Top 20 Heavyweight Resumes: Scoring System

awesome, this will have no bearing on the list, but it will be a great reference for discussion when compiling it.

Keep it up!

 

Often boxers are given credit for beating a once great fighter who is shot.
Rocky beat Joe Louis. Was it a great win?

Joe Louis was fading since 1944 and his two year lay off. He was always vulnerable to a quick and skilled fighter e.g. Billy Conn. However in 1947, Walcott who was always hit and miss was robbed of a decision against Louis. In the rematch in 1948 Walcott started showboating and got knocked out. Now Joe still had it, but in patches only and his reflexs were slower. Was he still an all time great or just a good champ.

I would say a decent champ, who in the same condition would have lost some of his fights in the late 1930's. So he had come down a step.

Move on to 1952 where people claim Rocky's win was a good one. Well Joe had been retired having faded further. Made a comeback and fought exhibition fights not top notch quality fights. Yes he had lost in 1949 to a great light heavy who would always be the type to give him problems. Real heavyweight champ contender 1952. No

He might have got a shot, but the guy no longer deserved one.
The win was for history but does not tell you much about his victor.

Charles had lost five times since losing the heavyweight title in 1950 and twice just before facing Rocky. Was he still the great light heavy who beat archie moore three times in 1940's. No, he won some and lost some as a heavyweight contender.

I rank fighters by how many of their last ten fights they have won at what level.

So great is beating a champion who has won ten world title fights on the trot (you can ignore where they have avenged a single defeat)

Good is beating a champion who has won the majority of their last ten fights including at least two world title shots.

Top level is beating a fight who is ranked in the top 5 for his weight class for more than two years or been the champion.

Decent is beating a ranked title challenger on a run of ten wins avenging any defeats.

Dubious challenger

I would also drop guys down a level where they have lost two or more of their last five fights e.g. on the slide.

If you go through all the heavyweight champions like this you get surprising results.

Enjoy.

 

Vitali hasn't been beating top 5 ranked opposition. I think he has like 1 or 2 wins at the most against top 5 opposition. Someone has the stat on this here that can share the exact number.

 

We get it, you don't like Rocky. Welcome to that long list.

 

Saint Rock's farts cured cancer... everyone knows it.

 

Shut it Seamus, hating on the hardest working, only Heavyweight champion to retire undefeated & heroic warrior, is not a cool practice.

 

haha, i agree with you but c'mon, the rock is one of those mythical figures on the classic...when he does push ups, he doesn't push himself up but pushes the world down!

 

Holyfield would probably score the highest in this:

Beating an ATG in their prime or close to it = 5 points
Beating the Lineal Heavyweight Champion = 4 points
Beating a Current Alphabet Champion/Former Lineal Champ/Top 5 Contender = 3 points
Beating a Former Alphabet Champion/Top 10 Contender = 2 points
Beating a Ranked Fighter = 1 point

George Foreman = 3
Mike Tyson = 3
Larry Holmes = 3
Buster Douglas = 4
Riddick Bowe = 4
Michael Dokes = 2
Pinklon Thomas = 2
Michael Moorer = 5 (he is an ATG and he was close to his prime)
Ray Mercer = 2
John Ruiz = 2
Hasim Rahman = 3

I'm not going to carry on

 

Hm, what about losses? Should they be factored in negativly?

 

There are a few sticky points. Ring Magazine Ranked fighters started in the 1920's. How do you determine who was ranked pre 1920?

Alphabet champions started in the 60's ( Terell being the first ). Fighters who fought pre 1960 did not beat any alpha bet champions.

 

3 points I disagree on.

-All Time Great is too subjective and not fair to current fighters. Yes, as much as you may turn your nose to the current division, there was a time when even Holyfiled was thought to be a transitional Champ at best, and Lennox Lewis was trash. And there is a tendancy to micromange fighter's "primes" to suit a particular agenda. "Oh, he was not prime, he was too young, too old, too heavy, too thin, he was only at his best for one night...etc."

-Lineal Champion is a worthless stat. Should Briggs be given more credit for beating Foreman when he wasn't even a top 10 fighter? Bull**** stat.

-Former alphabet Champion, really doesn't mean much. How about 2 points for ranked fighters, 1 point for former/future top 10 contenders? That sounds cool to me.

-Loses are tricky to measure, not sure.

Other than that, I think the system is fine. I'll do Vitali to calm people's fears.

 

Vitali Klistchko

Kirk Johnson #8 2002 2 points
Corrie Sanders #3 2003 3 points
Samuel Peter #2 2007 3 points
Juan Carlos Gomez#9 2008 2 points
Cristobel Arreola#7 2009 2points

total=12 points

Former/Future top 10 Contenders 1 point each.

Shannon Briggs
Herbie Hide
Orlin Norris

Total: 3 points


Grand total: 15 points

 

Sonny Liston:


Floyd Patterson-5 Points
Floyd Patterson-5 Points
Zora Folley- 1 Point
Cleveland Williams 1 Point
Cleveland Williams 1 Point
Roy harris- 1 Point
Henry Clark- 1 Point
Eddie Machen-1 Point
Wayne Bethea- 1 Point

Not sure if some of them were top 10, if so liston may be higher
Liston already blows Vitali out of the water with his patterson wins :yep