00's only shows ignorance or hatred. With you its a bit of both. Ring Magazine Annual Ratings > than yours. They have a panel of people. If you want others rankings Fight News used to have them, and they were good. They also had Wald #1 for the majority of the decade.
Much better than HerolGee's. Yours is solid. Comments: I think Mesi has too high of a rank, and would move Ibragimov and Peter up a bit and Brock down a bit
Has the better record in it (is narrowly tie with Foreman), he won against Norton, who deserved to be 2 - 1 or 3 - 0 against Ali, while he was more suverain in his performances and did lose to novice Spinks.[/QUOTE] How does he have a better record? Compare the names they both fought? Ali has 2 wins over Frazier and the domination of Foreman. Show me 3 wins Larry had in the 1970's that compare with that?
Crunching out the numbers now, but I have work this upcoming weekend so may not be until next week. I'm most interested in light heavy, middle, and welter, and to a slightly lesser extent lightweight.
I will look forward to it, having used rankings extensively in forming my own opinions. The heavyweight analysis backed up a couple of my pet theories, but also showed me a few things that I had missed completely.
he was ranked outside the top ten for at least one of the years you missed out, that doesnt explain anything to you, but to others it shows you pick the stats that suit you. like i said, with the ranking you provided, he would be between 3rd and 4th. Add the lower rankings and it drops to 5th. Your figure, when you arent manipulating it, is 2 places off mine. 2 places difference between your unmanipulated figures and mine! And you are complaining! Stop throwing your toys out the pram again when you feel your K bros havent been mythically portrayed as number 1 and 2! your own figures tell you thats a lie.
Nobody likes the agenda filled Klitschko hater HerolGee's posts. Yet he still continues to post his nonsense non stop when nobody agrees ( apart from Dino of course)
Dino and Herol are the Ant and Dec of Eastern European fighters hating, Dino being Ant with the drinking problem
