Top 20 Heavyweight Resumes: Scoring System

I'm thinking 4 points to Champion/#1 Heavyweight..depending on Ring's system.

Wladimir Klistchko

Chris Byrd #10 2000 2 points
Jameel McCLine#8 2001 2 points
Samuel Peter #9 2005 2 points
Chris Byrd #1 2005 3 points
Calvin Brock #7 2005 2 points
Lamon Brewster #7 2006 2 points
Sultan Ibragimov #6 WBO Champion 2007 3 points
Tony Thompson#9 2007 2 points
Ruslan Chageav #3 2009 3 ponts
Eddie Chambers #4 2009 3 points

total: 24

Former/Future top 10 Contenders 1 point each:
Samuel Peter
Hasim Rahman
Ray Mercer
Derrik Jefferson
Monte Barrett
Phil Jackson
total: 6 points

total points: 30

 

Using my system and hopefully accurate rankings:

Wayne Beatha#8 57 2 points
Mike DeJohn #10 58 2 points
Nino Vadlez#2 58 3 points
Roy Harris #7 59 2 points
Zora Foley #1 59 3 points
Eddie Machen #5 59 3 points
Floyd Patterson Champion 61 4 points
Floyd Patterson #1 62 3 points

total: 22 points

Former/Future top 10 contenders
Cleveland Williams X2
Chuck Wepner

total=3 points

Grand Total=25 points, not bad for such a short career on top.

 

Why are you guys all ignoring losses? IMO losses should be factored in too. At least those which happened near prime.

 

[url]http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6980452&postcount=3[/url]

 

Muhammed Ali using both systems


Iron Champ's:

George Foreman 5-points
Sonny Liston-5 points
Sonny Liston-5 points
Joe Frazier II-5 points
Joe Frazier III-5 points
Ken Norton II-3 points
Ken Norton III-3 points
Floyd Patterson-3 points
Floyd Patterson-3 points
Jimmy Young-3 points

40 points


The Mongoose's system:

George Foreman-4 points
Sonny Liston-4 points
Sonny Liston-3 points
Joe Frazier-3 points
Joe Frazier-3 points
Ken Norton-3 points
Ken Norton-3 points
Floyd Patterson-3 points
Floyd Patterson-3 points
Jimmy Young-3 points

32 points

please feel free to correct me if I was mistaken in any of the rankings for the contenders.

I do think the system we use should have a way to distinguish between beating a great champion ( ex: Ali beating Foreman) and beating a good/very good champion. (ex: Holyfield beating Douglas)

 

Patterson was only top 10 in their second fight, and Ali has waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more wins than that:



Archie Moore #4 1962 3 points
Doug Jones #3 1962 3 points
Bob Foster LH Champion 1971 4 points
Jimmy Elis #6 1971 2 points
Oscar Boneava #7 1969 2 points
Jerry Quarry #3 1969 3 points
Jerry Quarry #2 1971 3 points
George Chuvalo 1971 1 point
Mac Foster #5 1971 3 points

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I think losses should be factored in the same way just negativ. Like a loss to the champ or an ATG -1 point, a loss to a contender -2, a loss to a fringe contender/nobody -3. Something like that. Would only be fair.

 

Nice job

 

It might be fun in the sense that statistically, it's going to through up some anomalies and some interesting results.

But you can't take much from it because like jan says, it's assuming parity between era's and between most contenders.

 

Yeah, that could work but its really hard to guage. It goes back to subjective "prime" issues. I think achievements seem to be speaking pretty loud though.

 

Would you cut any slack for losses when a fighter was widely considered to be shot or robbed of a decision?

 

I agree with this.

 

ATG is pants, unless you beat an ATG when they are still fighting like one.

Beating Roy Jones now is not the same as beating him prior to Ruiz.

Ending an ATG winning streak is special. Beating guys who have been on a 10 fight winning streak or been a champion are good wins.

If they have lost more than 2 of their last six fights whether they were an ATG in their prime or not you need to mark them down. The only exception is if they avenge the defeat.

 

If this is factored in with the wins also. But I guess this brings more subjectivity into it.