Top 20 Heavyweight Resumes: Scoring System

And who decides who is an atg and who isn´t?

 

Jack Sharkey would do well here!

 

What about Jack SHarkey? Max Baer? Sam McvEy? Joe Jeanette? Tommy Burns? Ken Norton? You see there is plenty to argue and despite you trying to make it objective, it´s still subjective because there is no objective way to determine greatness.

Another point, in the past it was as hard or even harder to become European or Commonwealth champion as it is today to become an alphabet champ. How are those titles and those beaten champs to count?

Who decides who was ranked and who not? There were no rankings in the late 19th/early 20th century.

 

I can give it a shot.

We might get some odd results, which is perhaps what you are looking forward to!

 

One problem with the scoring is that beating a high quality ranked contender (e.g Mercer, Terrell, Ruddock) yields the same points as a pathetic bum (e.g Vitali's awful title challengers) .

Also Wlad would gain a lot of points for beating horrible alphabet title holders Peter & Brewster.

 

The system basicaly assumes parity between all eras.

While this is almost certainly misleading, it sticks within our data set e.g fights that have happened.

 

I just believe that the Klits will get too much credit, considering their poor quality of opposition.

 

No they won't.

Even on that basis they will be kept in their place.

 

Vitali gets too much credit, Wladimir gets too little.

Even when people pull out their lists, the two seem automatically placed side by side.

Why?

One is a borderline great fighter, and the other is Frank Bruno level at best.

 

That will certainly be reflected in the scoring.

Wlad will come out high, and Vitally will not.